« MSNBC's Contessa Brewer decries "outdated bigotry" | Main | The Tennesse Floods - How You Can Help »

Globe Accidentally Prints Truth

Joan Vennochi, one of the Boston Globe's more reliable liberals, has a shocking (by Globe standards) column out today. In it, she acknowledges that the Time Square bombing suspect is, in fact, a radical Muslim and that the vast majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by radical Muslims.

This is borderline heresy for a Globie (apart from Jeff Jacoby, their token conservative).

Nine years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and the corresponding war on terror that American troops have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the average citizen gets it. Some Muslim extremists want to kill Americans and will keep on trying to accomplish their mission.

It's the first thought that registers when a bomb is placed in cars, shoes, or underwear by someone described as Muslim. What's so terrible about acknowledging that link?

This is just one half-step away from admitting that there just might be some tiny bit of merit to the notion of profiling.

This is just plain old -fashioned common sense. Certain groups of people are more prone to commit certain types of crimes than other types.

For example, if there was a suspected serial killer in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get some very close scrutiny from the police. I'm a single white male in his early 40's who's a bit of a loner. That puts me in some very disreputable company, and I'd almost be disappointed in them if the police didn't at least talk to me. I'd cooperate with them and work to establish my innocence as quickly as possible -- so they'd stop wasting time looking at me and focus on finding the real killer. That's common sense, civic duty, and enlightened self-interest all rolled into one.

I'd certainly NOT form an organization of white anti-social loners to threaten lawsuits and organize protests against the police.

With the news this week that both the Washington Times and Newsweek are up for sale by their owners, who are tired of shoveling money down the well, perhaps Vennochi is anticipating the Globe's owner -- the New York Times -- to put it up for sale or shut it down entirely, and she's looking to reposition herself a bit further away from the left.

Expect ringing denunciations of Vennochi from the rest of the mainstream media any moment now.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38984.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Globe Accidentally Prints Truth:

Comments (43)

This is bigotry if I ever s... (Below threshold)
914:

This is bigotry if I ever seen it before...How does she know Fivel Shazad wasn't just getting to know his inner self?

Certain groups are more lik... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Certain groups are more likely to commit certain acts.

White, upper middle class, college age males are more likely to join fraternities. Blacks in the 1960's were more likely to engage in acts of civil disobedience and protest marches over civil rights. Hispanics in the south west are more likely to protest Arizona's new law regarding illegal immigration. SEIU members are more likely to beat up anyone, anywhere, at any time. ;)

Muslim males are more likely to commit acts of violence on behalf of their religion.

We all profile all the time. Mayor Bloomberg did it when he said that he thought the bomber was some right wing anti government protester.

I suppose the left is against using profiling in law enforcement because in their skewed view of reality, profiling rarely works for them.

For example, if th... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:
For example, if there was a suspected serial killer in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get some very close scrutiny from the police. I'm a single white male in his early 40's who's a bit of a loner. That puts me in some very disreputable company, and I'd almost be disappointed in them if the police didn't at least talk to me.

Wow. Where to begin...

I suspect you wouldn't be on the police radar at all, Jay, unless there was something more than being a male, 40 year old loner in your past. Lke a police record, prior suspicion on a related crime for some reason, or a copy of an email you sent to someone threatening violence, that sort of thing.

Certain groups of people are more prone to commit certain types of crimes than other types.

Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that Muslim-Americans as a group have a higher percentage of criminals than white Americans? or Black Americans?

No, I suspect you're suggesting that police be allowed to practice racism by singling out Americans who look Hispanic and shaking them down for certain crimes -- and singling out Americans who look mid-eastern and shaking them down for certain types of crimes, etc.

Or you could just choose to spy on all mid-eastern-heritage Americans, all Hispanic-Americans, etc.

But then our country wouldn't be the land of the free anymore, would it?

Free, law-abiding Americans aren't truly free if they are spied upon or treated differently solely because of their race or religion. Nazi Germany tried it, and the free world rose up against them.

When did you start to think like a Nazi?

If I'm a hispanic-American walking through the streets of Phoenix, Arizona I should not be treated any differently than if I'm a white American, black American, etc. Being stopped in the streets and asked to show your papers smacks of Nazi Germany.

If moderate, peace-loving m... (Below threshold)

If moderate, peace-loving muslims want us to accept the proposition that most muslims are moderate and peace-loving isn't it about time for a 'million muslim march for peace' or something...or really just about anything to denounce their extremist brethren?

Or are they too afraid of being blown up? At least that would be understandable if they admitted as much.

Lee, Lee, Lee,You ar... (Below threshold)
Grace:

Lee, Lee, Lee,
You are so off topic it is sad. If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, please stop typing and wasting time.

In case you do not realize what Jay's piece is actually about, it is NOT about the Arizona law or Hispanics or even racial profiling.

One topic is about the fact that a reliable liberal within the liberal media is breaking ranks and finally talking common sense - something missing from their publications for awhile.

Another topic is about the fact that reliable liberal publications are going the way of the dinosaur because they have become so out of touch with reality.

Please get a clue.

"If I'm a hispanic-American... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

"If I'm a hispanic-American walking through the streets of Phoenix, Arizona I should not be treated any differently than if I'm a white American, black American, etc. Being stopped in the streets and asked to show your papers smacks of Nazi Germany."
Strawman argument. You cannot be stopped and asked to prove citizenship, it you a stopped for a violation of the law you need to provide identification and if you crossed the border illegally you will be sent back. So no, you are not being singled out because of race, creed or religion. If a Canadian entered the country illegally and was stopped for speeding, they would be subject to the same treatment.

"When did you start to think like a Nazi?" Have you stopped beating your kids yet?

"Free, law-abiding Americans aren't truly free if they are spied upon or treated differently solely because of their race or religion. Nazi Germany tried it, and the free world rose up against them. " No one is doing that now in the US, except if you go to a Teaparty maybe.

"Are you suggesting that Muslim-Americans as a group have a higher percentage of criminals than white Americans? or Black Americans?" I understand that reading comprehension is beyond your capabilities, but there never was a claim that one group commits more crimes than another group percentage wise, just that certain crimes tend to be done be people that fit a certain profiles.

Hey Jay - is Grace one of y... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Hey Jay - is Grace one of your many sockpuppets?

In case you do not realize what Jay's piece is actually about, it is NOT about the Arizona law or Hispanics or even racial profiling.

I'm sorry, but Jay's piece *is* about racial profiling - he's just not brave enough to call it that.

Jay wrote:

For example, if there was a suspected serial killer in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get some very close scrutiny from the police. I'm a single white male in his early 40's who's a bit of a loner. That puts me in some very disreputable company, and I'd almost be disappointed in them if the police didn't at least talk to me. I'd cooperate with them and work to establish my innocence as quickly as possible -- so they'd stop wasting time looking at me and focus on finding the real killer. That's common sense, civic duty, and enlightened self-interest all rolled into one.

In the absence of any real concrete evidence that points to Jay as a person worth looking at, or a past record or other reason for suspicion (as I explained above) - if the reason Jay is singled out is because he's a white, 40 year loser then it is indeed racial profiling.

I'm not surprised that so many people can't recognize that - but then some white conservatives just don't have empathy for people of color and that may be at work here. You really need to stand in those shoes to understand.

Another topic is about the fact that reliable liberal publications are going the way of the dinosaur because they have become so out of touch with reality.

Well, your choo-choo slipped off the reality tracks with that one.

What's changed - and is the reason weekly magazines are dying - is that news junkies are immersed in the news already, many 24/7/365.

Having a weekly print publication like Newsweek come out and cover stories that people like me have been "consuming" online for days already is just plainly and obviously a bad business model. I'm Newsweek's target audience and I used to subscribe - but I decided to stop paying for a magazine that is reporting everything I've already known for days.

Why pay for that? It's old news - that I've already gotten for free online hours and sometimes just minutes after it happened.

News reporters can't operate on a weekly basis - news is consumed daily - hourly - not weekly. Weekly magazines are dinosaurs simply because they are weekly - doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal.

Name one successful weekly news magazine that is conservative and then the fact that Newsweek or any other weekly magazine is liberal might take on some meaning.

Can you name one?

And then look at the popularity of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert (daily) versus Bill Maher (weekly).

Or, on the conservative side - look at Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly who have a daily news presence -- versus the Fox News Sunday talk show.

And now - as far as liberal versus conservative is concerned, compare the ratings of conservative Fox News Sunday versus MSM-liberal Meet the Press.

Meet the Press beats Fox News Sunday consistently.

If what you said was true that wouldn't be so.

I remember reading somewher... (Below threshold)
James H:

I remember reading somewhere that an Islamic comentator pithily stated that while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim ... and that this posed a problem for the Muslim community.

Hey, Lee, STILL waiting for... (Below threshold)

Hey, Lee, STILL waiting for you to quote me in a single verifiable lie. Also wondering if you STILL think the Times Square would-be bomber was a Tea Partier. And what's your current position (tee hee) vis-a-vis Larry Sinclair?

James, I first heard that from a right-wing commentator. And hoo boy, did he get crap for saying that...

J.

"If I'm a hispanic-Ameri... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"If I'm a hispanic-American walking through the streets of Phoenix, Arizona I should not be treated any differently than if I'm a white American, black American, etc."

If a blond-haired blue-eyed man "walking through the streets of Phoenix, Arizona" throws trash onto the sidewalk he's liable for a ticket. He will also be asked for ID. And he'll be expected to produce it. This may even happen to a person of Mexican heritage, or a black man, or an East Indian. The rules would be the same for all, right?

I'm glad we're in agreement.

The DHA release a report on... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The DHA release a report on the threat of returning American Veterans based on Tim and Nicolas. They then painted a broad swipe at veterans.

Yet how many left wing radical were students at college or graduates from college?

How many Muslim men have committed and or attempted to commit acts of terror in the USA.

"What's so terrible about a... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"What's so terrible about acknowledging that link?"

RACIST!!!!

Oyster -Yep, the r... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Oyster -

Yep, the rules should be the same for all. Except Blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, and Muslims. Other than that, they should be the same for everyone.

Lee -

Cable News Ratings for Saturday-Sunday, May 1-2, 2010 - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com

Cable News Ratings for May 2, 2010

P2 Total Day FNC - 856,000 viewers CNN - 619,000 viewers MSNBC - 293,000 viewers CNBC- 148,000 viewers HLN - 235,000 viewers
Damnables! Let me try that ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Damnables! Let me try that chart again...

FNC - 856,000 viewers
CNN - 619,000 viewers
MSNBC - 293,000 viewers
CNBC- 148,000 viewers
HLN - 235,000 viewers

Good thing they broadcast Meet The Press - doesn't seem to be drawing much on cable...

"I'm Newsweek's target a... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"I'm Newsweek's target audience..."

Holy shit, Lee! Don't look now, but you've been profiled!

Wee Lard:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Wee Lard:

I'm Newsweek's target audience and...

Oh please! If idiots were really Newsweek's target's audience, there's no way they'd be losing money.

Well, for those who lament ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Well, for those who lament the breakdown of civility on the comment threads -- I stayed on topic. Jay Tea showed up and launched into is usual childish ad hominems and several commenters follow his example.

Lawson - not sure why you're pointing to cable ratings while mentioning Meet the Press. Meet the Press airs on NBC, not CNN.

According to Nielsen Media Research data, "Meet the Press" was top-rated Sunday morning public affairs program for the week ending April 11. "Meet the Press" attracted 2.997 million total viewers (2.1/6 HH), +20% more (+497,000) than second place ABC's 2.500 million total viewers (1.8/5 HH), a 29% advantage (+665,000) over CBS's 2.332 million total viewers (1.8/5 HH), and a 162% (1,851,000) lead over FOX's 1.146 million total viewers (0.8/2 HH). "Meet the Press" delivered an additional 1,099,000 viewers with rebroadcasts on the network and MSNBC.

Note the above. Fox comes in 4th behind NBC, ABC and CBS.

Heck, MSNBC's repeat of the NBC's Meet the Press came close to beating Fox's Sunday morning talk show, missing by a small percentage.

This is all a case of being... (Below threshold)

This is all a case of being PC. I think you put your money where your mouth was when you said you'd "be ashamed if the police didn't approach you" based on a stereotype. The casualty of offending someone is much out weighed by the chances of being right based on the tenants of common sense.

We can all thank Lee for ci... (Below threshold)
epador:

We can all thank Lee for civilly reminding us how out of touch with reality he is. In an entertaining and family-friendly sort-of-way.

Hooah!

Lee, you really should lear... (Below threshold)

Lee, you really should learn to use the same language as the rest of us. Asking that you either offer proof of your own ad hominem (and, occasionally, libelous) accusations or retract them HARDLY constitutes an "ad hominem" attack. And this is my article, so I can hardly be accused of "showing up" just to harass you.

You really ought to publish an English-LeeWard dictionary so the rest of us can follow along with your diseased rantings. It'd make life a lot easier.

J.

...and Lee shows up for his... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

...and Lee shows up for his usual comedy relief. Thanx, Lee!

Once again, Lee goes to personal attacks when losing the argument, as in post 7.

Gotta give to Lee, he's consistent. Still a dumbass, but consistent.

Hey Jay - is "Sky Captain" ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Hey Jay - is "Sky Captain" one of your current sock puppets?

I remember you using a similar sock puppet ID when you were posting comments on Blue.

Maybe if you posted a list of your current sock puppets you're using on this blog...?

I'm guessing "Jay Guevera" is another of your sock puppets her on Wizbang, but in all fairness I don't remember that being one of the sock puppets you used in the past.

Clever name though... good job!

Lee, have you ever answered... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Lee, have you ever answered a question? Or stayed on topic?

Interesting new tactic, Lee... (Below threshold)

Interesting new tactic, Lee. Keep making random accusations that you can't or won't back up to keep folks distracted from noting what an absolute unrepentant asshole you are.

For the record, I have exactly one alias I use on this site besides this one, and I only use it when I occasionally enter the caption contests to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And I haven't done that in... sheesh, months.

But I don't need to invent new aliases to make it look like everyone thinks you're an asshole. You do all that all by your lonesome.

So, you ever gonna offer the slightest proof for your lies and accusations, or gonna go off and try to think up new ones?

I'm starting to understand a little of what Sarah Palin felt like with the endless stream of "ethics charges." The difference is, you don't cost me a penny when you spout your silliness. Instead, I find it slightly amusing.

Why don't you go back to your own blog and write something original? Oh, that's right, you drove off all your readers, your fellow authors, and finally got fired from it and had it shut down on you.

You could always start your own... hell, I'd even give you a link.

J.

"So, you ever gonna offe... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"So, you ever gonna offer the slightest proof for your lies and accusations, or gonna go off and try to think up new ones?"

How about my accusation that you used multiple sock puppets on Wizbang Blue?

I've made that accusation several times and don't recall you ever giving a yes or no answer.

Are you going to lie and deny that used many sock puppets when commenting on Wizbang Blue?

Rodney, the answers to your... (Below threshold)

Rodney, the answers to your questions are "no" and "no."

I'm answering for Lee, as he's constitutionally incapable of either.

Can you tell how much he misses being Da Big Cheese at Blue? There, he didn't have to answer questions. He'd just call the questioner a troll and ban them.

On the flip side, he'd ask all the questions he wanted -- relevant or not -- and demand an answer. If the answer wasn't to his liking (and I don't think it ever was), he'd ban them, too.

It was like watching a car crash in slow motion. You wanted to look away, but you couldn't...

J.

Jay, I don't comment much, ... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Jay, I don't comment much, but have reading Wizbang for several years now. Have read alot of Lee Ward. Every no and than I like to go fishing in a barrel and Lee is always fun to watch.

And Jay avoids answering.. ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

And Jay avoids answering.. again.

Lee, I've answered that one... (Below threshold)

Lee, I've answered that one several times. You just don't like the answer. And unlike back at Blue, you can't ban me for not giving you the answer you want.

A "sock puppet" is defined as "A fake personality, usually a 'friend' or 'sister,' created by a drama queen/king for the sake of defending him/herself against others in an online forum."

I used several sock puppets on one thread, when you praised noted sock puppeteer Glenn Greenwald. In that incident, I used the same names Greenwald used, my own e-mail address, the same IP, I put in as my home page the site that busted Greenwald, and such flagrantly obvious language that only a complete idiot would not pick up on the action. In other words, there was no intention of deception -- only mockery.


I even bragged about it at Wizbang. Then, a day later, I answered the substance of your tongue-bath of Greenwald (won't Larry Sinclair get jealous? Or do you two have an open relationship?) at your length.

Oh, and you LIED in that comment thread, Lee. You said no comments were deleted -- but you did delete my explanation of what I did. You missed another commenter quoting me, though.

I'm trying to decide which is more annoying -- your habit of making false accusations that you won't even pretend to back up, your running and hiding when challenged, your flaming hypocrisy in calling everyone else things that you clearly are, or your sheer sanctimoniousness.

Fortunately for you, they're all dwarfed by your entertainment value.

Other than that... nope, never used a "sock puppet." Never made up multiple names to encourage and support myself, to make it look like I had others backing me and my opinions. Never pretended to be someone else to speak favorably of myself and my positions.

Now, I've answered your question. For the umpteenth time. Will you either answer my questions, or address the topic at hand?

Again, I say you're constitutionally incapable of doing either.

J.

Well, Jay - Clearly you wan... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Well, Jay - Clearly you want people to believe that you only used sock puppetery on the Greenwald thread, and you're lying.

You used numerous sock puppets on Wizbang Blue, not just one. And you did so over a period of more than a year.

And I'd be happy to stay on topic, but every time I do you stalk me and ask me to prove you're a liar. So I'm taking this tact only because you asked me to.

And the question now is - You used multiple sock puppets on Wizbang Blue, not just one -- isn't that correct Jay?

Lee, I gave the textbook de... (Below threshold)

Lee, I gave the textbook definition of the term "sock puppet," then described the only time I ever did that.

I answered your accusation. Categorically. Yes, once, for satiric purposes with no intention of deception.

You, apparently, have your own definitions of "troll" and "sock puppet." Sorry, you don't get to impose them on others.

Subject ended. You can get back on the topic at hand at any time.

Or, alternately, you could pretend to answer the questions you always dodge so rapidly. Why did you lie and say the Times Square bombing attempt was done by right-wingers? Can you find a single time when I lied, using my own words? And what happened to you and Larry Sinclair? I really thought you two crazy kids might just beat the odds and make it work...

J.

Well, then you lied again.<... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Well, then you lied again.

Yes, once, for satiric purposes with no intention of deception.

Only once? That's a lie.

Jay, every four years, Venn... (Below threshold)

Jay, every four years, Vennochi shakes the cobwebs out of her head and writes a decent column.

Here's a write-up I did on a column of hers from April 2006, in which she calls out RomneyCare supporters for basically admitting that they hadn't the slightest clue on God's green earth how much Romneycare would end up costing the taxpayers of the Commonwealth, or where exactly all that money was going to come from.

You're entitled to your opi... (Below threshold)

You're entitled to your opinion, Lee.

You're not entitled to your own facts and your own definitions.

You are, however, welcome to your own reality. Why can't you stay there?

Of all the things for you to fixate over from your failed tenure at Wizbang Blue, running it right into the ground, you certainly picked an odd one. One would think that your abject failure as a blogger would have at least given you some kinds of insights into your own immense and numerous shortcomings.

J.

Lee, I do not think "lie" m... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Lee, I do not think "lie" means what you think it means.

There also is a big, huge, and tremendous gap between asserting something and giving proof and then having proved it.

An example of this can be found in any evolution vs creation debate. Lot's of assertions by both sides, and a lot of proof by both sides but very little proven by both sides.

"You're entitled to your... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"You're entitled to your opinion, Lee."

You're pathetic.

By this definition - you're a liar. Make that a pathetic, pathological liar.

Now - reading that standard definition of sock puppet - by that definition you used multiple sockpuppets on Wizbang Blue, didn't you Jay?

and that makes you a liar, doesn't it Jay?

Don't run and hide, Jay. Yo... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Don't run and hide, Jay. You've repeatedly challenged me to show where you've lied.

From your own source: ... (Below threshold)

From your own source:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sockpuppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies or company."[2]

Also, note the "already post in a forum or blog" -- meaning "multiple identities at the same time."

Lee, you still fail epically. By your argument, my using "Jay Tea" would qualify. And in other places, where I'm "Jay Tea NH," would qualify, too.

You can make up all the definitions you like, Lee. You no longer have the power to demand that others abide by them.

I've poked through those articles you cite from Blue. At no point did the commenters you accused ever admit or deny it. (Hell, one of them said they would only comment on the other author's articles, and would stay away from yours, and you couldn't stand that.) They refused to play with your little game of identity politics.

Like you're trying to play here.

No, thanks. That's a loser's game. No wonder you're a chump champ at it.

J.

Lee, I actually feel sorry ... (Below threshold)

Lee, I actually feel sorry for you. I'm gonna help you out.

The term you're grasping for is "trolling." Not "sock-puppeting."

And no, I don't particularly feel like discussing that one, either. That was a while ago, and I have more interesting things to think about.

J.

In its earliest us... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:
In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

By that definition you used sockpuppets beyond the one instance you confessed to.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities.

And by that definition you used sockpuppets beyond the one instance you confessed to.

And you're lying by denying that you used sock puppets above and beyond what you confessed to.

WAAAY above and beyond. By my count you used seven or eight different identities on Wizbang Blue, didn't you Jay?

And you're lying when you say you didn't,

Remember, Jay - this confro... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Remember, Jay - this confrontation was your idea - you've hounded my for more than a week to prove you're a liar.

You've libeled me repeatedly on this blog, lying about the reasons you were banned at Wizbang Blue.

Now you refuse to admit the truth about your use of multiple sock puppet identities on Wizbang Blue.

Lee, you jack off on old JG... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Lee, you jack off on old JG Thayer entries, don't you?

I prefer steve greens brand... (Below threshold)
914:

I prefer steve greens brand of idiocy to lee wards any day..




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy