As some of my returning readers might remember, I occasionally complain when politicians do something that shows their utter contempt for people, and indicates how stupid they think you are. However, I think I'm learning that they really are right. Perhaps it's time for me to join them as the anointed and simply lord over people because they really are stupid.

According to a Fox News Poll, Americans really are dumb. The headline was "Bag Searches Yes, Racial Profiling No," but it could have been "People are just idiots."

76% of people believe random searches are "a necessary action" in "today's times."
60% of people believe random searches are effective ways to prevent future terrorist attacks.

65% of people think that personal safety is more important than liberty.
64% are willing to give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism

49% of people disapprove of using racial or ethnic profiling in the fight on terrorism.

I think America has indeed changed. If this poll accurately reflects the attitudes of Americans today, we are no longer the country that was formed in 1776, and we have no hope of ever being that great country again. This country was founded on individual liberty -- once that's removed, this country is not a representative republic. I think it's time to move to a compound in MT.

Linkly love for Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:20 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

Folks, we really need to change lawsuit rules in this country. I don't think most people realize how much lawsuits affect the prices you pay for everything. Many people also don't understand, or simply don't care, where the money comes from that they get in a lawsuit.

For example, if you sue the school system, you're getting money from ME and YOU in higher taxes! That's insane. Government should get out of the school system and then that won't be a problem. When you sue a company, that simply creates higher prices for everyone to pay for the lawsuit and insurance. And then you just have complete, total idiots:

Elizabeth C. Wallenberg, fool from New York City, is apparently suing Con Ed. Why? Because she was burned when she fell off a skateboard onto a manhole cover and got burned. Apparently it's Con Ed's fault that their manhole cover gets hot when the sun shines on it. Perhaps she's be happier if she fell into an open manhole?

Hey, Miss Wallenberg, you are an idiot. And yes, I would say that to her face, were she standing here in front of me. This is completely wrong. You are costing the people of New York money because Con Ed has to pay to defend this moronic lawsuit. Everyone will have to pay higher utility fees because YOU wanted some free money because YOU fell on the ground.

We should change the rules of lawsuits -- when Miss Wallenberg loses this lawsuit, she should be required to pay all court costs, pay the lawyer's fees for Con Ed, and then be fined a punitive amount to ensure she won't cost taxpayers money for her foolishness again. That's what an evil business would have to do if they lost, wouldn't they?

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

1 She is one of the many playing Judiciary Lotto, hoping for a payoff, mostly on the odds that even a small payoff before trial is better for a large corporation than the cost of any trial and lawyer fees. I'm with you, make her pay for all court costs and lawyer fees on both sides for filing a dumb law suit. Then make the judge who permitted such a travisty forfit ( I never could spell) his pay and step down to let someone with more wisdom sit in his/her place. And we wonder why the court docket is full...

Posted by: TF Stern at July 25, 2005 06:09 PM (dz3wA)

2 Well, most of these problems are brought on by money hungry lawyers, some of these guys shouldn't even be allowed in the courthouse.

Posted by: J.R. at July 25, 2005 06:09 PM (VQYgi)

3 I'm with you, TF. It almost makes me angry enough to want to go to law school and become a lawyer. In NC, until very recently, you didn't have to be a lawyer to be a judge -- and that was a good thing! And you're on too, JR -- but if the plantiff is fined and has to pay the lawyer's fees, the lawyers won't find so many idiots to file suits.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 06:33 PM (L0IGK)

4 I was under the impression that the manhole cover was hot due to an electrical problem in the equipment that it was covering and that it could have killed somebody, nevermind severely burning her...

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 07:54 PM (kKZTW)

5 That's not in any reports I've seen. I've only seen it reported that the cover was hot...and it's 90+ degrees there, so I'm quite sure a manhole cover just sitting out in the sun will surely burn you.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 08:03 PM (L0IGK)

6 looked it up, the manhole was covering steam equipment and so it was hotter than it would have been if it had just been the sun. I think that she's entitled to her medical costs.

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 08:13 PM (kKZTW)

7 This news report: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/330332p-282308c.html says her lawsuit is based on an "excessive buildup of steam."

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 08:13 PM (L0IGK)

8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102057.html

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 08:15 PM (kKZTW)

9 you post too fast :p Anyway, I don't think it's as cut and dry to make a good example of a frivolous lawsuit. If she can show that the steam was in fact heating the manhole cover to a dangerous temperature then she does have a case.

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 08:16 PM (kKZTW)

10 I think we both hit "publish" at the same time there... I'm still not convinced she's entitled to her medical costs -- but that's not what she's going for. She is suing because of "excruciating pain, disability and grotesque cosmetic disfigurement" -- nowhere is it listed that she wants medical costs. And she wants "unspecified damages" -- which means as much cash as she can get, NOT medical bills.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 08:23 PM (L0IGK)

11 Here in Canada she'd be entitled to ZIP! She get patched up in a government funded hospital... if she had the time to sit around for hours before anybody would see her. Then, if she tried to make a court case out of it, she'd likely get laughed out of court. It's interesting how our two systems differ. Our government paid healthcare sucks; but our courts are pretty tight when it comes to dealing out cash. Both systems have their problems... there's got to be an inbetween someplace.

Posted by: Debris Trail at July 26, 2005 01:38 AM (Y1ykG)

12 Debris, indeed, she should get nothing here. However, if it gets to a jury, there's no telling if she'll get a pile of idiots on the jury or not. Either way, it's a tremendous waste of time and money and drain on the legal system. And yes, Jassalasca, the cases can be thrown out -- but even doing that takes up way too much time and taxpayer money, and in this case, money from everyone in the form of ConEd having to pay for lawyers to GET the case thrown out. And thanks for the link!

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:48 AM (L0IGK)

13 I would guess that you have lost more in opportunity cost by churning this factlet than it will add to a ConEd customer's bill. From the decor of your site I wouldn't take you for a communist, but a Soviet apparatchik would have felt right at home with the argument you've just made. The collective interest should trump individual troublemakers from the get-go, it's too costly to hear them out. Worked pretty good so long as their luck held out, but Chernobyl was a bit of a downer.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 06:38 AM (jeXxM)

14 Wow. I've been called lots of nasty things over the years, but I don't think anyone has ever called me a communist (or a Soviet) before. Then again, I guess if my idea that idiots should not be able to rule over the people and that individuals should not be allowed to force millions of other people to pay more money for their own personal stupidity; and if the communist system were instead based on freedom and the individual; then I'd be a communist. I find your first statement interesting in that you presume to charge individuals just a small amount and that any fines that are required would only add a little to the customer's bill -- as if you have the sole right to determine how much each person should pay, and you know how much is a little for every person. It tells volumes of your position on the individual, freedom, and capitalism when you make such statements. I'll be waiting patiently for your next argument that it's "for the children."

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 06:55 AM (/k+l4)

15 Anytime you give people rights, some people will try to abuse them. It's the nature of the beast. So if you're going to give people rights, you need to have some way of sorting out the real claims from the garbage. That's what legal process is used for -- even in the military. It does cost money. If everyone followed the spirit and the letter of the rules, the costs would be zero, but they never are. That's why we have managers (and Dilbert). That's why we have IRS audits (and accountants). That's why we have police (and Internal Affairs). Enforcement overheads are part of the cost of doing business, and every enterprise that wants to survive factors those costs into its budget. Anyone who doesn't is living in fantasy land, because you just can't will away the possibility of dishonesty. People sometimes cheat, that's the way they are. If you don't believe me, ask Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh because they know better than either of us.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 08:18 AM (jeXxM)

16 And I completely agree with you. The place we seem to disagree, and correct me if I'm wrong, is in that WHO should pay. I think the person who causes the additional expenditure, especially when that cost falls upon taxpayers, should pay the additional money. In other words, in a case where a person brings a frivolous lawsuit, they should be forced to pay the cost of the lawsuit, not the company being sued.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 08:58 AM (/k+l4)

17 “Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an independent consulting firm, reports that in 2002, the total costs from tort litigation jumped by 13 percent to $233 billion. That's an astonishing 2.23 percent of our entire Gross National Product, and these costs are passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. According to the Department of Treasury, this "tort tax" works out to $809 for every individual and more than $3,200 for a family of four, every year,” I am with you comrade Ogre (nudge nudge). Too many people manipulate the system and the biggest reason is, they have nothing to lose. I read we are the only country that does not have a loser pays scenario or no deterrent for frivolous lawsuits. And since our Congress has no ties to trial lawyers, I am certain a "loser pays" legislation would pass unanimously.

Posted by: tomslick at July 26, 2005 09:34 AM (xNjHI)

18 Thanks for the really, really disgusting numbers, Tomslick! Certainly, "loser pays" legislation would reduce costs of doing business and costs of goods across the board. And you're right, I'm sure such legislation would fly through the Congress...sigh. I can't count how many times I see people just playing the lawsuit lottery, hoping to get rich off other people's backs, without working. It's disgusting and the people who do it should be called out for the lazy, good-for-nothing bums they are.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 09:58 AM (/k+l4)

19 She is one of the reasons so many people hate lawyers. That a lawyer would take this case is pathetic. Hell, next you will see warnings on manhole covers that say "caution, sun heats metal." Assinine. I would smack anyone coming into my office with this type of complaint. Too bad she didn't break her neck when falling off that skateboard. Arghhh!

Posted by: Oddybobo at July 26, 2005 10:44 AM (6Gm0j)

20 But, Oddy, it's apparently not her fault the manhole cover wasn't made of soft foam. Next she'll sue the city for running steam pipes underground!

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 11:01 AM (/k+l4)

21 @Ogre: I'm going to lose my temper slightly and suggest that you read things. Read the full account of the case, linked by Flannel Avenger above. Then read Rule 11 of the FRCP that I've linked above. Then read this case: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-256.ZS.html It's a Supreme Court case affirming the assessment of one million dollars in legal against a party, for wasting the court's time. As it happens, the case raised in your post isn't a frivolous case, but if it was, the judge would have perfect freedom to do exactly what you are suggesting. There is no point getting into a lather about this one.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 04:31 PM (jeXxM)

22 @tomslick: Tillinghast-Towers Perrin works for the insurance industry, which oddly enough is reporting record profits lately. The report you cite lumps everything the insurance industry spends on settling claims under the heading "litigation costs". Including the vast majority of cases that never involve a lawyer. It also uses figures provided by the insurance industry without questioning them. It's exactly the kind of dishonest reporting that would get a lawyer sanctioned under Rule 11. If you "read we are the only country that does not have a loser pays scenario or no deterrent for frivolous lawsuits," then your reading material is lying to you. As noted above, US courts do have tools for deterring frivolous lawsuits. The loser pays principle -- what a high-ranking conservative barrister once described to me as "trial by ambush" -- is not the rule in the United States of America, but your country is not alone in that. You could mount an argument for introducing it, but the country that does (England) suspends it in cases involving people with limited means. England also has a robust legal aid system, which the United States of America lacks. Introducing the former without the latter would take you right back to Chernobyl. If you're going to be the permanent party of power, you could do well to broaden your reading list. http://www.employerhealth_why_is_this_site_blocked_pray_tell.com/EHR_sample_pages/sp2277.htm http://www.atlanet.org/pressroom/sreports/TillinghastResponse.asp http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 05:43 PM (jeXxM)

23 I'm not saying it's not possible that loser pays, it's just very, very, very, very unlikely and almost unheard of. In fact, on a case where I served as a juror, we, the jury WANTED to make the loser pay for the defendant's fees, we wanted to fine the plaintiff who was clearly full of crap. The JUDGE refused to let us. He simply told us that we could not do that. So while it is POSSIBLE, it is very, very unlikely and certainly not the standard. I want it to be the standard, not the occasional exception. I'd also hesitate to say that America has a weak legal aid system -- that's all we need is yet another damn government program wasting even more of the money that I earn.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:54 PM (L0IGK)

24 Yes, fee shifting is a question for the judge. It pains me to say it, but juries are too unpredictable to be given that power -- as you know, they can be swayed by all sorts of sob stories, and lawyers are masters of deception. If the case you sat on involved a significant amount of money, the lawyers on both sides would have known more about your fellow jurors than you could possibly have learned about them during the term of the case. In England, there is no jury at all in civil actions (except for defamation cases). "Loser pays" does not describe exactly how the English system works. Defendant can make a firm offer at any time before the trial begins. Plaintiff can choose to accept the offer or press on. If plaintiff carries the case to trial and recovers less than the payment in, the judge may shift defendant's fees to the plaintiff. Otherwise the fees may shift the other way. This arrangement saves court time by encouraging the parties to settle outside of court. It punishes weak parties. It does not punish weak claims. One big reason for not applying this treatment to legal aid cases (i.e. lawsuits filed by people who are not rich) is that it would do exactly nothing to discourage them from filing strike suits anyway. Economic sanctions don't work against people who don't have anything that you can take away from them. Legal aid (in which the lawyer does not collect a fat fee for winning the case) does a better job of sorting the wheat from the chaff in this category of cases than the payment-in rule would do. As for not trusting government with your hard earned money, what can I say. Judging from the catastrophic performance of the current administration, I think I know exactly how you feel.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 09:10 PM (ZkHgJ)

25 Except for that bit where the lawyers work for free, the system you describe isn't too bad. However, as you know, here in America, the people are completely trusted to do what's right. Juries HAVE the absolute power to determine damages and fines, even over the judge's opinion. However, many judges do not like that, and most people do not know enough to challenge it. We are, for all practical purposes, an oligarchy today, no matter what the actual laws dictate. I'm also sorry that you are so filled with hate for President George Bush.

Posted by: Ogre at July 27, 2005 06:02 AM (L0IGK)

26 JJ - I couldn't open all the links for some reason, but I did get into the trial lawyer site. Not a big surprise there. 2 sides to every story for sure. What makes me shake my head in disbelief are things,,,,, Like this In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles. Or this In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn’t operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman’s parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 – nearly twice the legal limit) couldn’t open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen’s death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case. This In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame. lol and this In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court. In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn’t doing him much good during the ten years he’s serving for armed robbery. Not to mention this In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn’t earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out. And this lucky pain endurer In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer’s large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like “cement blocks” hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied Take a look at some warning labels such as product may cause drowsiness on sleeping pills. Do not use while wearing clothes on irons. Are these necessary? Maybe if a fly lands on my head, I will try to kill it using a hammer. I could get a good buck off of Stanley for that. It has gotten to the point where the juducial system is a free for all. Some people will sue for anything. How many times do insurance companies pay because it would cost them more in legal fees than to fight the lawsuit? I am not saying that companies should not be accountable for what they produce, but consumers with no common sense should not ride the gravy train for doing stupid things.

Posted by: tomslick at July 28, 2005 10:34 AM (xNjHI)

27 Good examples, TomSlick. Indeed, our current civil "justice" system has turned into nothing more than a lottery.

Posted by: Ogre at July 28, 2005 10:46 AM (/k+l4)

28 Loser Pays America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is. . . . Continue reading... http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/ More damn lies I guess. Help me out here JJ I tried searching for frivolous lawsuits in Europe, Canada, Germany, France, international, etc, but all I came up with was the lawsuit against Donald Rumsfield. I then tried frivolous lawsuits in the US and only got 302,000 hits. Great topic as usual Ogre, I am learning things. I have learned we have more lawyers in California than there are in Europe for one. And also remember, we will accept no money, unless we win some for you.

Posted by: tomslick at July 28, 2005 01:38 PM (xNjHI)

29 That reminds me of an old joke, Tomslick. I'm not sure if I'll be prosecuted for a hate crime, but I'm not in New Jersey, so this might still be legal: What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. (Sorry Oddybobo)

Posted by: Ogre at July 28, 2005 07:56 PM (L0IGK)

30 I howled when I read this one. Sorry Oddy in advance So the lawyer is cross-examining the doctor about whether or not he had checked the pulse of the deceased before he signed the death certificate. "No," the doctor said, "I did not check his pulse." "And did you listen for a heartbeat?" said the lawyer. "No, I did not," said the doctor. "So," said the lawyer, "when you signed the death certificate, you had not taken steps to make sure he was dead." The doctor said, "Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out practicing law somewhere."

Posted by: tomslick at July 29, 2005 10:46 AM (xNjHI)

31 ROFL! Oh, we're hoping Oddy is having a good day when she reads this...

Posted by: Ogre at July 29, 2005 11:08 AM (/k+l4)

32 The key, as stated above, is 'notice pleading'. Ms. Wallenberg, by her attorney, is permitted to aver, as generally as she likes, what she thinks is a cause of action, most likely for negligence -- be it the allegedly-negligent design of the manhole cover in retaining heat from the shining sun, or whatever allegedly-negligent buildup of heat may have resulted from the underground steam. The costs have already begun to incur, from the time of the filing the lawsuit, when Con Ed defends itself in litigation. Once a judge is assigned, in the course of 'discovery', all of the 'facts' of the case will begin to emerge. The bulk of the costs will aggregate when both sides engage in heavy research to produce some quantum of proof of the cause of Ms. Wallenberg's injury. Gathering NYC codes, regulations, permits, Con Ed practices, prior lawsuits, safety memoranda, expert engineers, witnesses, medical experts, and other documentary evidence, etc.etc. does NOT come cheap! To me, that's where Ms. Wallenberg should be required to pay for burdening the courts and society for what could most likely turn out to be a grandiose waste of time, resources and money, in an attempt prove what could be a fabricated, frivolous, baseless claim. Thank you very much.

Posted by: Binkley at August 03, 2005 12:53 AM (94Pt6)

33 You are certainly right there, Binkley. From what I've seen in the legal system, sometimes the lawyer actually picks up those costs, because they think they will be recovered, but other times the plaintiff has to pay them in advance, to be reimbursed if and when they win. Either way, Con Ed has to pay for their defense. I agree that if you sue someone and you lose, you should be liable for their costs there.

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:57 AM (L0IGK)

34 Me again, popping back in to grab the link. While I'm at it ... Oh, why bother. I could point out to tomslick that, before reaching for Google, he should note that they speak OTHER LANGUAGES in most of these countries. I could also drop a hint th since the phoney conservatism industry hasn't gotten a foothold in most of them, they don't spend so much of their time on hysterical whining. I could, in between gusts of laughter, indicate that if juries were put in control of, er, everything in litigation (thanks for that one, Ogre), litigation costs would rise to a point where even ConEd couldn't afford to use the legal system. But you're not listening, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that as a tort case, this claim will be litigated in a state court. Don't you think it's up to the people of New York to decide what sort of procedural rules should govern litigation in THEIR state? Or is this suddenly an exception to the whole States' Rights thing? Top-down, federally mandated rules for, oh, everything, are GOOD, so long as they work to the advantage of an insurance or an energy company? A laugh a minute, guys. Thanks for the bundle of contradictions. I'll be on my way again, now ...

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at August 11, 2005 05:17 PM (jeXxM)

35 Uh, thanks for dropping by, I think... I'm not sure anyone knows what the "phoney conservatism industry" is...or what state vs. federal has to do with this, but, glad to provide entertainment, that is one of my goals!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:43 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In case you're living under a rock, perhaps you don't know that Lance Armstrong won another Tour de France. When I told someone this yesterday, the response was, "Really? Well that's no surprise."

Have you ever tried to win this race? It's no simple matter. The idea that one person could be the absolute best cyclist in the world for seven years in a row is incredible to me. I'm not the best in the world at ANYTHING, much less able to do it year after year while younger people are trying to beat you.

Lance Armstrong, congratulations on an awesome win!

Posted by: Ogre at 01:03 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Congrats to Lance. One could make a fair argument that he is the best athlete in the documented history of the world. What he has accomplished is nothing short of historic, amazing, and almost unbelievable.

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at July 25, 2005 03:21 PM (Er9BL)

2 I think it would be a tough argument that he's not the greatest athlete ever.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 06:02 PM (L0IGK)

3 Wow, look at those muscles.

Posted by: Sissy at July 25, 2005 11:00 PM (uXS+O)

4 I'm with Sissy. I could never to get my calves to look like that. Sheesh.

Posted by: Bou at July 25, 2005 11:41 PM (5JHEt)

5 Stop that, Sissy! And Bou, if you had muscles that looked like that, well, they just wouldn't look right on you... especially the lats...

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:34 AM (L0IGK)

6 lmao that's so funny, my first thought was WOW look at those calves!

Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 26, 2005 10:33 PM (0Ea9a)

7 I thought they were kinda skinny myself...

Posted by: Ogre at July 27, 2005 06:03 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At Bush Gardens, they have an exhibit where they rehabilitate wild bald eagles. They really are awesome to watch and see up close.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Despite what the screaming Democrats are saying, Britain, we're still here, and we're still with you. And you Democrats (and the French) who claim we brought this on ourselves, feel free to shove your head back in the sand, I'm not going to.

Terrorists, that's strike two. I think some strategic bombing of Mecca is in order. With strike three, we break out the serious weaponry.

They have decided to escalate this, so let's escalate. Increased weaponry and destruction. More bunker busters. More flamethrowers. Bigger cannons. More "torture" at Gitmo. In case some of you still don't get it -- this IS a religious war. They will not stop until they are dead. I want this to stop.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Today is the day for the Stop the ACLU blogburst. They were announcing the opening of a new site to fight the communists in the ACLU from destroying America.

However, today, we pause from our normal goings-on to pray and think of the poor, innocent victims of the cowardly terrorists who desire to destroy all "unbelievers." Those that I know from across the great pond are well, but my thoughts and prayers are with those who were not so fortunate.

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it best, and Mr. Blair, we stand tall with you:

"We will not be terrorized."

Posted by: Ogre at 04:20 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Found via Mrs. Satan(?), What July Fourth Means to Me- By Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

...

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Go here for the complete document.

I guess what I really wonder is how the colonists really felt that the time. From what they have outlined, they were very oppressed - be we certainly are today. They had trouble with the ruling class not applying laws to themselves - as our legislators do today. They complained about centralized power that overruled their governors -- as the federal government does to states quite often today.

They complained that the King "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" -- as the federal government certainly does today. They complained about the King cutting off trade with all parts of the world -- as our federal government does today.

The American Patriots seemed to face an oppressive king that did many things that our federal government does today. But they had the guts and the willingness to give up everything they had, including their lives, to make this land a better place. I wish we had some true American Patriots today.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:00 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.