« Photo of the Day | Main | Fish. Barrel. No Bullets Needed. »

January 26, 2009

Coffee Snorters: Savor the Irony Edition

Via Casey at the Castle, Plaxico Burress with a public service announcement about gun safety:

So much for the Obama team's promise to end extraordinary rendition:

"What the president put forth was very wise. He said he's going to close Guantanamo, take the time to do it. You can't just go down there today and say, 'Everybody out,' and lock the door. They're going to review the cases, narrow it down and then go from there. ... It's brilliant," she said on ABC's "This Week."

Vice President Biden, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," said the prison must be closed because the symbolism of Guantanamo around the world has resulted in the growth of terrorist organizations, not their reduction.

"There's no question it has to be closed. And we don't think it's inconsistent to deal with our national security and our Constitution. ... That's why we have the White House counsel -- Mr. Craig is now going through this meticulously, deciding what we're going to do with each and every prisoner," he said.

Biden added that if the detainees went through the civilian court system and were somehow released, they still would not be sent out into the United States because all but one is an American citizen [Ed. note: huh???]

"If they are not a U.S. citizen or if they are not here legally, then, even if they were released by a federal judge, they would not be able to stay here in the United States. They would be sent back to their country of origin. They would not stay here," Biden said.

"They have no legal status to stay here, I don't anticipate that happening. What I anticipate happening is that those people who are in a situation where it is either the evidence is in question or it's going to be hard to make a case, we will most likely be rendering them back to their countries of origin or another country," he continued, adding that some countries have already agreed to establish prison facilities for the detainees.

So apparently, "change we can believe in" entails a return to pre-9/11 mentality on rendition?

Posted by Cassandra at January 26, 2009 07:25 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2647

Comments

Luvvitt.

We're now gonna do the exact same thing the Left spent the last four years screaming we *shouldn't* do -- send 'em to countries that routinely torture prisoners.

I luvvitt, I luvvitt, I luvvitt....

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 10:19 AM

So much for the Obama team's promise to end extraordinary rendition * * * So apparently, "change we can believe in" entails a return to pre-9/11 mentality on rendition?

We're now gonna * * * send 'em to countries that routinely torture prisoners.

Wholly uncalled-for conclusions - insofar as it is suggested that the current administration intends to /will render detainees to regimes under which the latter can reasonably expected to be tortured. Logic. Chemistry for knowledge.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 26, 2009 10:57 AM

Try facts:

http://www.yobserver.com/local-news/10015628.html

The Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said Saturday that a total of 94 Yemeni Guantanamo detainees will be released to Yemen within three months.

He said Yemen had refused an offer from the former US administration to the release the Yemeni men to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation.

"We refused the offer to release the Yemenis to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation, and we told them we would establish our own centre for rehabilitating them and helping them get rid of extremism and violence," said President Saleh in an annual conference for security leaders held in Sana'a Saturday.

"Now, within 60-90 days, 94 Yemeni detainees will be here among us," he said

Yemen "routinely tortures" its prisoners. Including children:

Mohamed Yahya Saleh al-Kuaayd, “I am 14 years old from Marran. When they arrested me, they told me it is for security reasons. I am in prison since about three months. They took me from my house and to answer to the commander. Then they transferred me to Abs. A Colonel from Abs camp told us that he wants true information from us or he will kill us. We were four young boys. Then they transferred us to the political security where we were beaten very hard and broke my arm and treated it later. They kept us in closed cells where no fresh air and refused to allow using the lavatory. “

Yahya Mohammed Kasem Gahaf, “I am 14 years old. They took me from my house and asked me to answer to the commander. They imprisoned me at Al-Gamima. They kept me there for nine days, two of them without food or drink. We were nine of us. After that they transferred us to Al-Khamees where the soldiers beat us by their rifles kicked us, they degraded us, they insulted our families. The soldiers told us that they will take us to Al-Hodaidah and … After that they transferred to the security police where I am now in prison for two months and half.”

Abdulrahim Quail Abdullah, “I am 14 years old. They took me from the street while I was going to the school – AlTadamoun School at AlMajazeen and asked me to answer to the commander for two hours and I will go back to school. Then they jailed me in an underground for a month. They opened the door every other day. They denied us pray. Police investigator said to me, “Tell the truth and I will let you go home." but they transferred me to Abs and then to the political security. I am in prison now with my father, my uncle, and my brother. We have a big family that nobody taking care of. I am in prison since three months and what happened to my colleagues has happened to me.”

Zakarya Hussein Ahmad, “I am 14 years old I was jailed at Khamees Mrran where for 7 days then they transferred me to the political security, my leg is injured, a soldier shot it. I am in prison now with my father, and 3 of my uncles. We have a family that nobody is taking care of.”

Posted by: Cassandra at January 26, 2009 11:21 AM

I remember the USS COLE.

I don't trust Saleh.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Posted by: vet66 at January 26, 2009 11:33 AM

I question whether Pelosi has the intelligence or knowledge to reach a conclusion that anything is "brilliant".

As for Biden's rambling incoherent rants, there's a certain amount of vacuum between Biden's ears. When the vacuum negative pressure builds to too great a point, he's got to open his mouth to let some words out and some air in.

I particularly appreciate Biden's point that Obama's White House counsel is going to do a "meticulous job" to decide what to do with each Gitmo detainee. We've substituted one man's judgement for that of a military tribunal subject to a series of procedural safeguards, Biden thinks that's a good thing.

To call Pelosi and Biden idiots would be unfair to idiots.

Posted by: Mike Myers at January 26, 2009 11:46 AM

Wholly uncalled-for conclusions - insofar as it is suggested that the current administration intends to /will render detainees to regimes under which the latter can reasonably expected to be tortured.

I didn't suggest the administration would do it, Joe Biden *stated* the administration would do it: " 'They would be sent back to their country of origin. They would not stay here,' Biden said."

Logic. Chemistry for knowledge.

Reading comprehension. Chemistry for logic.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 12:48 PM

Not only was Binden's statement that they would return inmates to their countries of origin (many of which are known to routinely torture prisoners) *included* in the original post. It was even in bold.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 26, 2009 01:00 PM

Or, maybe they just all let them go. Insolent kids that do not understand Islam and the Prophet need to be tortured, don't they?

Run away, run away
Blow something up
Some other day

But it is brilliant because all the right people said so. And not stoopid, like that eviiiil Booosh! How conveeeenient!

And our super-friends' allies like France and Germany will like us again. Yay! They'll like us, they'll really like us!
'Cause we're good enough and smart enough and..... BOOOOM!

Oops.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 26, 2009 01:07 PM

I don't trust Saleh.

I don't either, but if they bust out of jail, there's always the Hellfire Option on the road out of Sana'a...

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 01:10 PM

My comment upon the Age of Aquarius® solution to the Gitmo detainees can be summarized by the editorial staff's note...

"[Ed. note: huh???]"
or in the Neanderthals-Я-US restrained vernacular, WTH?!

Regarding logic and its country cousin, common sense, I can't help but wonder, WWTPS (What would Thomas Paine Say)? That little document has legs.

One last item, a confession actually. Yesterday, in a moment of irrational exuberance while overwhelmed by the sound of the mighty wind of tens of thousands of Obamaton's making a great noise. A noise of hallowed, or empty, pledges sounding as if a great vacuum had been broken like the one described by Mike Meyers, I pledged to help some poor unfortunates with some small arms assistance. After reading this thread, I now realize that Plaxico Burress is infinitely more suited to the sort of instruction that I pledged to provide to the poor unfortunates I had in mind. And so with a heavy heart, I'll have to step aside and fall back on my pledge of not leaving the lights on and maybe I'll throw in that I will not flip off progressives in traffic, as a kicker, metaphorically speaking.

Posted by: bthun at January 26, 2009 01:43 PM

Reading comprehension. Chemistry for logic.

Umm humm. BillT. Didn't Biden say (in the self-same referenced article, and indeed in the post) ". . . we will most likely be rendering them back to their countries of origin or another country,". "or" is a disjunctive.

And, really, peeps - assuming for purposes of argument that it has been established that "Yemen routinely tortures prisoners" (whatever "routinely" means) has it been established that "Yemen invariably tortures all persons under detention" ? Obviously not.

The real question, as always, is whether or not the delivery of person X to sovereign Y is reasonably likely to result in the torture of said person X. These are individualized inquiries, except where torture of "detainees" is a matter of inflexibly imposed state policy.

Frankly, I don't know how good or bad Yemen is (for example) on the humanitarian front, "as a general matter". I do know that nothing in the original post or the linked-to article or in any subsequent material posted has cleared this up.

What I know, too, is that more than one Joe or Josephine here are more than willing to jump to conclusions, and then -- when pressed -- to go on to foolishly deny that there's been any leaping at all. Leapin' Lizards, indeed!

Posted by: hoover1 at January 26, 2009 01:44 PM

What I know, too, is that more than one Joe or Josephine here are more than willing to jump to conclusions, and then -- when pressed -- to go on to foolishly deny that there's been any leaping at all. Leapin' Lizards, indeed!

Who pressed, pray tell? Certainly not you, because you only authored the single comment.

And who foolishly denied leaping to conclusions?

*NO* body. Except in your own mind.

Reading comprehension, laddie-buck...

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 01:52 PM

Oh BillT. What an unserious fellow thou art.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 26, 2009 01:55 PM

Umm humm. BillT. Didn't Biden say (in the self-same referenced article, and indeed in the post) ". . . we will most likely be rendering them back to their countries of origin or another country,". "or" is a disjunctive.

Umm humm, hoover 1. Rendition to "another country" requires the willingness of that other country to first agree to *accept* those renditioned -- and the only countries in the past that have agreed to accept people we detained as terrorist suspects have had somewhat spotty records with regards to Human Rights.

Which is the reason I commented on it 'way up top -- the Left spent four years screaming that it would be inhumane to send them there.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 01:59 PM

The point (since you seem to have trouble with that whole nuance thing) is that pre-9/11, we rendered terrorism suspects to countries with a record of torturing detainees.

No claim was made that they would "invariably" or even inevitably be tortured. Nice straw man. But Yemen's record on that score is not good and no amount of posturing on your part is going to make it good :p

Bottom line: releasing 90-odd detainees to a repressive country with little or no respect for due process and no way of ensuring they won't be tortured is a "win" for the Obama administration in exactly the same way it was a win for the Clinton administration: it will allow them to turn a blind eye to whatever happens next and pretend they have clean hands.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 26, 2009 01:59 PM

Oh BillT. What an unserious fellow thou art.

I can outunserious anybody in the house.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 02:00 PM

the Left spent four years screaming that it would be inhumane to send them there...

Yep. And Nan Pelosi doesn't want them in her back yard either! Just sweep 'em under the rug so America can finally "hold her head high" :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 26, 2009 02:01 PM

"I can outunserious anybody in the house."
Sir, when it comes to political policy movers-n-shakers, I look to your example with the hope that I will some day be considered adequate in this regard. *salute*
"Posted by: Cassandra at January 26, 2009 01:59 PM"
M'lady, It is indeed a wonder how the outrage only occurred during the 43rd administration...

Posted by: bthun at January 26, 2009 02:13 PM

So no more Compassionate Conservatism? Now Liberal Expediency?

Posted by: Ree at January 26, 2009 02:17 PM

Interestingly enough, I spent some time searching the NY Times web site from 1990 to 2000 for some - indeed ANY mention of the Clinton era rendition program or the men who were executed and tortured after we rendered them to Egypt under Clinton and Gore.

*crickets chirping*

Posted by: Why am I not surprised? at January 26, 2009 02:21 PM

It's not news (or, apparently a human rights violation) unless Bill Keller decides we need to know about it.

And if a Democrat ordered it, we don't need to know :p

Posted by: Why am I not surprised? at January 26, 2009 02:22 PM

"...or another country,". "or" is a disjunctive."

Yep, because we render a ton of people to Cananda, England and Australia. /sarcasm

Last I heard from the left, the only reason for rendition was to subvert due process and cruel/unusual punishment.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 26, 2009 02:42 PM

No, Yu-Ain, the *last* you heard from the Left was that it was a "brilliant" idea.

Much like increasing taxes to take more money out of circulation in order to stimulate spending is a "brilliant" idea.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 02:53 PM

To Cassandra-

What the point of my post was, was to comment that your assertion/suggestion represented a regrettable lack of logic. That is unrebutted.

I was making no comment about what did or did not happen, re: renditions, during the Clinton years or the Bush years. I was commenting on your assertion (or "implication", if you object to "assertion") that the referenced remarks indicated that the present Administration intended to engage in "unlawful renditions" (renditions into likely torture).

Of course, you may wish to change "the point" of the thread, by introducing all manner of material and argument and conjecture that was not present in the original post. And you may want to call those who did not foresee this subsequent argument (etc.) -- and who manifestly did not comment upon same -- as lacking in "nuance". And of course, that is your right. Doesn't make it true, of course, but this is America - we all get to say whatever damn fool thing we want to.

Anyhow. I for one hope that Obama will not engage in unlawful renditions. I expect that some who post on this board couldn't care less about renditions being lawful or not, and that the interest of some is simply to tar the present administration - prospectively, no less! -- on the basis of feelings, not evidence of any meaningful weight or substance.

That's OK, of course. But it's not logic, and it's not reasonably calculated to result in actual "discourse" or knowledge.

Cheers.

P.S. -- Not that it is pertinent to the point *I* was making (though relevant to the Cassandra Conjecture), it strikes me that more than one Yemeni has heretofore been released from Guantanamo to Yemen, and upon return to that nation was released (fairly quickly) -- with no reported intervening torture. That's just my recollection, and it may well be faulty (and maybe it was to S.Arabia . . .). If true, however, I do think it rather undercuts THE POINT (ver. 2) of your post. You may want to check this out (or not), but please, do not do so on my behalf. I've made my point - unnuanced as it may be.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 26, 2009 02:54 PM

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has tarred anyone on the basis of feelings. The basis of the Vice President's statements is another matter:

What I anticipate happening is that those people who are in a situation where it is either the evidence is in question or it's going to be hard to make a case, we will most likely be rendering them back to their countries of origin or another country," he continued, adding that some countries have already agreed to establish prison facilities for the detainees.

And then I backed that up with an article showing that not only were nearly 100 detainees scheduled to be sent to Yemen, but that they are going to be locked up there and that Yemen DOES NOT HAVE A HISTORY OF TREATING PRISONERS WELL.

You prove amazingly willing to overlook anything that counters your world view.

Perhaps you can explain to me the difference (from the perspective of a detainee) between being detained and whisked off to Gitmo and having your horribly unfair military tribunal cancelled and being sent to Yemen, which has already announced it's going to put you in jail? Let's keep in mind that the VP said these are cases where "either the evidence is in question or it's going to be hard to make a case"

Not where one of our horrible military tribunals proved them guilty... but where we can't convict them.

I'm sure there is a difference in terms of being able to say *you* aren't the jailer any more.

I'm just not sure what the difference is to the detainee. Then perhaps you can answer this question: do the folks who are demanding these people be freed think we have any duty to actually ensure they are ... ummm.... freed if we lack the evidence to secure a conviction?

Or is it enough that WE aren't the ones holding that jail key? Or maybe saying, "Hey, maybe they won't be tortured" is enough if we can wash our hands?

Posted by: Out of sight, out of mind at January 26, 2009 03:32 PM

I've made my point - unnuanced as it may be.

The only point you've made is that you have failed to retain any information -- or social commentary -- on renditions that was presented during the preceding four years, and have attempted to convince others that your lack of knowledge means that there is an absence of that information.

In other words, "If I don't know about it, it didn't happen."

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 03:34 PM

Cass, Cass, Cass,

Don't you understand. Renditions are OK under Obama because he'll do right. We can trust him. He has a D behind his name. /lefty

BillT, thanks for the correction. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 26, 2009 04:00 PM

Practicing your unseriosity, Y-A?

*grinnn*

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 04:25 PM

Like any skill, one is never so good that you don't need practice.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 26, 2009 04:43 PM

Oh Cassandra -

You want so feverently to dislike Obama that I am sure that you will not be disappointed.

But please, spare us the crocodile tears over the release of Guantanamo detainees, to their "country of origen" or elsewhere.

Perhaps I misjudge you, but I suspect you'd just as soon have them locked forever, no matter the proof or non-proof against them.

In any event, you most certainly don't know (or don't reflect that you know) the history of the Yemeni "detainees" -- and how (for instance) scores upon scores of Saudis have been returned from Guantanamo to that special ally (notwithstanding S.Arabia's "rep" in the human rights department), while few Yemenis have been released. Do you really think that the major stumbling block for their release to Yemen has been bona fide concerns that they would be "returned to torture" ?

I do not profess (as you apparently do) to be particularly in-the-know on the Yemeni detainee issue as it relates to their return (or not) to Yemen. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of the detainees would -- if asked -- vote in favor of a return to Yemen, versus continued incarceration in the U.S. For all your posturing and bluster about looking at matters from the viewpoint of a detainee, I expect that if you're right, there will be petitions or other papers filed, and news conferences galore scheduled by the detainees' lawyers themselves.

Those, indeed, would be words worth paying attention to. Yours are mere air.

But you would have had such unfortunates to have no voice whatsoever. I don't think I've ever seen you write a kind word about the lawyers for those who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo for so long -- and lord knows, many, so very many, have been imprisoned wrongly, and unconscionably, and to the everlasting shame of the United States.

Your record as an advocate for "detainee rights", Cassandra, leaves one rather underwhelmed. And I find it approaching the epitome of hypocrisy for you and others similarly-situated to argue as you do on this issue.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 26, 2009 05:17 PM

There are some things I'm extremely good at and don't *need* to practice, which is fortunate, because in my current location, I don't have the *opportunity* to practice.

Oh -- and drinking.

I don't get to do *that*, either...

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 05:21 PM

But please, spare us the crocodile tears over the release of Guantanamo detainees, to their "country of origen" or elsewhere.

English comprehension skills as lacking as the knowledge of the subject pontificating upon.

And minus ten points for misspelling "origin," despite the fact that it is properly spelled in several locations.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 05:26 PM

Perhaps I misjudge you, but I suspect you'd just as soon have them locked forever, no matter the proof or non-proof against them.

Well now *that's* a calm, logical, fact-based argument worthy of your beliefs!

Way to go :p

Posted by: Out of sight, out of mind at January 26, 2009 05:36 PM

I do not profess (as you apparently do) to be particularly in-the-know on the Yemeni detainee issue as it relates to their return (or not) to Yemen. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of the detainees would -- if asked -- vote in favor of a return to Yemen...

You are also -- fairly obviously -- abysmally ignorant of Yemen itself, if you believe the detainees would opt for a Yemeni prison over Gitmo. What the hard core among them *want* is to resume jihad or, failing that, to become martyrs for Wahhabism.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 05:48 PM

But please, spare us the crocodile tears over the release of Guantanamo detainees, to their "country of origen" or elsewhere.

I can't speak for Cass, but I want them locked up until hostilities are over in the country they were captured from. That's pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for every other war. Don't see why this one should be any different.

I don't think I've ever seen you write a kind word about the lawyers for those who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo for so long

I've been here a long time, I can't recall her saying any word, unkind or otherwise, about the lawyers. The lawyers aren't the issue.

I find it approaching the epitome of hypocrisy for you and others similarly-situated to argue as you do on this issue.

Wait, our position on rendition *doesn't* change depending on the party affiliation of the President and the Democrat's position does, yet we're the hypocrites?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 26, 2009 05:49 PM

Interesting dilemma that this Catch-22 situation generates so much conversation. Let's consider the following;

1. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorsts who hide in the general population and don't wear a uniform;
2. The terrorists desire collateral damage to leverage public opinion in their favor;
3. Anti-Semitism is alive and well;
4. Rendition occurs as a matter of course;
5. Torture exists in the world today - OH THE HUMANITY! Insert sarcasm here.
6. Clinton and Gore practiced rendition and allowed torture to occur at arms length;
7. Habeas Corpus does not apply to terrorists;
8. Many of our putative allies routinely say one thing and do the opposite;
9. Plausible deniability is a political weapon against the truth du jour;
10. Categorically denying something means the accuser is on the right track but not there yet;

Those are some of the ground rules we are playing under. Some here who slither around the truth like a snake on a hot griddle are fooling nobody but themselves or are being deceptive.

In Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, Butch, played by Paul Newman gets in a knife fight. Butch says "We have to discuss the rules." The antagonist cries "There are no rules in a knife fight!" whereupon Butch kicks him in the groin putting an end to the knife fight.

In the two preceding paragraphs, one deals with diplomacy and political behavior while the other deals with real politic. Ask Theo Van Gogh how diplomacy worked for him.

Oh I forgot, he was stabbed to death with a note pinned to his chest with the knife blade. Habeas Corpus doesn't apply in some situations unless you are the coroner.

Posted by: vet66 at January 26, 2009 05:54 PM

And if you want some research into how well Yemen treats it's prisoners check out Jane Novak. She's essentially made her name in chronicling Yemen's proclivities for arresting it's journalists for asking the wrong questions. If you think a place that arrests people for excersizing free speach will respect it's prisoners rights more than we do at Gitmo...

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 26, 2009 06:01 PM

Of course, we're the hypocrites, Y-A. We're also racist, mouth-breathing, knuckle-draggers for pointing out that, up until one week ago, the Left had been vehemently opposed to hostile rendition for four years, but now thinks it's a brilliant, innovative idea.

Shame on us for failing to show an urbane, nuanced, situational flexibility on the subject.

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 06:03 PM

But it won't be hostile rendition. It'll be the soft fluffy snuggly kind.

Posted by: Gold-Farting Unicorn at January 26, 2009 06:08 PM

Regarding VP Biden's apparently nonsensical statement about all but one being US citizens, I found an article on CBS with a slightly different statement than the Fox News one:

Biden said the administration is being as prudent as possible, and dispelled fears that prisoners from Guantanamo who cannot be tried would be released within our borders. "We won't release people inside the United States because all but one, I believe, is not an American citizen, an American national."

I have no idea which matches what he actually said, not being willing to sit through the interview.

Sig

Posted by: Sig at January 26, 2009 06:19 PM

I think the "not" must be correct. I didn't make fun of Biden b/c frankly I suspect it's just a transcription error and I'm not going to jump all over him just because someone didn't get his quote right.

It makes far more sense with the "not" inserted, so I suspect that's what he actually said.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 26, 2009 06:22 PM

"Of course, we're the hypocrites, Y-A. We're also racist, mouth-breathing, knuckle-draggers for pointing out that, up until one week ago, the Left had been vehemently opposed to hostile rendition for four years, but now thinks it's a brilliant, innovative idea."
No wonder my ears were burning...
"But it won't be hostile rendition. It'll be the soft fluffy snuggly kind."
Thanks for the clarification G-F U. I have so much trouble keeping up with which modifier to use when discussing rendition...

Posted by: bthun at January 26, 2009 06:30 PM

My own rendition of "Scotch and Soda" on the 12-string has sometimes been described as "soulful."

Okay, it was *once* described as "soulful"...

Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 07:23 PM

What I'd like to know is how many "Scotch and Sodas" were consumed in the relative time immediately preceeding said description......and are you sure it wasn't something like, "Thaaa's sss'ahh'ful!"?
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 27, 2009 10:55 AM

I can outunserious anybody in the house.

Do over! Do over!

*ahem*

I can outunserious any man in the house.

Posted by: BillT at January 27, 2009 11:20 AM

I would say "Irreverence" is my middle name, but that would make me DL SILY. As opposed to just being unserious.

0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 27, 2009 04:02 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)