8 pounds, 8 ounces. 20 1/4 inches long.
Mother and baby are doing fine, except he's as yet unnamed. That's OK. I'll let him pick his own in 5 years or so.....
Posting will be rather sporadic, in light of recent developments.
Wow. What an experience.
He's beautiful and wonderful. What more can I say?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
"Nobody Does It Better..."
I had the great pleasure of watching CASINO ROYALE earlier today. I'm a devoted fan of James Bond, especially the original novels by Ian Fleming. While I have always liked the movies, they pale in comparison to the books. Absolutely nobody has ever gotten the portrayal of Bond correct in the movies, until now. Daniel Craig nails the part, and portrays Bond more like what Ian Fleming had imagined.
Fleming's Bond was a cold-blooded, ruthless killer who had a soft spot for the ladies. Fleming described Bond as a cruel man, resembling Hoagie Carmichael. Fleming's Bond used very few gadgets, prevailing by his wits, his gun, and absolute ruthless determination. The realism in the Fleming novels is palpable. They fairly well sum up the menace of the Cold War. Fleming had no small part in the intelligence game. He served in WWII, as well as having a hand in the Cold War spy game after WWII. When the guy wrote about spies and assassins, he was very believable. That's because Fleming's character was based on men he knew and worked with.
Daniel Craig brings Fleming's gritty realism back to Bond. In the movie, we see Bond on his first assignment as a 00 agent, an elite killer for Britain's MI-6. This Bond is not so smooth or polished as what we've come to expect from Bond. He's arrogant, cold, and calculating. Instead of using some fancy piece of science fiction to dispatch the bad guys, Bond has to get physical in the worst possible ways. There's very few gadgets in this movie. The ones that are there actually exist. Well, almost. There are no watch-lasers. No Lotus Espirits that turn into submarines.
The villain isn't some comic-book character with an island superfortress. Instead, he's an arms dealer who finances terrorists.
Much as Fleming portrayed him, Bond is actually human. He bleeds. He feels pain. He exercises bad judgment. The classic Bond that we've come to know in the movies is suave, debonair, and perfect. This Bond is actually a person. There has been some grief given to the humanization of Bond. I think it's perfect. For one, this is how Fleming portrayed him. Also, I've always found it more exciting for a normal person to overcome extraordinary circumstances through guts and determination. An action movie isn't all that fun unless one actually thinks the character could really be killed. When Bond is tortured in this movie, it's almost too real. The superman isn't nearly as interesting as the normal man doing extraordinary things at risk of life and limb. Bond actually has to spend time in a hospital. Again, this is much closer to what Fleming had in mind with the character. In the novels, Bond goes to the brink of death and insanity many times, and doesn't bounce back all the time.
The first Bond movie was DR. NO, which was made several years after the first novel was written. Though the first movie, the original Bond novel was CASINO ROYALE. Made during the height of the Cold War, the spy craze caught on big time as a result of this movie. Sean Connery shot to stardom portraying Agent 007, and a film icon was born.
Having seen all the Bond flicks several times, I think I can now rate the various Bonds. My criteria is simply this: how close does the movie Bond match up with the character as created by Ian Fleming? My favorite Bonds in order:
1. Daniel Craig. The guy nails it, pure and simple. Bond is a gritty killer, with no frills attached. He likes the finer things in life, sure. But he's not afraid to get physical. He's the embodiment of Fleming's Bond. Nobody has done it better. However, he doesn't look like Bond. Bond was black-haired, Craig's a blonde. But this really is a nitpick. The action sequences are pretty realistic, and Bond takes a beating.
2. Sean Connery. Connery pulls off the ruthless, cruel killer very well, balanced with a guy who likes the finer things in life. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is my favorite Connery Bond
3. Pierce Brosnan. A very good Bond, Brosnan had the cold killer thing down pretty well, along with the supreme arrogance that Bond needs. The movies still got a bit cartoonish with the gadgets and action. But the scene in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where Bond drops his ex-lover with a close-range shot is exactly what Fleming's Bond would have done. GOLDENEYE is probably the best flick Brosnan did.
4. Timothy Dalton. A good Bond as well, just too suave and debonair. Too many gadgets and cartoonish action sequences. Even in LICENSE TO KILL. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is one of my favorite Bond movies.
5. George Lazenby. The Bond nobody remembers, but an excellent portrayal nonetheless. A one-shot Bond, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a pretty good take on the character. Not much gadgetry, and Telly Savalis is one of the best Bond villains ever.
6. Roger Moore. The worst Bond of the bunch, but I think it was the scripts as opposed to the actor. He's a great actor, and he's the first Bond that I remember. I saw MOONRAKER in the theater as a kid. Moore's movies were WAY too cartoonish with the gadgets, villains, and action sequences. There was very little believable about Moore's Bond. However, he did come closer in some movies than in others. Notably THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. A VIEW TO A KILL is the second worst Bond movie of all time, surpassed only by MOONRAKER. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is right up there in the awful department. All starring Roger Moore.
To summarize; I'd say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He's tough, gritty, realistic, and cruel. No metrosexual spies here. This is what Fleming had in mind with the character, and this is a great re-set of the Bond movies. Let's hope this continues.
Fleming's Bond was a cold-blooded, ruthless killer who had a soft spot for the ladies. Fleming described Bond as a cruel man, resembling Hoagie Carmichael. Fleming's Bond used very few gadgets, prevailing by his wits, his gun, and absolute ruthless determination. The realism in the Fleming novels is palpable. They fairly well sum up the menace of the Cold War. Fleming had no small part in the intelligence game. He served in WWII, as well as having a hand in the Cold War spy game after WWII. When the guy wrote about spies and assassins, he was very believable. That's because Fleming's character was based on men he knew and worked with.
Daniel Craig brings Fleming's gritty realism back to Bond. In the movie, we see Bond on his first assignment as a 00 agent, an elite killer for Britain's MI-6. This Bond is not so smooth or polished as what we've come to expect from Bond. He's arrogant, cold, and calculating. Instead of using some fancy piece of science fiction to dispatch the bad guys, Bond has to get physical in the worst possible ways. There's very few gadgets in this movie. The ones that are there actually exist. Well, almost. There are no watch-lasers. No Lotus Espirits that turn into submarines.
The villain isn't some comic-book character with an island superfortress. Instead, he's an arms dealer who finances terrorists.
Much as Fleming portrayed him, Bond is actually human. He bleeds. He feels pain. He exercises bad judgment. The classic Bond that we've come to know in the movies is suave, debonair, and perfect. This Bond is actually a person. There has been some grief given to the humanization of Bond. I think it's perfect. For one, this is how Fleming portrayed him. Also, I've always found it more exciting for a normal person to overcome extraordinary circumstances through guts and determination. An action movie isn't all that fun unless one actually thinks the character could really be killed. When Bond is tortured in this movie, it's almost too real. The superman isn't nearly as interesting as the normal man doing extraordinary things at risk of life and limb. Bond actually has to spend time in a hospital. Again, this is much closer to what Fleming had in mind with the character. In the novels, Bond goes to the brink of death and insanity many times, and doesn't bounce back all the time.
The first Bond movie was DR. NO, which was made several years after the first novel was written. Though the first movie, the original Bond novel was CASINO ROYALE. Made during the height of the Cold War, the spy craze caught on big time as a result of this movie. Sean Connery shot to stardom portraying Agent 007, and a film icon was born.
Having seen all the Bond flicks several times, I think I can now rate the various Bonds. My criteria is simply this: how close does the movie Bond match up with the character as created by Ian Fleming? My favorite Bonds in order:
1. Daniel Craig. The guy nails it, pure and simple. Bond is a gritty killer, with no frills attached. He likes the finer things in life, sure. But he's not afraid to get physical. He's the embodiment of Fleming's Bond. Nobody has done it better. However, he doesn't look like Bond. Bond was black-haired, Craig's a blonde. But this really is a nitpick. The action sequences are pretty realistic, and Bond takes a beating.
2. Sean Connery. Connery pulls off the ruthless, cruel killer very well, balanced with a guy who likes the finer things in life. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is my favorite Connery Bond
3. Pierce Brosnan. A very good Bond, Brosnan had the cold killer thing down pretty well, along with the supreme arrogance that Bond needs. The movies still got a bit cartoonish with the gadgets and action. But the scene in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where Bond drops his ex-lover with a close-range shot is exactly what Fleming's Bond would have done. GOLDENEYE is probably the best flick Brosnan did.
4. Timothy Dalton. A good Bond as well, just too suave and debonair. Too many gadgets and cartoonish action sequences. Even in LICENSE TO KILL. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is one of my favorite Bond movies.
5. George Lazenby. The Bond nobody remembers, but an excellent portrayal nonetheless. A one-shot Bond, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a pretty good take on the character. Not much gadgetry, and Telly Savalis is one of the best Bond villains ever.
6. Roger Moore. The worst Bond of the bunch, but I think it was the scripts as opposed to the actor. He's a great actor, and he's the first Bond that I remember. I saw MOONRAKER in the theater as a kid. Moore's movies were WAY too cartoonish with the gadgets, villains, and action sequences. There was very little believable about Moore's Bond. However, he did come closer in some movies than in others. Notably THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. A VIEW TO A KILL is the second worst Bond movie of all time, surpassed only by MOONRAKER. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is right up there in the awful department. All starring Roger Moore.
To summarize; I'd say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He's tough, gritty, realistic, and cruel. No metrosexual spies here. This is what Fleming had in mind with the character, and this is a great re-set of the Bond movies. Let's hope this continues.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The Wonderful World Of Quantum Physics
I read an interesting book this week, The Black Order by James Rollins. It's a good read, dealing with an elite US unit composed of scientist/soldiers. They basically run amok all over the globe, having adventures, irresponsible sex, gunfights, etc. All the stuff that makes for interesting spy fiction.
At any rate, there was some discussion of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, and a discussion of the hypothetical paradox of Schrodinger's Cat. The meat of the discussion can be found at pages 285-290 of Rollins' book.
Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty states that nothing is certain until it is observed. Schrodinger's Cat is an example of it. To summarize, a cat is in an opaque box with a poison contraption that can kill the cat at any given moment. If the box is closed, the cat is both dead and alive. It's in limbo. Only when the box is opened is one state or the other determined.
Subatomic particles apparently behave differently if observed. Observation apparently makes for reality. Electrons are both wave and a particle, until they are observed and measured. At the point of measurement; an electron becomes what it is, forced into its state by the physical act of observation.
So electrons are held in a form of existence where they are both particle and wave. They have the potential to be one or the other, until forced to be something else. In fact, they are both up until the moment something tries to measure it.
If all this is true, is reality determined only by its observation? Does the method of observation determine what reality is? We measure with our yardsticks. But is there something out there measuring the same things, but with better measuring tools than what we have? Does its measuring determine a different reality than ours? Or does this outside thing beyond our understanding actually determine our reality?
Kick that one around awhile. It's making my head hurt.
At any rate, there was some discussion of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, and a discussion of the hypothetical paradox of Schrodinger's Cat. The meat of the discussion can be found at pages 285-290 of Rollins' book.
Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty states that nothing is certain until it is observed. Schrodinger's Cat is an example of it. To summarize, a cat is in an opaque box with a poison contraption that can kill the cat at any given moment. If the box is closed, the cat is both dead and alive. It's in limbo. Only when the box is opened is one state or the other determined.
Subatomic particles apparently behave differently if observed. Observation apparently makes for reality. Electrons are both wave and a particle, until they are observed and measured. At the point of measurement; an electron becomes what it is, forced into its state by the physical act of observation.
So electrons are held in a form of existence where they are both particle and wave. They have the potential to be one or the other, until forced to be something else. In fact, they are both up until the moment something tries to measure it.
If all this is true, is reality determined only by its observation? Does the method of observation determine what reality is? We measure with our yardsticks. But is there something out there measuring the same things, but with better measuring tools than what we have? Does its measuring determine a different reality than ours? Or does this outside thing beyond our understanding actually determine our reality?
Kick that one around awhile. It's making my head hurt.
Monday, November 20, 2006
HAPPY FEET--Liberal Propaganda Part 1,000,000
This review of Happy Feet, via the Anarchangel.
Oh, brother. Don't take your kids to see this. How ridiculous can you get? Or should I even ask?
On the other hand, the Bond movie appears to be pretty good. I can't wait to see it, though I'm fast running out of time.
Oh, brother. Don't take your kids to see this. How ridiculous can you get? Or should I even ask?
On the other hand, the Bond movie appears to be pretty good. I can't wait to see it, though I'm fast running out of time.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
This Is Just Wrong
Horrible, horrible jokes about Paul McCartney and his one-legged wife, courtesy of the Texican Tattler.
Don't you dare laugh. I mean it. Not once.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That would make one of us. Somebody's got to feel guilty, so it might as well be you.
Don't you dare laugh. I mean it. Not once.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That would make one of us. Somebody's got to feel guilty, so it might as well be you.
Ditto T.S.
Thomas Sowell re-iterated something that I've been saying for awhile.
It's not about voting lockstep with your party, for us conservatives. We seem to hold principle over party cohesion. This is not a bad thing, but it does tend to hurt election chances in a two party system.
That's where the dems are kicking our butts. They'll stick together as Dems, even if everyone isn't under the same tent.
When you've got fake Republicans like John McCain under our umbrella, it makes it pretty hard to get cohesive. It's because the man is a slimeball, and most conservatives hate him. We won't vote for him simply out of party loyalty. We're more principled than that. Again, look at what happened with Perot. Bush Senior hosed us, and we responded by voting for somebody else. It will probably happen again, the way the idiotic Republican party is shaping up.
Speaking of McCain, I had the misfortune to watch him take the US commander in Iraq to task earlier today. The general stated that he really didn't need any more troops in Iraq. He simply wanted to use the troops there with Iraqi counter-insurgents in a more expanded role, which he thought would handle the problems over there more effectively.
McCain, in his supreme arrogance, stated the majority of American people thought differently. Great. I loathe the man with all my heart. He's flat wrong. I think if you talked to most of us, we'd say we'll let the generals fight the war the way they want to. McCain was posturing like the fat toad he is, trying to look like a Presidential candidate. McCain apparently had his brain fried in the prison camp, and learned nothing from Vietnam. Let the military run the war, and keep popular opinion away from military decisions. That cost us Vietnam, lest anyone forget.
If he's the best the Republicans have to offer, I'll vote for somebody else. Party cohesion means nothing if I'm sacrificing my principles. I learned this lesson the hard way regarding my job choice, and I'll err on the side of my conscience from here on out in all things. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.
It's not about voting lockstep with your party, for us conservatives. We seem to hold principle over party cohesion. This is not a bad thing, but it does tend to hurt election chances in a two party system.
That's where the dems are kicking our butts. They'll stick together as Dems, even if everyone isn't under the same tent.
When you've got fake Republicans like John McCain under our umbrella, it makes it pretty hard to get cohesive. It's because the man is a slimeball, and most conservatives hate him. We won't vote for him simply out of party loyalty. We're more principled than that. Again, look at what happened with Perot. Bush Senior hosed us, and we responded by voting for somebody else. It will probably happen again, the way the idiotic Republican party is shaping up.
Speaking of McCain, I had the misfortune to watch him take the US commander in Iraq to task earlier today. The general stated that he really didn't need any more troops in Iraq. He simply wanted to use the troops there with Iraqi counter-insurgents in a more expanded role, which he thought would handle the problems over there more effectively.
McCain, in his supreme arrogance, stated the majority of American people thought differently. Great. I loathe the man with all my heart. He's flat wrong. I think if you talked to most of us, we'd say we'll let the generals fight the war the way they want to. McCain was posturing like the fat toad he is, trying to look like a Presidential candidate. McCain apparently had his brain fried in the prison camp, and learned nothing from Vietnam. Let the military run the war, and keep popular opinion away from military decisions. That cost us Vietnam, lest anyone forget.
If he's the best the Republicans have to offer, I'll vote for somebody else. Party cohesion means nothing if I'm sacrificing my principles. I learned this lesson the hard way regarding my job choice, and I'll err on the side of my conscience from here on out in all things. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
But Here's What We Get With The Republicans....
....so I guess we aren't a darn bit better off. What a bunch of morons. This article via Michelle Malkin shows that Mel Martinez, the new "leader" of the GOP, is completely clueless as to what won the Republicans such an overwhelming majority, before now.
No wonder the Republicans got their butts kicked. And it looks like more will be coming down the pike in 2008. They just don't understand. Either that, or they don't care. I'm leaning toward the don't care option, myself. I think Bush has sold us out, and continues to do so. Harriet Myers, raising minimum wage, uncontrolled spending, the border, etc. I could go on awhile on this subject. The bottom line is, the Republican leaders that we are seeing aren't a big improvement over the Democrats.
So 2008 could be the end of the Republican party, quite honestly. I won't vote for Guliani, since he's anti-gun. I won't vote for McCain because he's a slimy communist, anti-gun, and a collaborator, etc. I think quite a few Republicans are in the same shoes as I. We won't sell out ideals just to keep democrats from office. Didn't they learn anything from Ross Perot's candidacy? Conservatives will support a conservative. Papa Bush stabbed us in the back by raising taxes, and it cost him the election. Dole was in the same vein, so Perot looked like somebody who voiced a conservative agenda. He got quite a few votes away from the Republicans, enough to allow Slick Willie into office twice.
It could very well happen again. If so, I think you'll see a mass exodus of Republicans to something else. What that might be, I have no idea. But it might be time to see TR's bull-moose party make a comeback. Or something. Almost anything is better than what we have. I think there's room for it, as Perot and Roosevelt both proved in their day. And I think the Republicans are far too disdainful of the conservatives in this country.
I think it's time to show them what conservatism is all about.
No wonder the Republicans got their butts kicked. And it looks like more will be coming down the pike in 2008. They just don't understand. Either that, or they don't care. I'm leaning toward the don't care option, myself. I think Bush has sold us out, and continues to do so. Harriet Myers, raising minimum wage, uncontrolled spending, the border, etc. I could go on awhile on this subject. The bottom line is, the Republican leaders that we are seeing aren't a big improvement over the Democrats.
So 2008 could be the end of the Republican party, quite honestly. I won't vote for Guliani, since he's anti-gun. I won't vote for McCain because he's a slimy communist, anti-gun, and a collaborator, etc. I think quite a few Republicans are in the same shoes as I. We won't sell out ideals just to keep democrats from office. Didn't they learn anything from Ross Perot's candidacy? Conservatives will support a conservative. Papa Bush stabbed us in the back by raising taxes, and it cost him the election. Dole was in the same vein, so Perot looked like somebody who voiced a conservative agenda. He got quite a few votes away from the Republicans, enough to allow Slick Willie into office twice.
It could very well happen again. If so, I think you'll see a mass exodus of Republicans to something else. What that might be, I have no idea. But it might be time to see TR's bull-moose party make a comeback. Or something. Almost anything is better than what we have. I think there's room for it, as Perot and Roosevelt both proved in their day. And I think the Republicans are far too disdainful of the conservatives in this country.
I think it's time to show them what conservatism is all about.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Murderin' Wetbacks II
This post from Michelle Malkin's website, regarding the illegal alien issue.
Pay close attention to the stats on dwi's and illegal immigrants. They can't handle their firewater very well.
I can speak somewhat personally on this one. I was consulted this week on a 4th DWI for an illegal alien. She should be deported, since they won't allow summary executions anymore. It should be mandatory prison time. Instead, she's going to serve six months in the pen, out of an 8 year sentence, which is called "shock probation" in this state. It's not nearly a harsh enough sentence, in my opinion. She didn't kill anybody, but did cause a wreck with injuries.
A few years ago, a very nice young man was killed by a drunk illegal in my hometown. Nobody got deported over that issue either. It happened about 3:00p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. The family was, and remains devastated. The boy that was killed ha d bright future ahead of him. College, a solid church life, etc. What's fair about that? The illegal that survived will never have even a high school education, will never accomplish anything other than consuming more alcohol, and jamming up our prison system.
A year or two before that, a golf buddy of mine was killed by a murdering wetback, who then fled across the border. No arrest has ever been made, though I did get peripherally involved in a case where the Texas Rangers thought they had a line on him. Nothing ever developed out of that one as of yet.
Read this post from Michelle, and tell me it's just about cheap produce.
Pay close attention to the stats on dwi's and illegal immigrants. They can't handle their firewater very well.
I can speak somewhat personally on this one. I was consulted this week on a 4th DWI for an illegal alien. She should be deported, since they won't allow summary executions anymore. It should be mandatory prison time. Instead, she's going to serve six months in the pen, out of an 8 year sentence, which is called "shock probation" in this state. It's not nearly a harsh enough sentence, in my opinion. She didn't kill anybody, but did cause a wreck with injuries.
A few years ago, a very nice young man was killed by a drunk illegal in my hometown. Nobody got deported over that issue either. It happened about 3:00p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. The family was, and remains devastated. The boy that was killed ha d bright future ahead of him. College, a solid church life, etc. What's fair about that? The illegal that survived will never have even a high school education, will never accomplish anything other than consuming more alcohol, and jamming up our prison system.
A year or two before that, a golf buddy of mine was killed by a murdering wetback, who then fled across the border. No arrest has ever been made, though I did get peripherally involved in a case where the Texas Rangers thought they had a line on him. Nothing ever developed out of that one as of yet.
Read this post from Michelle, and tell me it's just about cheap produce.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Logical
A friend sent me this little missive awhile back. The exact source is unknown.
"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
"The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
"Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington."
Makes sense to me. Leave it to the heathens to sack and plunder.
"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
"The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
"Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington."
Makes sense to me. Leave it to the heathens to sack and plunder.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Elton John Hates Us
That's ok. I guess. Says here that Elton would ban all organized religion, because he thinks it promotes hatred of gays. Courtesy of the Drudge Report.
Well, that's ok, I guess. I'm learning as I get a bit farther along my Christian walk that dealing with idiots like this is simpler than it used to be.
Why's that? Because I'm not going to teach them a darn thing by speaking out against what they're all about. As a Christian, I shouldn't be anti-anything. I should be pro-whatever my deal is.
Elton's misguided, sure. But I've no right to judge him, because he's in the same boat as the rest of us. He's not perfect, he's short of the mark as we all are.
My job, near as I can figure it, is to lead by example. My job is to show God's love by tolerating just about everything. Some days I'm better at it than others. The trick here is to realize that God will take anybody back into the fold, no matter the offenses given in the past. My sins aren't quite the same as Elton's, but that's ok because they're still sins, and just as bad. So who am I to judge the guy?
Now tolerance doesn't mean that I get run over. I can tolerate him not liking my religion. He's not hurting me in the least, and pretty much making a fool of himself. But when he starts actively moving against me and what I believe in, it's a different story. For instance, if he were trying to ban my right practice my faith, or he tried to burn a church down or something weird like that, I figure I have the right to speak out against what he's doing, and resist if necessary. Otherwise, he's just spouting off, and he's not really bothering me at the moment.
This is a pretty funny story, I think. I've said my piece, now I'll go on and forget about it.
But it does say a lot about the vaunted liberal tolerance, now doesn't it??
Well, that's ok, I guess. I'm learning as I get a bit farther along my Christian walk that dealing with idiots like this is simpler than it used to be.
Why's that? Because I'm not going to teach them a darn thing by speaking out against what they're all about. As a Christian, I shouldn't be anti-anything. I should be pro-whatever my deal is.
Elton's misguided, sure. But I've no right to judge him, because he's in the same boat as the rest of us. He's not perfect, he's short of the mark as we all are.
My job, near as I can figure it, is to lead by example. My job is to show God's love by tolerating just about everything. Some days I'm better at it than others. The trick here is to realize that God will take anybody back into the fold, no matter the offenses given in the past. My sins aren't quite the same as Elton's, but that's ok because they're still sins, and just as bad. So who am I to judge the guy?
Now tolerance doesn't mean that I get run over. I can tolerate him not liking my religion. He's not hurting me in the least, and pretty much making a fool of himself. But when he starts actively moving against me and what I believe in, it's a different story. For instance, if he were trying to ban my right practice my faith, or he tried to burn a church down or something weird like that, I figure I have the right to speak out against what he's doing, and resist if necessary. Otherwise, he's just spouting off, and he's not really bothering me at the moment.
This is a pretty funny story, I think. I've said my piece, now I'll go on and forget about it.
But it does say a lot about the vaunted liberal tolerance, now doesn't it??
Friday, November 10, 2006
Blame McCain
Hugh Hewitt, goddaddy of conservative bloggers, writes in his Town Hall column the Democratic win is probably John McCain's fault. This is a great column, and well worth the read.
I tend to agree. Every traitorous snothead who sides with the Dems on Capitol Hill should be blamed for this.
Why not run them out altogether? Why do we need McCain under the Republican umbrella? Why not boot him out of the party? Why give him our money? That's what I would do, if I were RNC chairman. My message would be simple: we're the conservative party. If you're not conservative, i.e., you don't believe in what the rest of us believe in, you're out. No money from us, and we'll fund whoever comes off as conservative who runs against you in the primaries. No traitors under our roof any more.
I've said it before, Republicans lost because they weren't conservative, and they waffled. The enemy (Demoncrats, radical muslisms, socialists, etc.) won't waffle. They won't show mercy. They won't do anything but commit themselves body and soul to the destruction of conservatism. It's time we all woke up to that fact, strapped on the armor, and went to political war for what we believe in.
I tend to agree. Every traitorous snothead who sides with the Dems on Capitol Hill should be blamed for this.
Why not run them out altogether? Why do we need McCain under the Republican umbrella? Why not boot him out of the party? Why give him our money? That's what I would do, if I were RNC chairman. My message would be simple: we're the conservative party. If you're not conservative, i.e., you don't believe in what the rest of us believe in, you're out. No money from us, and we'll fund whoever comes off as conservative who runs against you in the primaries. No traitors under our roof any more.
I've said it before, Republicans lost because they weren't conservative, and they waffled. The enemy (Demoncrats, radical muslisms, socialists, etc.) won't waffle. They won't show mercy. They won't do anything but commit themselves body and soul to the destruction of conservatism. It's time we all woke up to that fact, strapped on the armor, and went to political war for what we believe in.
Murderin' Wetbacks
Michelle Malkin posts this disturbing tale of an actress murdered by an illegal alien in New York.
She also points out that many dems won their offices this time out by campaigning hard against illegal immigration, lest someone think this is a renouncement of border enforcement. She also points out that many anit-illegal immigration measures passed resoundingly, even if a dem won in that particular district.
Scary stuff, but don't think for a minute that conservative values are dead and gone. This election might prove it more than what we think.
She also points out that many dems won their offices this time out by campaigning hard against illegal immigration, lest someone think this is a renouncement of border enforcement. She also points out that many anit-illegal immigration measures passed resoundingly, even if a dem won in that particular district.
Scary stuff, but don't think for a minute that conservative values are dead and gone. This election might prove it more than what we think.
Thus It Begins...More Bad Things
An extra-US court seeks to bring charges against Donald Rumsfeld for Abu Grahib "abuses."
This is scary. For one, another country is attempting to charge a US citizen with war crimes. This smacks of the whole one-world government the socialists have been trying to bring about for the last 50 years. It is a direct threat to our sovereignty as a country, and our freedom as citizens of this country. The aim of this is to stifle the United States from acting unilaterally to defend itself, or prosecute the war on terror. Follow the money on this thing, and you'll find Muslim money financing this thing, with socialists being duped into running the show. Oh, and the demonic lawyers have a lot to do with it, too.
Notice the timing? Somewhat suspicious? This wouldn't have gotten steam or press coverage had the democrats gotten their keisters kicked as they should have. The timing is incredible, and not conicidental.
This falls into what I have come to call "assault litigation." A working definition of assault litigation is the use of the judicial system in order to suppress, stifle, or trample Constitutional rights, or an attempt to enrich through blackmail. This probably qualifies under both headings.
Troubled is the head that wears the crown.
This is scary. For one, another country is attempting to charge a US citizen with war crimes. This smacks of the whole one-world government the socialists have been trying to bring about for the last 50 years. It is a direct threat to our sovereignty as a country, and our freedom as citizens of this country. The aim of this is to stifle the United States from acting unilaterally to defend itself, or prosecute the war on terror. Follow the money on this thing, and you'll find Muslim money financing this thing, with socialists being duped into running the show. Oh, and the demonic lawyers have a lot to do with it, too.
Notice the timing? Somewhat suspicious? This wouldn't have gotten steam or press coverage had the democrats gotten their keisters kicked as they should have. The timing is incredible, and not conicidental.
This falls into what I have come to call "assault litigation." A working definition of assault litigation is the use of the judicial system in order to suppress, stifle, or trample Constitutional rights, or an attempt to enrich through blackmail. This probably qualifies under both headings.
Troubled is the head that wears the crown.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Lawyers On The Side Of Satan
Read this disturbing post from Protein Wisdom. (Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, great blogger that I shamelessly steal stuff from all the time.)
Basically, Muslims are suing journalists who report unfavorable facts about Islam here in America. Sounds like a First Amendment violation to me, don't you think? The problem is, there's a whole lot of people that don't, and a whole religion that doesn't care because it serves their purposes.
This is the problem with too many lawyers floating around out there, and why unchecked litigation is a definite menace to constitutional freedoms. You can't very well justifiably criticize somebody if they can bankrupt you through a lawsuit.
I know, loser pays in a lawsuit most of the time. That's such a fiction, designed by plaintiff's attorneys to make the rest of you think the system is fair. It ain't. In order to determine who wins or loses a lawsuit, you are still going to have to go through two years worth of legal maneuvering, depositions, hearings, before you ever get to trial. And your lawyer will be expecting his $200 an hour minimum every month, or he'll go to the next case and dump you. Personal injury lawyers engage in extortion like this all the time with insurance companies. The enemies of our Constitution will use it to break that document's protections, and silence dissident voices under the guise of religious "persecution."
This is another reason why a Republican win was so important for us: shut down liberal judges who allow this sort of thing to happen. Well, that's in the toilet. So look for suits like this to stand up. At least until the Supremes get ahold of it, and then it will be a 5-4 decision. Maybe, if that bastard Kennedy doesn't waffle to the communist side, as he is wont to do.
Lawyers are a worse menace to the Constitution and our way of life than foreign enemies, I think.
Basically, Muslims are suing journalists who report unfavorable facts about Islam here in America. Sounds like a First Amendment violation to me, don't you think? The problem is, there's a whole lot of people that don't, and a whole religion that doesn't care because it serves their purposes.
This is the problem with too many lawyers floating around out there, and why unchecked litigation is a definite menace to constitutional freedoms. You can't very well justifiably criticize somebody if they can bankrupt you through a lawsuit.
I know, loser pays in a lawsuit most of the time. That's such a fiction, designed by plaintiff's attorneys to make the rest of you think the system is fair. It ain't. In order to determine who wins or loses a lawsuit, you are still going to have to go through two years worth of legal maneuvering, depositions, hearings, before you ever get to trial. And your lawyer will be expecting his $200 an hour minimum every month, or he'll go to the next case and dump you. Personal injury lawyers engage in extortion like this all the time with insurance companies. The enemies of our Constitution will use it to break that document's protections, and silence dissident voices under the guise of religious "persecution."
This is another reason why a Republican win was so important for us: shut down liberal judges who allow this sort of thing to happen. Well, that's in the toilet. So look for suits like this to stand up. At least until the Supremes get ahold of it, and then it will be a 5-4 decision. Maybe, if that bastard Kennedy doesn't waffle to the communist side, as he is wont to do.
Lawyers are a worse menace to the Constitution and our way of life than foreign enemies, I think.
What Went Wrong and What We Want
It seems lately that I'm simply ripping off everything that Kim du Toit posts. I can't help that the guy is a genius. I'm happy to bask in it, but I at least give credit where credit is due.
So check this post out. He quotes William F. Buckley as to what exactly went wrong for Republicans. These are the same arguments that FLAMETOAD has made to me. They're dead right. I hate it, but it doesn't change one whit the rightness of it all.
My earlier post still stands; but dang it all, it's perfectly understandable why conservative voters did what they did. I'm angry at the protest voters, but that's tempered by a deep respect and admiration for them having the guts to do what they did, knowing what the consequences were going to be.
We don't want centrist, we want conservative. Be warned Republicans, the battle lines have been drawn, and you won't keep your office if you aren't a conservative warrior from here on out.
It's hard to see the forest for the trees, but I pray this turns out to be a good thing.
So check this post out. He quotes William F. Buckley as to what exactly went wrong for Republicans. These are the same arguments that FLAMETOAD has made to me. They're dead right. I hate it, but it doesn't change one whit the rightness of it all.
My earlier post still stands; but dang it all, it's perfectly understandable why conservative voters did what they did. I'm angry at the protest voters, but that's tempered by a deep respect and admiration for them having the guts to do what they did, knowing what the consequences were going to be.
We don't want centrist, we want conservative. Be warned Republicans, the battle lines have been drawn, and you won't keep your office if you aren't a conservative warrior from here on out.
It's hard to see the forest for the trees, but I pray this turns out to be a good thing.
I Hate Being Right Sometimes
Attention protest voters: When the Demoncrats stick you squarely up the butt on gun laws, taxes, and basically everything that's kept this place from becoming a communist workers' paradise, keep in mind this is your fault. In other words, now that I see the gun grabbers are already on the move, I recant my last post. I'm fully laying the blame on the protest voters now. What I've linked here just made me cringe inside. I knew it was coming, though.
Sure, it's the Republicans fault as well, but the protest vote allowed the demons in office. In other words, if the protest voters believe in limited government, if they believe in low taxes, if they believe in the Second Amendment, they just screwed themselves. Worse, they screwed the rest of us. I hope they proved your point. Now, we've got to live with their protest vote. Sometimes in Tic-Tac Toe, one has to sacrifice a move just to block the other side from winning.
The Pollyannish attitude of protest voting simply fails to acknowledge the world as it is. Politicans suck. Period. Unfortunately, we have to find the ones that at least support our side more than their side. And the republicans in office DID respond to grass-roots pressure when applied. Remember Harriet Myers' nomination? We killed that because we all screamed like stuck pigs. Now, you've got a party in power that won't respond to your protests.
So you protest voters, what did you accomplish? You voted out the party that cut your taxes, got gun rights back to the stage they were in Pre-Clinton, kicked the Taliban's butt in Afghanistan, got the economy profitable despite a terrorist attack on the home shore, and put two conservatives on the Supreme Court. They managed to stave off a lot of UN intervention in our daily American lives, including the gun control issue. Now you've got a party in power that wants nothing more than to place the US under the same socialist rule that paralyzes the rest of the planet.
Yeah, they failed on the border issue. They didn't fight Iraq the way it should have been fought, which was to bomb it back to the Precambrian Era. They didn't deal with Iran properly, which was to bomb it back to the Pleosctine Era. They didn't deal with North Korea, which was to bomb it back to primordial slime. They were tarred by Mark Foley's association with them. They did some stupid stuff. But they did far more good on a Constitutional, overall scale than the socialists that you've allowed to get back into office. Worried about border security? You've now put a party into power that wants to throw open the borders and allow illegals to vote. Way to go.
Even in this small sphere, a few more votes could have knocked out Chet Edwards and put a pro-business Republican. That would have helped. But noooo. You idiots had to protest.
Here's more on the Dem's gun control strategy courtesy of the Michael Bane Blog.
I was ok with it earlier today. Then I read the above, and blew it.
So when your taxes go up, don't whine to me about it. When they seize your guns, don't you dare complain to me. If you do, and I know how you voted in the last election, I will kick you squarely in the nuts.
You have been warned.
Sure, it's the Republicans fault as well, but the protest vote allowed the demons in office. In other words, if the protest voters believe in limited government, if they believe in low taxes, if they believe in the Second Amendment, they just screwed themselves. Worse, they screwed the rest of us. I hope they proved your point. Now, we've got to live with their protest vote. Sometimes in Tic-Tac Toe, one has to sacrifice a move just to block the other side from winning.
The Pollyannish attitude of protest voting simply fails to acknowledge the world as it is. Politicans suck. Period. Unfortunately, we have to find the ones that at least support our side more than their side. And the republicans in office DID respond to grass-roots pressure when applied. Remember Harriet Myers' nomination? We killed that because we all screamed like stuck pigs. Now, you've got a party in power that won't respond to your protests.
So you protest voters, what did you accomplish? You voted out the party that cut your taxes, got gun rights back to the stage they were in Pre-Clinton, kicked the Taliban's butt in Afghanistan, got the economy profitable despite a terrorist attack on the home shore, and put two conservatives on the Supreme Court. They managed to stave off a lot of UN intervention in our daily American lives, including the gun control issue. Now you've got a party in power that wants nothing more than to place the US under the same socialist rule that paralyzes the rest of the planet.
Yeah, they failed on the border issue. They didn't fight Iraq the way it should have been fought, which was to bomb it back to the Precambrian Era. They didn't deal with Iran properly, which was to bomb it back to the Pleosctine Era. They didn't deal with North Korea, which was to bomb it back to primordial slime. They were tarred by Mark Foley's association with them. They did some stupid stuff. But they did far more good on a Constitutional, overall scale than the socialists that you've allowed to get back into office. Worried about border security? You've now put a party into power that wants to throw open the borders and allow illegals to vote. Way to go.
Even in this small sphere, a few more votes could have knocked out Chet Edwards and put a pro-business Republican. That would have helped. But noooo. You idiots had to protest.
Here's more on the Dem's gun control strategy courtesy of the Michael Bane Blog.
I was ok with it earlier today. Then I read the above, and blew it.
So when your taxes go up, don't whine to me about it. When they seize your guns, don't you dare complain to me. If you do, and I know how you voted in the last election, I will kick you squarely in the nuts.
You have been warned.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Bad Things
Well, the election results are in, and things suck just as badly as one could have imagined.
The Democrat's order of operations is going to be gun control, tax hikes, raise the minimum wage, immigration, and pull out of Iraq. Told you. Thanks to Kim du Toit for the links.
In other words, everything that I am against. If I wasn't depressed already, this would have done it.
Conservatism took a beating, and our rights as free citizens are about to take another beating.
Who's to blame? Well, I won't indulge in name-calling, bashing, etc. The first reaction is to blame those who were disgruntled enough to vote either democrat or other, allowing nationwide the communists to slip into power. Too easy, and on the whole, not a fair statement. While I think it was cutting one's nose off to spite their face by protest voting, it was a statement. Now they have to deal with the consequences of their vote. As do the rest of us. But ultimately, it wasn't their fault. They voted their conscience, and really can't be blamed for that.
The real blame needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of whose fault it really is: the Republican party. Kim du Toit succintly points this out. The Republicans swept into office on a conservative platform that promised security, conservative judges on the bench, a tough war on terror, and a secure border. They blew it. Not conservative enough. They didn't do what they had promised to do, and didn't really try as hard as what they should have.
So they deserve to lose, in all honesty. The democrats, however, don't deserve to win.
Here's what I want to see: not one ounce of cooperation from the Republicans. Don't go along to get along. They'll get run out of office even worse the next time around. Don't compromise on minimum wage, tax hikes, gun control, anything. If you run as a conservative, then by God stand up as a conservative.
Evil has to be confronted. It might take 20 years to get another party organized, but that may well be what happens.
In short: the Republicans blew it. It remains to be seen as to how they deal with the loss. Did they learn anything?
Time will tell. Let's hope we can stand united as conservatives to stop them on at least the gun control issue.
The Democrat's order of operations is going to be gun control, tax hikes, raise the minimum wage, immigration, and pull out of Iraq. Told you. Thanks to Kim du Toit for the links.
In other words, everything that I am against. If I wasn't depressed already, this would have done it.
Conservatism took a beating, and our rights as free citizens are about to take another beating.
Who's to blame? Well, I won't indulge in name-calling, bashing, etc. The first reaction is to blame those who were disgruntled enough to vote either democrat or other, allowing nationwide the communists to slip into power. Too easy, and on the whole, not a fair statement. While I think it was cutting one's nose off to spite their face by protest voting, it was a statement. Now they have to deal with the consequences of their vote. As do the rest of us. But ultimately, it wasn't their fault. They voted their conscience, and really can't be blamed for that.
The real blame needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of whose fault it really is: the Republican party. Kim du Toit succintly points this out. The Republicans swept into office on a conservative platform that promised security, conservative judges on the bench, a tough war on terror, and a secure border. They blew it. Not conservative enough. They didn't do what they had promised to do, and didn't really try as hard as what they should have.
So they deserve to lose, in all honesty. The democrats, however, don't deserve to win.
Here's what I want to see: not one ounce of cooperation from the Republicans. Don't go along to get along. They'll get run out of office even worse the next time around. Don't compromise on minimum wage, tax hikes, gun control, anything. If you run as a conservative, then by God stand up as a conservative.
Evil has to be confronted. It might take 20 years to get another party organized, but that may well be what happens.
In short: the Republicans blew it. It remains to be seen as to how they deal with the loss. Did they learn anything?
Time will tell. Let's hope we can stand united as conservatives to stop them on at least the gun control issue.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
The Buddy System
Reading Robert Parker's SPENSER novels has been pretty fun. Spenser is one of the best detective heroes in fiction, period.
One of the great things about Spenser is his buddy, Hawk. Whenever Spenser is in need of a heavy hitter, Hawk comes through. Sometimes Spenser asks, but most of the time Hawk is just there when needed. He doesn't have to be asked.
It's never stated explicitly, but Hawk is probably a professional killer himself. Everyone in the underworld seems to know him, and grants him a great deal of respect. He's phenomenal with weapons and unarmed combat. He vanishes for weeks at an end, and comes back from various locations around the world. It's never mentioned exactly what he was doing.
In one of Spenser's adventures, he's shot by a professional assassin and almost killed. The recovery period is long, almost a year. During that time, Hawk pretty much never leaves his side. He pushes him physically and mentally to recover. He stands guard. He provides a shoulder to lean on and to cry on when necessary.
Humans can fairly be judged by the company they keep, I think. I don't think much of a person who doesn't have at least one good friend that will ride to his or her rescue. Like Hawk.
I've been fortunate in my life to come across a couple of people like that. They've saved my bacon on more than one occassion. I don't ask them; they're just there with no questions asked. No matter the cause. I can trust them with my life, or the life of my family. There's not much in this physical world that I have faith in. However, I have absolute faith in these friends of mine. Why? Because they've come through before.
That provides a certain degree of comfort, if you know that you've got somebody watching your back. Somebody that offers their house to you if you're about to get kicked out of yours. Somebody that offers money with no hope of getting paid back anytime this decade. Somebody that shows up at your house when they hear your family member is in the hospital. All without being asked.
Think about it. When you've got people like that on your side, the world is pretty much your oyster. Failure, where is thy sting? What's the worst that can happen to you when you've got somebody like that backing your play? A large part of who I am today, I owe to my friends. They've given me the courage to try things that I wouldn't have normally have done. They've been a heck of a safety net.
In one of the more recent novels, Spenser got the chance to return the favor when Hawk got shot.
I don't think I've been a tenth as good a friend as what my friends have been to me, over the years. The problem is they don't seem to screw up as badly as what I do. In that light, it's a wonder they put up with me at all. I hope that, should the occassion arise, that I can be there for them as they've been there for me. I hope that I can be their anchor, as they've been mine.
Spenser and Hawk understand this sort of thing.
One of the great things about Spenser is his buddy, Hawk. Whenever Spenser is in need of a heavy hitter, Hawk comes through. Sometimes Spenser asks, but most of the time Hawk is just there when needed. He doesn't have to be asked.
It's never stated explicitly, but Hawk is probably a professional killer himself. Everyone in the underworld seems to know him, and grants him a great deal of respect. He's phenomenal with weapons and unarmed combat. He vanishes for weeks at an end, and comes back from various locations around the world. It's never mentioned exactly what he was doing.
In one of Spenser's adventures, he's shot by a professional assassin and almost killed. The recovery period is long, almost a year. During that time, Hawk pretty much never leaves his side. He pushes him physically and mentally to recover. He stands guard. He provides a shoulder to lean on and to cry on when necessary.
Humans can fairly be judged by the company they keep, I think. I don't think much of a person who doesn't have at least one good friend that will ride to his or her rescue. Like Hawk.
I've been fortunate in my life to come across a couple of people like that. They've saved my bacon on more than one occassion. I don't ask them; they're just there with no questions asked. No matter the cause. I can trust them with my life, or the life of my family. There's not much in this physical world that I have faith in. However, I have absolute faith in these friends of mine. Why? Because they've come through before.
That provides a certain degree of comfort, if you know that you've got somebody watching your back. Somebody that offers their house to you if you're about to get kicked out of yours. Somebody that offers money with no hope of getting paid back anytime this decade. Somebody that shows up at your house when they hear your family member is in the hospital. All without being asked.
Think about it. When you've got people like that on your side, the world is pretty much your oyster. Failure, where is thy sting? What's the worst that can happen to you when you've got somebody like that backing your play? A large part of who I am today, I owe to my friends. They've given me the courage to try things that I wouldn't have normally have done. They've been a heck of a safety net.
In one of the more recent novels, Spenser got the chance to return the favor when Hawk got shot.
I don't think I've been a tenth as good a friend as what my friends have been to me, over the years. The problem is they don't seem to screw up as badly as what I do. In that light, it's a wonder they put up with me at all. I hope that, should the occassion arise, that I can be there for them as they've been there for me. I hope that I can be their anchor, as they've been mine.
Spenser and Hawk understand this sort of thing.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Sick Humor
Two Muslim mothers are sitting in a cafe chatting over a pint of goat's milk.
The older of the mothers pulls out a small album of photos and they start reminiscing...
"This is my eldest son Mohammed, who would be 24 years old now..."
"Yes, I remember him as a baby," says the other mother cheerfully.
"He's a martyr now, though," the first confides.
"Oh, so sad dear," says the other.
"And this is my second son, Kalid, who would be 21...."
"Oh, I remember him," says the other happily. "He had such curly hair when he was born."
"He's a martyr, too," says the first mum quietly.
"Oh gracious me," says the other.
"And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed, who would be 18," she whispers.
"Yes," says the friend enthusiastically, "I remember when he first started school."
"He is a martyr, also," says mum, with tears in her eyes.
After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks wistfully at the photographs and says........
"They blow up so fast, don't they ?"
Blame Flametoad for this one.
You have to laugh, just to keep from cracking up.
The older of the mothers pulls out a small album of photos and they start reminiscing...
"This is my eldest son Mohammed, who would be 24 years old now..."
"Yes, I remember him as a baby," says the other mother cheerfully.
"He's a martyr now, though," the first confides.
"Oh, so sad dear," says the other.
"And this is my second son, Kalid, who would be 21...."
"Oh, I remember him," says the other happily. "He had such curly hair when he was born."
"He's a martyr, too," says the first mum quietly.
"Oh gracious me," says the other.
"And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed, who would be 18," she whispers.
"Yes," says the friend enthusiastically, "I remember when he first started school."
"He is a martyr, also," says mum, with tears in her eyes.
After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks wistfully at the photographs and says........
"They blow up so fast, don't they ?"
Blame Flametoad for this one.
You have to laugh, just to keep from cracking up.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
..."More Than Meets The Eye..."
Courtesy of Cowboy Blob, a storyboard from the eagerly awaited "Transformers" Movie.
Not really, but I would laugh my butt off if it were....
Not really, but I would laugh my butt off if it were....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)