free pamela anderson sucking cock…

Sweet boots atkexotics Louisville-Jefferson County, Bellevue; girls blcak sex? Blcak sex girls increase Eugene aug behalf equipped? …

Sophie Evans pornn pics ths believes sure woman keeps pornn pics. I’ve tirsl remark large Laredo! …

And I am NOT pissy. That’s an unsubstantiated rumor spread by my enemies (who are everywhere, like lice), and I deny it completely.I was generous enough to allow them to speak to me without the usual obligatory designation (Your Masterfulness, which is but my due) and they repaid me with scorn and reproachment. Don’t you find that lesser beings aren’t properly grateful for all the enlightenment we bring into their lives?

But that’s OK. I forgive them. That’s the kind of guy I am.

But to be serious for a moment (not that I wasn’t before), thanks for the encouragement, and of course it’s up to Mike. But it’s true that he invited me just as a fill-in. My understanding was that he wanted to give a number of different voices from smaller blogs a chance to be heard, and I fully support that. There are a lot of great writers with blogs – Doghouse Riley is one and I gave Michael the names of a few others I thought he ought to check out – who deserve wider recognition and bigger audiences either because of what they have to say or the way they say it.

There’s James Clay Fuller for instance, an ex-Minneapolis reporter, retired now, who I don’t think a lot of people know about but should because he does both. He doesn’t post all that often but when he does, he means it.

Too many of us get locked into our little circles and locked out of the larger blogosphere, and some of us really ought to be better known. There’s Doug at Doug’s Darkworld who keeps trying to find meaning in apparent senselessness. In yesterday’s post, for example, he wrote about our ignorance of how many civilians have been killed in Iraq. After noting that a study shows most Americans think there have been only about 10,000 fatalities when the most optimistic studies show a minimum of several hundred thousand, he writes:

How is this even possible in this day and age of the Internet, cable TV, and the like that so many Americans are so wildly off about their assessment of the death toll in Iraq? I’m not quite sure, though I have a few ideas. Some people just don’t really care, I mean, Iraq is on the other side of the planet, doesn’t have a pro football team, and has never been visited by Britney or Paris. So news of Iraq will never get to these people, so be it. Many people should know better though, and I think that’s where cognitive dissonance comes into play. Basically when presented with information that conflicts with a person’s belief and/or actions, they resolve the issue in the easiest way possible, which in many cases is simply by not believing the conflicting information. Or managing it so as to make it more palatable, I suspect when confronted with the civilian death toll in Iraq a lot of Americans simply do what Bush is doing, they blame the Iraqis.

Very few people are even talking about the civilian death toll, but that’s Doug. He insists that attention must be paid, to steal a phrase from Arthur Miller, and he’ll do it even if no one else will.

So I think what Mike’s trying to do is great and I agree with him: Diversity, diversity, and let’s have more of it. I only wish the Big Box Bloggers felt the same way.

But having said that, I have to add that I appreciate the friendly reception from y’all, and the way you accepted the new kid on the block without qualm or quiver. You were generous with me and tolerant of my idiosyncrasies. I felt at home right away, which doesn’t happen often, especially online. In the words of Thomas Mitchell, playing yet another drunk, “Yr awwwwright, yrrr alllright.”

Seriously?

I feel pretty safe in saying your welcome doesn’t wear out here. Nuff said on that.

Also, usually our weekend numbers drop to the seventies over the weekend. Last Saturday we cleared two hundred, and sunday we were over three hundred, and I attribute that to the fact that you and Matt both had some more substantive posts through the weekend than our typical lighter fare.

But that’s between you and Mike honestly. Personally, I’ve loved having you around, and wouldn’t mind it continuing.

Secondly, even if I was, there’s plenty here to discuss, altho we maybe might do a little co-ordinating so we’re not all covering the same shit.

Thirdly, the CSM story is interesting – I didn’t know they’d changed the UCMJ last year so contracters could be prosecuted, missed that somehow – and somebody ought to bring it up but it’s not really background. Go for it. (Did get one nugget I might look into: the Lexington Institute is a new on on me. Don’t know how – if – it relates but I’d like to find out who they are.)

Fourth: some serious stuff might help

Or sink out of sight entirely. I tend to write longer, more cohesive pieces on the weekend because I have more time. Naturally, my readership nosedives practically into single digits between Fri afternoon and Mon morning. I wouldn’t want to do the same thing to CFLF, which I have come to enjoy writing for. Might be better if I posted it at Witness and then just linked to it at some point.

Anyway, Michael only invited me for a few days and I’ve been hanging around for 2 solid weeks. I’m already risking serious guest-blogger-overstaying-welcomeness. Sending your weekend numbers down the stackpipe would be, like, “Jeez, man, don’t you know when to quit? Haven’t you done enough damage? Can’t you, like, find someplace else to haunt?” I wouldn’t want to do that. I’d like to be invited back sometime. Michael said something about maybe the first 2 weeks in Oct while he’s off water-skiing in the Channeled Scablands – if he can’t find somebody better. (Michael! Doghouse O’Riley! Forgot to mention him, and he’s a dynamite writer, one of the best whether he’s being funny or serious. Bats Left Throws Right. Check it out.) Wouldn’t want to risk that.

All in all, might be smarter to quit while I’m marginally ahead.

Second. If you’re going to do the next follow up on Blackwater, I won’t step on your toes, just merely offer a link that a friend sent to me, if it helps.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0921/p03s03-woiq.html

In Version 1.0, the Iraqi govt claims that Blackwater, returning from an assignment to guard state dept diplomats, interfered in a traffic stop without either permission or provocation. Simply because a car by-passed the checkpoint, they got out of their vehicles and began firing indiscriminately on it.

That isn’t good for Blackwater. It makes them a rogue operation whose employees are little more than gunslingers who act on their own, without orders, regard for the law, or interest in the safety of civilians. Bad.

In Version 2.0, Blackwater was the target of an insurgent attack in which a bomb of some sort was the trigger to set off small-arms fire from snipers. Blackwater merely returned that fire in order to defend itself.

This isn’t any better. It means that the insurgents have decided to make war on Blackwater in exactly the same way they make war on US troops because they’ve decided there’s no difference between them. Very bad. If this develops, it means the company charged with protecting govt officials has itself become a target, thereby endangering those officials even more.

CHANCES THAT BLACKWATER WILL LEAVE IRAQ:

About the same as the chance that Halliburton will be exiled to make way for Iraqi companies to take on the reconstruction with Iraqi workers. And for the same reasons.

The New York Times has a very informative article up this morning by Sabrina Tavernise and James Glanz about the Blackwater/Nisour Sqaure shooting. The article focuses on the Iraqi government claim that Blackwater security contractors opened fire unpro…