« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 31, 2005
A Job Well Done
Recently, a clueless dolt by the name of Brian Williams was a guest on the Late Show with David Letterman. Apparently, Mr. Williams is the anchorperson who succeeded the retiring, and highly overrated, Tom Brokaw (does anyone still actually watch these shows?). He made an outrageous statement that, I’m sure, went undetected by most who were listening. Mr. Letterman brought up the story about the Bush Supreme Court justice nominee. Williams contended that, “next to declaring war, naming Supreme Court justices is the President’s most important job.”
Whether through politeness or ignorance, Letterman failed to immediately counter with the fact that Congress, not the President, is constitutionally required to declare war. Please see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. Hence, Mr. Williams seems quite adept at his job to keep the masses ignorant and pacified- certainly good enough reason to justify the multimillion dollar salary from his corporate media masters.
Posted by Roger Young at 05:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Australian Secessionist Convicted!
From Yahoo News:
"An Australian who declared his farm an independent principality to avoid paying taxes has been jailed for 35 months for defrauding the government."
"Virgilio Rigoli declared independence on his former fruit farm on July 4, 1994 -- US Independence Day -- informing authorities that he was seceding from Australia."
Fookin' tyrants! A tip o' the hat to Mike Gogulski for bringing this tidbit to my attention.
Thanks!
Posted by Ali Massoud at 01:57 PM | Comments (0)
To the Government, Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction
The London police's story of how they "mistakenly" shot Jean Charles de Menezes last week continues to unravel.
The latest news is that he neither wore a bulky jacket nor jumped the subway turnstile.
We now know that the entire original account was fictitious. This should come as no surprise, after all. Lying is what governments do.
By the way (shameless plug), if you haven't read my column on the subject (written before this latest information came out) at LewRockwell.com, check it out.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:41 AM | Comments (1)
July 28, 2005
Conscientious Objector Acquitted of Desertion
"An Army mechanic who skipped his unit's deployment to Iraq while he sought conscientious objector status was acquitted of desertion but found guilty of a lesser charge during a court-martial Thursday. Sgt. Kevin Benderman, 40, faces a maximum sentence of two years in prison on the charge of missing movement. If he had been found guilty of desertion, he could have faced five years in prison." Benderman convicted of lesser charges however."
From the Washington Post.
Benderman is going to prison for two years. If he'd gone to Iraq his tour would just about be over. He is brave for standing on his principles. Kinda speaks for itself.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:44 PM | Comments (0)
The Object of Power Is Power
William Norman Grigg puts together in one article many of the outrages committed by the Bush administration (some begun under Clinton) in the name of fighting terrorism. It's a damning list of crimes against humanity. Don't expect this article to be recommended by your friendly neighborhood conservative talk-show host . . . but it should be.
Grigg opens with this quote from 1984, which sets the stage nicely for the rest of the column:
We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
The only problem with this piece is that Grigg actually seems to think it possible to limit government through the words of the Constitution. If the last 216 years have taught us anything, though, it is that the pen used to write the Constitution isn't nearly as mighty as the sword wielded by the State in defiance of it.
(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:29 PM | Comments (1)
July 27, 2005
Fail Miserably and Watch Your Polls Rise
Would someone please explain this to me:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's rating as a leader has soared since the London bombings, even though a big majority of voters believes his decision to go to war in Iraq has increased the risk of terrorist attacks at home.
In a Populus poll for The Times, taken at the weekend after Thursday's second wave of abortive attacks, Mr Blair's leader rating is his second-highest yet, while almost a third of all voters believe he should reconsider his decision to stand down as Prime Minister before the next election.
Hello? How stupid can people be? Blair's policies are the cause of the bombings, as most Brits understand (according to this poll), and his government failed to protect its citizens from the terrorists (twice!), but his rating has "soared" since the bombings? Unbelieveable.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:10 AM | Comments (1)
Groped Granny Gets Guilty Verdict
This woman should be a hero, but instead she could end up a jailbird.
A woman who was upset over being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts.
A federal jury heard the case against retired teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton in September 2004.
Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison and $100,000 in fines. . . .
Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her.
"She said `How would you like it if I did that to you?' and slammed me against the wall," Gostisha testified. "She came at me and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them."
Distenfass claimed she acted in self-defense.
Where were the men to defend this woman? Why on earth was a 62-year-old woman being groped anyway? Did the KGB ever employ tactics as humiliating as these?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:23 AM | Comments (3)
July 25, 2005
Paul Weyrich Turns Anti-American Commie
Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation and mainstream conservative, is beginning to have second thoughts about the Bush administration's war on terror. In fact, he's sounding much like one of those anti-American, namby-pamby liberals. Writes Weyrich:
[B]ecause of the War on Terrorism, America may be on the verge of becoming a national security state, which in the past used to be called a "garrison state." That means citizens will allow the state to do almost anything it wants so long as it justifies its actions in terms of "national security."
In effect, the Constitution and the rule of law itself go out the window, along with our liberties. . . .
I am not convinced that the best way to defend America from terrorism is to invade and occupy other countries, countries with religions and cultures very different from our own. At the very least, the next conservatism should ask whether such a policy generates more terrorists than it eliminates, and whether we would be better served by isolating ourselves from disordered places than by intervening in them. . . .
What would rejecting the national security state mean in specific terms? A few examples include:
-- We should never again pass wide-ranging legislation that endangers our liberties in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, as we did with the so-called "Patriot Act" after 9/11. It is almost certain that, so long as we are intervening in other countries, we will be attacked by terrorists here at home. Some of those attacks may be much worse than 9/11. When they happen, cool heads should prevail over immediate fears. If we allow ourselves to be carried away by our fears, and by voices that will play on those fears to increase the power of the state, we will lose our freedoms.
-- We must be very careful about allowing government to use advanced new technologies, which permit unprecedented powers of surveillance and intrusion, to maintain our liberties in law while undermining them in fact. Can there be any doubt that we will someday become the targets of the surveillance that we enable?
-- Perhaps most important, we must understand that in national security as in other areas, government too often wins by failing. As conservatives have long recognized, government always wants more power and more resources. Big government always wants to become bigger government. The next conservatism must not allow big government to become bigger by waving the "national security" flag.
It's nice to see some members of the mainstream Right starting to get it. If only we could convince the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys of the same thing, public opinion might really begin a seismic shift.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:43 AM | Comments (0)
Oops! We'll Do It Again
It's bad enough that the British police shot and killed an innocent man in their overreaction to the terrorist attacks on London. Now they're actually telling people that it could, and probably will, happen again.
British police say more members of the public could be shot in error as they escalate their battle against terrorism and hunt for four men who tried to set off explosions on London's transport system last week. . . .
Britain's most senior policeman, Ian Blair, defended the shoot-to-kill policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers and said police were in a race against time to find those behind last Thursday's attempted bombings of three underground trains and a bus, the second attack on the capital in two weeks.
"This is a terrifying set of circumstances for individuals to make decisions," Blair told Sky News television. "Somebody else could be shot."
Can anyone imagine a private citizen or security firm saying something like this and getting away with it? "Yeah, we shot the wrong guy, and we're probably going to do it again. Killing members of the public is the only way to protect them from being killed by terrorists." No, only the government can get away with such things . . . because the government makes the rules.
(Link courtesy Drudge Report.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:27 AM | Comments (0)
July 24, 2005
Poll: Americans Say World War III Likely
Poll: Americans Say World War III Likely
"Asked whether a first strike with nuclear weapons ever could be justified, a majority in both countries said no. But Americans were twice as likely as the Japanese to think such a strike might be justified in some circumstances."
We will see what they think after North Korea nukes Tokyo.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)
July 21, 2005
No Much Fun Being Bullied & Pushed Around, Eh Condi?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's official visit with President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan turned angry today after Sudanese security officers pushed and shoved members of her delegation and the news media as they tried to enter the meeting site at the presidential palace.
One would indeed hope that Ms. Rice would possess enough empathy and insight to see that shoving and pushing and threatening doesn't help people (or societies), get on very well. So imagine what invading and occupying does?
Posted by Ali Massoud at 06:21 PM | Comments (1)
Neocon = Anti-Left, Not Pro-Right
Another entry from the "Something Old, Nothing New" blog--a blog that is rarely political in nature but whose author, Jaime Weinman, is clearly not a Republican--that I found quite fascinating was this take on neoconservatism and modern-day conservatives and liberals.
Weinman argues that the old-line neocons were actually liberals who recognized not that social programs were necessarily immoral but that they frequently didn't work, unlike earlier conservatives, who argued that the programs were plainly immoral. Since practically every mainstream pundit argues from the utilitarian basis these days, Weinman says "we're all neoconservatives now" in the old sense of the term.
Weinman then describes modern-day neocons such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz as people who don't really have conservative ideas, even if they're grounded in utilitarianism, but as people whose sole motivating factor is hatred of the Left. As Weinman puts it, neoconservatism "is the thinking of people who aren't really all that interested in politics, in the nuts-and-bolts sense of policy and philosophy (the things that drove the policy-oriented neoconservatives); they're mostly taking positions that are the opposite of the Left, likely to weaken the influence of the Left, likely to annoy the Left. The new 'neoconservative' is more anti-Left than he or she is in favor of anything." (Weinman actually admits to preferring to talk to those who will make serious arguments in favor of their policy preferences--i.e., "that high taxes are wrong and immoral"--rather than simply telling us how bad the Democrats are for supporting high taxes.)
Similarly, says Weinman, much of the modern-day Left is not so much "hard Left" as anti-Right. Thus, writes Weinman:
"Talk to a college campus activist in the '60s and he just as likely would be protesting against liberals as against conservatives ('Hey, hey, LBJ...'). Talk to a Goldwaterite around the same time and he would just as likely be against Republicans as against Democrats. Today more and more people seem to define their politics and their culture in opposition to the other side, the other political party. Maybe we're all neo-somethings now."
Read the whole thing if you have some time. It's not very long, and it explains conservatives' support for a very liberal president as well as liberals' hatred of that same president better than anything else I've read in a long time.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:47 PM | Comments (0)
"Honest" Abe: Dictator or Sitcom Character?
Here's a tip of the hat to the "Guess the Dictator or Television Sit-Com Character" website. By answering the yes/no questions appropriately, I was able to get the engine to come up with Abraham Lincoln as the dictator or sitcom character I had in mind. Since he isn't a sitcom character, we know how the website has classified him.
It's actually quite fun to try for various dictators and TV characters, and it usually comes up with the right answer, though I've been able to beat it with some obscure characters.
Thanks to the "Something Old, Nothing New" blog for the link.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:36 PM | Comments (0)
July 19, 2005
Pull Over, Buddy; I've Got a Few Questions For You
It's bad enough that cops stop drivers for doing perfectly harmless things like not wearing a seatbelt or driving faster than the government's arbitrary speed limit. Now Pennsylvania motorists can look forward to being stopped . . . to fill out a survey about the roads.
Why are they doing this survey? "The information will help planners at the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission better direct federal transportation dollars within the 10-county region . . . ." So we're using stolen money ($650,000 for this particular study) to waste travelers' valuable time supposedly to figure out how to spend other stolen money, when the fact is that, as always, the money will be spent in the ways deemed most politically advantageous. Wonderful.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:14 AM | Comments (0)
July 16, 2005
Buzzkills & Phonies in High Places
Senators Fight Hidden Sex in 'Grand Theft Auto'
"Two high-profile U.S. Senators, Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are incensed over pornographic content "hidden" in the popular video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," and are demanding action from either the government or the game's maker."
Joe Lieberman is a Jewish version of the Christian Right. He seeks to impose his version of reality upon free people. Hillary Clinton is a shameless phony who does these kind of photo ops to enhance her image as a mainstream politician and not the hard left statist we all know that she really is.
I played this game at a friend's house a while back and it wasn't so bad, just a game. Not even that good of a game really. It appeals to the anti-establishment and anti-authority meme of adolescent boys and young men. Ditto for the sex and weapons and crazy driving stuff. The only way I can see that it would influence anyone to violence is if the tendency was already there anyway. Theodore Bundy looked at porn before and after his murders, but I doubt if that is what caused him to kill.
These numbnut Senators think nothing at all about steadily eroding what remains of freedom in this society just for a fookin' photo op. Now that IMHO is what is really immoral here.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:36 AM | Comments (2)
July 15, 2005
Hillary Clinton Will be the Democratic Party's Nominee for President in 2008
And even other Democrats are bitching about it. Senator Clinton does have formidable advantages that other wannabes lack, such as name recognition, incumbency, and a Rolodex of fat cat contributors that make the rest of wannabes salivate.
Given her solid left-wing views and actions going back to the 1970's what ever are the pissed off Dem's bitching about? Well...this.
"There was Hillary Clinton, " says one of them, "calling for 80,000 more troops for the Army so that the United States can be fully equipped to patrol the far corners of the empire at a moment’s notice.
Hillary, the darling of the Democrats for 2008 (pssst, I don’t think she can win!), has been steadily repositioning herself on the far rightward reaches of the Democratic Party when it comes to the Pentagon.
She’s always been for the Iraq War, and she still is."
She is militaristic, and has Neo-Con tendencies! Boo! Hiss! She is doing the old bait 'n switch where she seems more moderate and sensible than she really is, someone that housewives in Ohio could trust with their national defense. Sheesh.
The thing is it could work. It has before. And we all thought GWB was a bad eight years.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)
July 14, 2005
Derbyshire Demurs From "Democracy Defeats Terrorists" Mantra
John Derbyshire had better watch it. He's expressed some skepticism about the war in Iraq on the NRO blog, to wit:
I shall probably get disinvited from the next White House tea dance just for asking the following question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
Given that the four London suicide bombers were all raised -- in at least one case, born and raised -- in Britain, the quintessential liberal democracy; and given that the entire premise of current U.S. policy is that we can end suicide bombing and other terrorism by bringing liberal democracy to the Middle East; shouldn't we be re-thinking our policy?
This isn't the first time Derb has questioned the wisdom of the Bush administration's Middle East policy. If he keeps this up, he may be booted Frum NR.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)
Zarqawi's Key Aide Captured...Again
If I read one more story from the Pentagon, CIA, MI-6, and all the rest announcing that they've killed or captured another "key aide" of bin-Laden or al-Zarqawi I think I will barf. Who or what the hell is a "key aide" any fookin' way? Especially the way they bandy the term about? Someone who he met at a meeting once? Or belonged to the same tribe, Mosque, neighborhood, is a shirt tail relative, or whatever? This whole concept is seriously flawed. Here is why.
If you've ever worked or belonged to a hierarchical organization this is second nature. If your boss or supervisor quits, gets fired, dies, retires, or whatever, the organization doesn't stop or close down does it? Adjustments are made, people and organizational charts or TOE's are shuffled and moved in or out and up and down and the whole enterprise continues on. The organization will do whatever it does better, worse, or the same, but it will continue on is the point I am trying to make. One that the mostly uncritical sheep-like media glosses over or ignores completely.
My other point is what constitutes a "key aid"? The Air Force factotum who travels with the President and who carries the launch codes for America's nukes is pretty important too. However, if he or she died in their sleep one night that key aide would be replaced with out a hitch. So would the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of Defense or whoever else. That is the nature of hierarchies: The concern is with goals and purposes of the hierarchy and not the people that constitute it. How many CEO's has General Motors had since it was founded? They come and go, live, and die, but GM rumbles onward.
So the Army or Marines kill one of bin-Ladin's drivers, bodyguards, cronies, relatives, officers, or favorite soccer player. Al Qaida goes on. Hell's bells, if you kill bin-Ladin himself, (a worthy goal by the way), it won't stop al-Qaida but for a while. He'll be replaced too. You don't get rid of rats by hunting down and killing every one. You remove the garbage they feed on and the environment they require to live in. If you do that the rats die or flee on their own. (Policy makers and media types please take note.)
You can't kill or capture enough "key aides" to stop terrorism. You change the meddling, insults, occupations, and assistance to oppressive regimes.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:29 PM | Comments (1)
An Advance Auction Sale of Stolen Goods
Need more proof that "homeland security" is a scam? Check this out:
For thousands of lighters, scissors and any other type of airport contraband left behind by passengers at airports across the Northeast, a warehouse in Harrisburg is the end of the road.
At least until the state sells those items on eBay.com.
The bustling bit of Internet commerce has netted Pennsylvania more than $120,000 since the program started last year.
The state’s Surplus Property Division started receiving no-fly items several years ago, but it wasn’t until last June that it started using the popular Internet auction site to sell the goods, said spokesman Frank Kane.
Sales started off slowly, running about $1,000 a month. By May and June, however, the auctions accounted for $28,000 and $23,000 respectively, Kane said.
Now how kindly do you think the state would take to my fencing stolen property on eBay? Hmm???
Mencken had no idea how literally my state government would take his quote that "every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:50 AM | Comments (0)
July 13, 2005
Study Says that Studies Aren't Accurate 33% of the Time!
Whoa! Who to believe here? Barely a day goes by that the public is not bombarded from all media sources about one study or another about the dangers, problems, corruption, and "debunking" of anything or anyone being good, noble, or true.However this study says about one out of three are wrong, or are partisan propaganda, or are so badly flawed or unscientific as to be worthless.
Except of course to sell papers, give radio, TV, bloggers, and so forth something to scream, argue, and debate ad nauseum. Politicians and special interest flacks love these "studies" no matter how questionable or dubious the scholarship or their lack of scientific rigor. Why shouldn't they? Get the study from the think-tank, call a press conference, send out a press release, blog it, and then sit back and watch what happens.
It creates buzz and spin and then is gone, old news. However, if done right the talking points or memes are out there in the culture keeping the pundits and pols in business and moving whatever agenda they have forward.
" 'Contradicted and potentially exaggerated findings are not uncommon," said the CNN news story, "in the most visible and most influential original clinical research,' said study author Dr. John Ioannidis, a researcher at the University of Ioannina in Greece." Despite that fact these studies are reported accepted at face value by the public in most cases.
"The general public should not panic" about refuted studies, Ioannidis said. "We all need to start thinking more critically." Boy and how.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)
July 12, 2005
We're From the Government, and We're Here to Protect You
It ought to be obvious by now that the government can't protect us from terrorists.
First we had the attacks on London last week during the G8 summit, when British security was at its height.
Now we find that the U.S. military can't even keep "dangerous enemy combatants" in military prisons in Afghanistan.
I feel safer already.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:26 AM | Comments (0)
July 08, 2005
A Double Dose of De-Statifying
Here are a couple of great articles on the subject of anarchy over at the Mises Institute website.
- Robert Murphy on whether or not anarchy means endless battles between warlords (as if statism doesn't mean endless battles between governments!).
- Murray Rothbard on my home state of Pennsylvania's highly successful experiment with anarchy from 1681 to 1690. Too bad it didn't last until the present.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:19 PM | Comments (0)
America's Truth Detector?
"Secret Organization--al-Qaeda in Europe", claiming credit for the attacks on London: "The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Rush Limbaugh, "America's Truth Detector": "Make no mistake about this: this was not an attack on London, and this has nothing to do with the fact that the Brits joined us in Iraq. It has nothing to do with it."
Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:48 PM | Comments (0)
Ain't It Funny How the Wind Blows?
It’s comforting to know that Mother Nature/God can strike out against human rights abuses even if the civilized world cannot.
Accolades go to Hurricane Dennis who rumbled ashore at Guantanamo Bay and destroyed the guard tower. Considering the fact that any attack against the American Empire is judged a terrorist act by the ruling regime, will God/Gaia now be placed on the Necon’s enemy list? What will be the response from Phoney Christians and Greenie Weenies? Will Bush followers realize their dream when W declares himself The Messiah and rebukes the winds and calms the waves?
“You of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Posted by Roger Young at 08:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Liars
The U.S. government does not make war to win. If it should happen to win anyway, they'd have to find some other sap to pick on. Too much is lost by not being at war with someone who isn't a menace to us.
Marine Corps Vietnam Veteran James Glaser writes:
I saw a bumper sticker the other day which said "Bush Lied and Our Soldiers Died." I thought back to when I realized that my government had lied to me and that the lives of the 58,000+ Americans killed in Vietnam were lost because of lies.He adds:
I never realized that Washington wasn’t trying to win the war, nor did I know the whole thing was started by a President lying to the American people about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin that never happened.As long as we have government, even a limited one, we're going to have "incidents" and lies that are used to erode our liberty. Check out some recent scholarship on Shays's Rebellion sometime.It is hard to believe that our leaders in Washington could sit there and watch as thousands and thousands of Americans were getting killed and wounded every month. I remember in Da Nang, seeing body bags in rows next to the runway. Almost every day over there I saw somebody’s blood, be them American or Vietnamese.
Posted by George F. Smith at 12:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 07, 2005
Warlords Under Anarchy
Under market anarchy, wouldn't powerful warlords rise up and oppress the population? It all depends, says Robert Murphy. The anarchist claims "that, for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse. The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society."
In a footnote he adds:
Let us also keep in mind that currently, mob groups (1) do not extract anywhere near as much money, nor kill as many people, as any government in a typical day’s work, and (2) they derive their current strength from government prohibitions (on gambling, drugs, prostitution, loan-sharking, etc.) and hence are not representative at all of an anarchist world.
Posted by George F. Smith at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 01, 2005
1,362.5 Dead Iraqis a Month, But the Insurgency Is in Its "Last Throes"
If this is success, as War Party members keep insisting it is, I'd hate to see failure.
Insurgent attacks in the last six months have killed more than 8,000 Iraqi civilians, police and troops, according to Iraq's interior minister. . . .
In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there have been 307 U.S. fatalities in combat during the same period.
What did President Bush say about the violence in Iraq again? Oh, yes: "Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."
Of course it's "worth it" if you're not the one paying the price. I suspect the 8,175 Iraqis mentioned above might have a different opinion--but they're no longer alive to tell us what it is. Perhaps the president should speak to their families, or to the 12,000 wounded, and ask them if it's "worth it." That, however, would require appearing in Iraq announced and in broad daylight, something the great liberator of the Middle East is afraid to do in his colony.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:55 PM | Comments (0)