Formula 51 Mini-Review: I decided to catch the new Samuel Jackson flick, "Formula 51" in which Jackson plays a chemist who has developed a powerful mind-altering drug that is made up entirely of legal ingredients. Jackson wants to sell the formula to a drug kingpin and retire but things soon go horribly awry.

I generally like Samuel Jackson's work and I figured the movie would be a mindless yet fun action romp sort of like "XXX", "The Scorpion King", or "The Transporter." So I wasn't exactly expecting Shakespeare when I headed into the theater. But "Formula 51" was one of the worst movies I've seen this year.

The big problem with the movie was that every character you met in the movie was either a drug dealer, a thug, a crook, an assassin or a general sleazeball which made it very difficult to like any of the characters. In some movies ("Payback" comes immediately to mind), the acting and script is good enough to overcome characters who might normally be unsympathetic. Unfortunately, the scriptwriter seemed to believe that simply giving all the main characters weird quirks made them interesting enough to keep the audience's attention for an hour and a half. Samuel Jackson's boring and lackluster character wore a kilt -- whoop de doo! His "sidekick" for most of the movie really wanted to a big soccer game the next day -- uh, OK. There was also an assassin who notable only because she was female. None of them had anything interesting to say or gave you any reason to care if they lived or died.

When you combine that with a lackluster plot and very routine action sequences you come up with a movie that's actually difficult to watch all the way through. In fact, I almost got up and left a couple of times because I was so bored with the movie. Come to think of it, this is probably the worst movie I watched until the end since Leonardo Dicaprio's "The Beach." Avoid this movie like the plague -- thumbs down.

Jonah Goldberg On 'Why Europeans Don't Want A Foreign Policy': Jonah Goldberg popped off another great column today about what happens to nations that let their militaries atrophy. Here are a few excerpts from the column...

..."The point here is that the Europeans, the Japanese, and - to a somewhat lesser extent - the South Koreans argue for talking through their problems because, like a thick wad of food stamps burning a hole in their pockets, talk is pretty much the only currency they have to spend. For nearly five decades, Europe and Japan have been, in effect, living off the military credit card we gave them. We subsidized their defense and, money being fungible, they took their savings and poured it into bloated welfare states. This policy was certainly in America's interests during the Cold War, and I'm not suggesting our system of alliances is totally obsolete. But there are huge negative consequences to it.

Not only does this approach result in the U.S. receiving a disproportionate share of grief from the rest of the world, and not only does this represent a level of ingratitude that literally stuns the conscience - but it also represents a terrible strategic choice for our allies, in the long run. "Irresponsibility, resentment, and self-hatred are the inevitable consequences of excessive dependence on others," wrote Melvyn Krauss in How NATO Weakens the West."

Read the whole column, it's definitely worth a look.

The New York Times Sweetheart Deal: The State of New York and the New York Times are partnering up for one of crookedest looking land deals since the The Teapot Dome Scandal. Here are the details...

"A New York State government agency is forcing a group of business owners to leave their property by condemning it. That clears the way for a new skyscraper to go up - an office building that will house the New York Times."

"...The tax breaks and anticipated subsidies to be granted to the New York Times are expected to cost taxpayers nearly $100 million."

So the New York Times writes a story painting the area as a dilapidated slum. Then the city moves in, condemns the property and then turns around and leases it to the NYT well below market value (editor's note: correction made here). The property owners have their property confiscated, the taxpayers get screwed to the tune of $100 million dollars, and the New York Times gets an incredible deal.

To say that this whole deal reeks is an understatement. Especially since the company involved is the holier-than-thou New York Times which regularly sneers at Republicans for alleged financial chicanery that doesn't even approach this magnitude. I wonder if any of the left-wing newspapers across the country that follow the "old, grey lady" around like sheep will actually dig into this and see what they find? I wouldn't recommend holding your breathe while you wait to hear about the investigative reporting that'll be done on this one...

Convert To Islam Or Die: There are a lot of people out there who think we should try to appease men like Abu Bakar Bashir, the man some people believe planned the Bali massacre. There are also a lot of people who think we should sit around trying to figure out what we did to make men like Abu Bakar Bashir hate us.

Well when Abu Bakar Bashir was asked if he had anything to say to the families of the Bali bombing he said the following,

"My message to the families is please convert to Islam as soon as possible."

What sympathy and compassion. Then Bashir went on to let the Aussies know that they better give in to terrorism or else...

"The second message is for Australia because you suffered the most: please advise your government not to follow the US policy because it will bring tragedy for your country."

Bashir went on to explain who's really responsible for the Bali bombing...

"I think the bomb was done by foreign intelligence, especially US intelligence. The indications are Americans and Jews did it to justify the claims that have been made so far that Indonesia is a terrorist haven. What they mean by terrorists is Muslims. "So to prove their theory they created the incident in Bali."

Remember that "Americans and Jews" combo when you hear people telling you that if we just cut Israel loose these terrorists wouldn't be targeting us. We're both on their list. For those appeasers out there, Bashir gives you an indication of how we can placate the Islamo-Fascists who want to kill us all when he talks about the nightclub that was blown up...

"Such places will be banned if we have Islamic government. Although it doesn't have to be destroyed, it must be prohibited because it corrupts the morals of society....The building can still be used for a mosque."

Translation: They were in a nightclub so they got what they deserved. So everyone in the appeasement, why do they hate us, anti-war crowd take note of what it's going to take to please the Islamo-Fascists. You better start pushing your representatives in Congress for legislation to get rid of everything that "corrupts the morals of society." Ask them to ban nightclubs, music, and alcohol. Heck, the Taliban even banned TV. Then we'll just have to convert to Islam and get down on our knees to offer our undying loyalty to people like Bashir and we'll be safe...or...we can hunt down Bashir, and the other terrorists with his mentality, and we can try to kill them all. Pick your poison guys and gals because in the end that is exactly what it comes down to. I think you know which of those two options I prefer but some of the anti-war people out there better start really asking themselves how far they're willing to go to avoid taking these people on.

***Update***: Abu Bakar Bashir has now been arrested in connection with the Bali terrorist attack.

What Do We Need A Nuclear Missile Defense For?: Do you remember when we Conservatives were telling people that opting out of the ABM Treaty and accelerating the development of a nuclear missile defense was the right thing to do? Oh so many people on the left HATED that idea as did almost all of Europe. Well, what do you think about the NMD in light of the following....

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said that although no western intelligence official had physically laid a hand on a North Korean nuclear warhead: "I believe they have a small number of nuclear weapons."

"...Earlier this month, North Korean officials confessed to U.S. diplomats that Pyongyang has worked on developing nuclear weapons in spite of a formal 1994 pledge not to do so. North Korea has ballistic missiles capable of carrying a small payload to Hawaii and parts of Alaska."

Yeah, what do we need a NMD for right? We told you so...

The Real Clinton Legacy: Rush Limbaugh made an excellent point about Bill Clinton today on his show...

"The bottom line is, before Clinton came to office, Pakistan and India did not have nuclear weapons. Now they do. Before he came to office, Red China was unable to target American cities with nuclear warheads. Now they can. Before he came to office, North Korea did not have nuclear weapons. Now they do. And while he was in office, he did nothing to stop Iraq from its nuclear weapons development."

There are plenty of other foreign policy disasters we could add to that list as well. Bin Laden & al-Queda were allowed to come to prominence under the Clinton administration (if only he'd actually accepted Bin Laden when Sudan offered him in 1996). The "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia. America's capacity to gather "human" intelligence was destroyed by the Clinton administration with an assist from Jim Torricelli. The current Palestinian Intifada started under the Clinton administration as well.

Now I don't blame Bill Clinton exclusively for all of these things but he did significantly contribute to all of them with his foreign policy. Clinton, like so many other Democrats, seemed to believe that "talk" and treaties could take care of any disagreement we had with other countries. Clinton also acted as if the only appropriate use of the military was as some sort of peace-keeping force that was to be used only when our interests weren't at stake. Now Bush, much like Reagan after Carter, is spending much of his time dealing with messes that were actually exacerbated his predecessor's incompetence and inaction.

I think we should keep all this in mind when Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Madeline Albright run around shooting their mouths off about US foreign policy even as we're reaping the bitter harvest of their foreign policy.

Iraq Has Controversy With The Butterfly Ballot: The Iraqi general election in which Saddam Hussein allegedly received almost 100% of the vote has been rocked by a scandal in the southern province of An Najaf where a controversial "butterfly ballot" resulted in about 1800 votes in favor of "my own execution." Election officials blamed the faulty ballot but say they will honor the results of the election as submitted.

Hussein's campaign has promised election reform. In order to prevent such errors in future elections, election officials will assume all the votes are for Hussein unless write-ins for other choices are received. The write-in forms specify the voter, his location, his work, and a list of all the relatives he likes best.

If you liked this article, check out more material from Broken Newz by clicking here.

President Woody Harrelson?: Woody Harrelson has been mouthing off in Britain again about United States. The whole article is full of the usual idiocy that seems to pass for political opinion among Hollywood Stars. Harrelson blames the US for the people starving in Iraq -- despite the fact that Hussein has 50+ presidential palaces, is building an "Olympic" stadium, is giving money to the families of Palestinian terrorists, is upgrading his air defenses, etc, etc, etc, -- everything but buying food. But the best part is what Harrelson would do if he were Emperor -- ehr, President. His comments, followed by mine in parentheses...

"I give in to Woodman, and we stop for a few beers. He asks me what I'd do in Bush's shoes. Easy: I'd honour Kyoto (And destroy our economy). Join the world court (So Americans can be imprisoned after sham trials in Europe). I'd stop subsidising earth rapers like Monsanto, Dupont and Exxon (Well since Kyoto already killed the economy, why do we need fuel to run it?). I'd shut down the nuclear power plants (So the rest of the country can experience California style black-outs) . So I already have $200bn saved from corporate welfare (and killed the economy in the process). I'd save another $100bn by stopping the war on non-corporate drugs (Now our population can be jobless and high). And I'd cut the defence budget in half so they'd have to get by on a measly $200bn a year (Sure -- what do we need the military for anyway? It's not like we're in a war or anything). I've already saved half a trillion bucks by saying no to polluters and warmongers.

Then I'd give $300bn back to the taxpayers (They'll need the money since so many of them will have lost their jobs). I'd take the rest and pay the people teaching our children what they deserve (Wait -- since we already have some of the worst schools in the Western world -- would giving them what they "deserve" mean their salary would go up or down?). I'd put $100bn into alternative fuels and renewable energy (I say we invest in solar and windmills so that the blackouts caused by shutting down the nuclear power plants won't effect the hospitals if the wind is blowing really hard or if it's sunny). I'd revive the Chemurgy movement, which made the farmer the root of the economy, and make paper and fuel from wheat straw, rice straw and hemp (Your next car will be made out of soybeans). Not only would I attend, I'd sponsor the next Earth Summit (That's a great idea considering everything that was accomplished at the last one -- on second thought, what was accomplished at the last one?) . And, of course, I'd give myself a fat raise. (I just destroyed America and now I'm going to Disneyland!)

Wait a second -- destroying the US economy -- energy shortages -- crippling the military -- could Woody Harrelson actually be the long lost son of Jimmy Carter?

We'll Get Our UN Resolution -- Or Else: The Bush administration is still trying to get France, Russia, and China to agree to a UN Resolution that will meet our needs but so far we're being stymied...

"France, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with veto power, has been leading resistance to a U.N. draft resolution which would give Washington the right to attack Iraq for the slightest failure to meet U.N. requirements.

Paris, with strong support among Security Council members and elsewhere, does not want the 15-member council to authorize an attack unless arms inspectors report back that Iraq has not complied with U.N. demands."

Bush already has a congressional resolution authorizing force and enough nations in the region cooperating with us to guarantee that we can successfully hit Iraq with or without UN approval. While a UN resolution would help us get better press, more cooperation, and more nations sending token forces to help in Iraq, we don't NEED to have it. In fact, a UN resolution is just window dressing at this point.

On the other hand, Russia and France (they're the real hold-ups on the UN security council) have a lot to lose by not giving us what we want. Iraq owes Russia billions that it will never see unless it goes along with us. Both nations have companies with contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields that are worth tens of billions of dollars. Unless they go along with us I'm sure the new Iraqi government will decide that those contracts are null & void. Moreover, France, Russia, and The UN itself risk becoming largely irrelevant if the world's lone super power defies them and invades Iraq without UN approval. Since both France and Russia have gained a great deal of power and prestige from being the UN Security Council, having the UN lose credibility would be devastating for them.

I tend to suspect that France and Russia are talking tough now because they know that we're not going to invade before the elections. So they may think that they have a little more time to dicker. But time is running out and both Russia and France are negotiating from a position of extreme weakness. Either they give us a UN Resolution we can live with (which I expect them to do) or they'll be left behind. Either way, we'll be rolling into Iraq by the end of February at the latest and we won't sign on to any UN resolution that prevents that from happening.

John Hawkins -- Political Gun For Hire Part 4: Apparently the Saudis started a trend with their advertising campaign that was designed to improve their image in the US (although I haven't seen any evidence that it worked). Now the Israelis have decided to give it go. Generally, I think this sort of thing is just a waste of money but if they're going to do it, they should do it up right. Here are a few off-the-wall suggestions for three nations that might need a PR campaign...

Saudi Arabia: (Suggestion: They should use the ugly truth to their advantage.) "Let's face it, when you Americans think of Saudi Arabia you think fascism, oppression, and a police state. All of that is true -- which is why we've offered to keep any members of al-Queda that America captures in our prison system. Here they have no right to an attorney, torturing them to get information is encouraged, and our corrupt judges will execute anyone you want -- you have only to ask. Better yet, there is no free press here so no one will ever know about it. America, let Saudi Arabia's corrupt justice system help you win the war on terrorism!

Israel: (Suggestion: The Israelis should take a page from the Democrat's playbook on this one) "Seniors -- did you know that Yasser Arafat wants the United States to take the "Social Security Trust Fund" and spend it on rifles, explosives, and rocket launchers for Palestinian terrorists? Ariel Sharon is against this "risky scheme." Support Israel and protect your social security!

Iraq: (Suggestion: Use a celebrity spokesman) "Hi, my name is Vin Diesel. You may have seen my latest movie, "XXX" where I play a criminal recruited by the US government to take out a terrorist network. Well I'm here tonight on the behalf of another criminal -- Saddam Hussein. Sure Saddam is dangerous, amoral, and supports terrorists, but that's why he's exactly the type of man America needs on their side in the 'war on terrorism.' You want Yassir Arafat dead? Saddam can launch a scud into his compound in 45 minutes. Do you think Syria is supporting terrorism? Saddam is ready to invade. Is Saudi Arabia being "uncooperative" in the war on terrorism? Saddam thinks they'll learn to love America again when his tanks roll up to their border. And this time any Iraqi who even gets NEAR an oil well will be tortured to death in front of his entire company as a lesson to others.

So America, take if from me -- Vin Diesel -- Iraq's new slogan, "America -- shouldn't you invade Iraq last?" is right on target."

Barbra Streisand Does It Again!: I thought Barbra Streisand only did movies and music but she apparently does humor as well. RWN's readers are probably familiar with her hilarious memo to Dick 'Gebhardt.' Well she's at it again with her latest "Truth Alert." See if you can spot the error Babs made this time =D

"A Republican/Conservative candidate trying with fading hopes to unseat respected Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy made a last-ditch effort to win headlines by devising ads in which she blatantly misquoted Barbra Streisand, fabricating outrageous quotes and completely misrepresenting Ms. Streisand's deep opposition to the Iranian dictator, Saddam Hussein. An Associated Press correspondent brought the ads to the attention of Ms. Streisand's representatives Tuesday, October 15, requesting comment."

"Funny Girl" indeed!

**Update**: As I was putting this up the error was corrected on her page. Unfortunately for her, Drudge already found it =D

Pages That Deserve More Attention: Every once in a while I like to link just some of the blogs out there that do much better work than their traffic would indicate. I like all of these pages and think they're worth a read even if I don't see them linked on other blogs all that often...

Abode Of Amritas, Black Sheep News, American Realpoltik, The Greatest Jeneration, Blog-O-Rama, Ipse Dixit, Israpundit, Juan Gato's Bucket Of Rants, La Blogatrice, Ravenwood's Universe, Random Nuclear Strikes, The Sabertooth Journal, Silflay Hraka, The Spleenville Journal, The Ville, Whigging Out

A lot of these blogs (althought not all) came from my links list. That's probably because I like to trade links with blogs I like and because I tend to read blogs that I have linked more than those I don't. If you want to trade links with RWN, feel free to send us an email.

BLISS Version 2 -- We're Not Pedophiles, We Swear!: The sickos from BLISS claim RWN has them all wrong. They say they're strongly against pedophiles and how dare we accuse them of it? I am going to post some things that people from BLISS have posted in RWN's comments and on their forums about yesterday's ACPOTI (Anyone Can Post On The Internet) article followed by quotes from their website. I think you'll quickly get the point and this might be something you'd want to pass along to their host, Webair. This material violates Webair's Acceptable Use Policy which specifically prohibits "Displaying material that exploits children under 18 years of age."... (PS: I can't tell you how creepy and revolting it was to go back through this trash just to try to get these swine shut down. I feel like I just crawled through a pile of rotting corpses....)

Ok Smart Guys -- What's YOUR Solution?: If you want to shut up an entire room full of anti-war left-wingers, just ask them what to do about the global terrorist network, or more specifically, Iraq. Actually, this SHOULD shut them up. But instead you'll be treated to long, nonsensical diatribes about how this is about oil, imperialism, hegemony, why we should give more aid to the poor, the Kyoto treaty, 'Noam Chomsky says', Florida in the 2000 Presidential election, the 'cycle of violence', Israel, how brave they are for being against the war, dissent is patriotism, civilian casualties, how America is cowardly for bombing instead of using the army and fighting face to face, etc, etc, etc. They'll talk about anything except how to deal with terrorists who consider skyscrapers, pizza parlors, and nightclubs to be legitimate targets. (Cont)

Iraqi Voter Translation Guide: It looks like Saddam Hussein is once again going to pull 99% of Iraqi vote. That old tyrant is quite the charmer huh? Of course, they do monitor your vote in Iraq and if you vote against Saddam it probably means a trip to prison. So it's really sort of surprising that some people actually vote against "Sodom" (as Bush 41 liked to call him.) So how can we really find out what the Iraqi people think when they're being monitored by government officials constantly? Well, you just have to know how to translate what they're saying. Let's take some quotes from this article in the Washington Post about the election.

Iraqi Kifah Kazem speculates on the percentage of the vote Saddam will receive, "God willing, this time it will be 100 percent. It will be an expression of our love for our president."

Translation: Saddam fed my cousin Ali to wild dogs right in front of me when I was 16. I will cheer like a Palestinian when he is dead! May Allah make his passing from this world painful!

Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf had this to say, "The political and international circumstances, and the American and Zionist threats, have given the referendum a new meaning. It's a blow to these criminals."

Translation: The CIA promised me American citizenship if I would show them where the Saddam stores most of his anthrax. I can't wait to take my kids to Disneyland!

Mechanic Bahjed Mika Yacoub says, "We're not calling for war. We're calling for peace. We want America to be careful with all human beings. We hate war."

Translation: Watch where you're slinging those smart bombs you crazy Americans! I promised myself ten years ago that I would dance on Saddam's grave and I want to live long enough to actually do it!

Never fear my Iraqi friends, your liberators will be there soon enough!

Artists and Writers Oppose Expanding War On Terrorism: Reader Harley Daugherty sent me a link to a web page called, "Artists and Writers Oppose Expanding War On Terrorism." I decided to write about this online petition because it's a perfect example of the type of thinking that permeates the entire anti-war movement. Here is the entire petition with my comments added

To: US Government, War on Terrorism coalition partners

Artists have both the ability and the moral obligation to combat deceit and distortion. It is the ability to illuminate even difficult truths that defines an artist.

The nearly meaningless opening paragraph is the sort of dreck you'd expect to hear in a book report written by a twelve year old who wants to be a rock star when he grows up.

Truth has been one of the casualties of the "War on Terrorism". Assassinations, bombings, and chemical and biological attacks, whether perpetrated by individuals or states, are crimes. They should be dealt with by the rule of law, and not by the use of military force. With this in mind, we condemn the US "War on Terrorism" and call upon both the US government and the "anti-terrorist" coalition to end this war, which benefits no-one but those who are making money from it, and which is sowing the seeds of future terrorism and violence.

I hate to disillusion Doug Lain and Tim Jones (the clueless morons who wrote this petition), but the "rule of law" would not exist without the use of force, military or otherwise. As a whole, people and nations follow rules set down by others because there will be consequences if they don't, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

The "War on Terrorism" is now being used to justify further US aggression against the people of Iraq. Such aggression would lead to a high civilian and military death toll and a further deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. [then bullet points:]

* We call upon the United States and the United Nations to lift all economic sanctions on Iraq.

Wait a second, weren't these guys just calling for the "rule of law?" Are these sanctions not a punishment for Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms he agreed to after the Gulf War? Yet, they want to drop them anyway. This is like telling a criminal that, "I demand that you turn yourself in to the nearest police station so you can be tried and sent to jail! Uh, you won't go? In that case, we'll just drop the charges."

* We call upon the United States and its allies to abandon preparations for war against Iraq.

* We call upon the United States, Iraq, and all other countries to refrain from developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction.

No one but an idiot could ever believe that this would happen. Seriously, is there anyone who thinks this could possibly happen? Anyone? Oh you do? Then you are an idiot just like the people that wrote this.

* We call upon Iraq to allow the resumption of weapons inspections, and upon the United States to allow these weapons inspectors to operate independently rather than as a projection of US interests.

This statement shows the sort of tenuous grasp the authors have on reality. If Iraq isn't willing to allow real and genuine weapons inspections despite the sanctions and with the threat of war hanging over their heads, why in the world would any sane person think they'd suddenly give in after we removed the sanctions and ceased threatening them?

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Notice what these guys didn't talk about? Since the authors are opposed to expanding the 'war on terrorism', what are we supposed to do about the terrorists who are blowing up skyscrapers, nightclubs, and pizza parlors? The authors had absolutely nothing to say about it. I guess we're just supposed to sit on our hands and wait to die. That seems to be the attitude of most of the anti-war crowd which is why it's difficult to take any of them seriously -- especially these guys.

We Can't Beat The Terrorists With Defense: The terrorist attacks in Bali show how futile it would be to try to win the 'war on terrorism' with defense alone. No matter how good our security and our intelligence is, there will always be gaps the terrorists can exploit. In this case, they didn't even have to go into a Western country to kill Westerners. They simply found a nation that did a mediocre job of pressuring them, picked out a spot where Westerners congregated, and murdered them wholesale.

Moreover, they didn't hit a high profile target like the WTC or the Statue of Liberty, they hit a nightclub. In Israel, they blew up everything from pizza parlors to people standing around at bus stops. Quite frankly, there is NO WAY to defend against that sort of thing long-term. Maybe extra security and excellent intelligence will get a significant number of these terrorists but some of them are always going to slip through the net. They have thousands of men they can use & an almost infinite number of significant targets. It's pure statistics.

The latest massive attack was in Bali, but it could have just as easily been at a crowded nightclub in any American city. You don't think so? Do you know how EASY it is get into the US? There may already be more than eight million plus illegal aliens here already. If they can sneak into the US, so can the terrorists. Furthermore, everyone knows the INS is a complete joke that isn't capable of deporting the illegal aliens who overstay their VISAS or who sneak into the country illegally. So once the terrorists are in the US they're capable of heinous acts of terrorism at will unless they screw-up, someone rats them out, or we get lucky.

That's why it's absolutely crucial that we cut these terrorist groups off at their source. Hunting these terrorists down and making them run or fight for their lives instead of giving them time to plan and execute attacks is the most important thing we can do to prevent terrorist attacks. Terrorists hiding in caves, running from special forces, locked in jail, or rotting in the ground aren't going to be capable of carrying out more 9/11s, Passover Massacres, or Bali bombings.

Charity For The Bali Attacks: Has anyone found a way to donate money to the victims of the Bali attacks? I want to send some money to help out and I'm sure a lot of other people do too. Also, for any Aussies out there (or others whose nations were effected), keep your chins up. We're working with your intelligence agencies and we're going to get the b@stards who did this.

Are The People Who Love Women Sick? I Gues Not, Why Would We Be Than???: I was looking through my statistics tracker for Right Wing News and I noticed that I was getting some traffic from a forum called http://www.boybliss.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php. I decided to go to that forum and find out what they had linked on RWN (I actually never found it). At first I thought I was looking around some sort of forum for kids because the graphic had kids in it and there were forums named "Our Clubhouse", "The Playground", "Boys in Media", etc. But as I started looking around a little more I noticed that a lot of the people posting had pictures of young kids in their signature lines which I thought was a bit odd. Then I ran across the word "boylover" and I finally caught on to what sort of web page I was on.

It's hard to explain how repulsive this forum is. It's not just that this is a forum full of pedophiles, it's the tone of the posts. Many of these posters were trying to come off as people who really cared about kids. You know, the sort of people who would become Scout Masters, Catholic priests, Little League coaches, etc, for no other reason than to have access to young boys. Moreover, I can't tell you how creepy it is to read a post from some sicko talking about how sexy children are when he has a pic of a young child that looks like it came out of someone's wallet below his post. To say that I felt like I needed a shower after reading these posts is an incredible understatement. At the end of this episode of A.C.P.O.T.I. (Anyone Can Post On The Internet), I'm going to have the email address of this webpage's host. If you want to help get this forum shut down, feel free to send them an email.

**Update: The pedophiles have a new thread up called, "BLISS Targetted by Right Wing Conservative Group." Guess what that's all about?

Greenpeace Activists Occupy Nuke Plant: I see that the security for nuclear plants in Britain is just as lousy as it is in the US...

"About 150 campaigners from environmental group Greenpeace scaled fences, evaded security and occupied Britain's newest nuclear power station on Monday.

The protesters entered the grounds of the Sizewell B power plant on the eastern English coast and unfurled a banner reading "No More Nuclear." But the activists said they wouldn't enter any of the complex's buildings or interfere with the operations of the plant."

Don't the security guards at these plants have guns? If so, do they allow them to load the guns or do they have to carry the bullets in their pockets Barney Fife style?

And yes I am suggesting that they should have shot these greenies rather than let them get inside the plant. For one thing, this sort of thing would make the perfect cover for a terrorist group to get in a do some damage. All it would take is for four or five al-Queda members to join up with Greenpeace, load up with explosives and ammo and just wait for these kooks to invade another plant. Furthermore, considering the rise in environmental extremism that's been going on across the globe, I wouldn't put it past some greenie to commit a terrorist attack just to try to prove these plants are unsafe. Either way, letting these lunatics run around inside of a nuke plant is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

It's Time For A 'Canadian Conquest': I ran across a poll on Fark that showed that 4 in 10 Americans were "in favour of Canada being annexed to the United States."

I have no idea where those numbers are coming from because I don't know anyone who seriously wants to annex Canada. But some of the comments on Fark about this were just too funny not to capture for posterity. Here are a few of them...

Asmor: This just in, 4 in 10 Americans believe "annex" is a synonym for "nuke".

Doctechnical: Call me skeptical, but I think I have quite enough snow as it is, thank you very much.

Young_Fart: To put things in perspective, Canadians are essentially Americans with low self-esteem. And bad hair.

Rhiannon: We'll stay up here thanks. The Americans have already graciously adopted Celine Dion, and we're letting them keep her.

Demoib: just think of the olympic hockey team we'd have."

Misspudding: i'll admit that americans don't know a damn thing about canadians or canadian culture. hell, i was watching something from the "throne" the other week on CBC and i had no idea what the "throne" was. i also had no idea that your supreme court dressed up in funny santa claus outfits, or that your head of state still is the queen of england.

am i right about the queen of england thing, by the way? or is that actually wrong?

Greats Pics And Videos: Here are a few videos and pics I thought you might enjoy...

Die Terrorists Die is an excellent video featuring the US military with a killer riff behind it. The download is a little slow but it's worth it. Also, I've only seen the explicit version. You might want to avoid this one if the "F-Bomb" bothers you.

This web page has some of the most gruesome pictures of aborted babies that I've ever seen. I wouldn't look at these pictures if you think it'll upset you. On the other hand, if you know some people who insist that babies in the womb are "parasites or just tissue" you might want to send these pics over to them.

Chris Mosier from Something's Rotten also reminded me of this video which is now even funnier since the Belafonte/Powell flap.

Last but not least, I grabbed 'Saddam's Swingset' from the comments section on this Rachael Lucas post.

The Terrorist Attack In Bali: Terrorists in Bali have killed at least 187 people in a nightclub. Because of the al-Queda connections to terrorist groups in Indonesia and because a bomb also went off near the honorary U.S. consulate, many people believe that this attack was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists (I do as well). There were victims from our country (2 so far), Australia (200+ Aussies still missing), Singapore, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Ecuador, and Indonesia and that's just so far.

This attack was an indiscriminate slaughter designed to kill a lot of "Westerners" (Aussies in particular). They didn't care that Germany isn't cooperating with us, or that France is holding us up at the UN Security Council, or that some of their fellow Indonesians were killed as well.

Some people have laughed at Bush's characterization of these people as "evil." Well if murdering hundreds of people just out to have a good time in a nightclub isn't "evil", then nothing is. Ignoring these animals like we did for most of the last two decades is no longer an option and compromising with anyone so monstrous that they'd do something like this is not possible. We have got to hunt these terrorist groups and their members down so we can jail or better yet kill as many of them as possible before they do it to us.

This is a truly tragic event and I feel nothing but sympathy for the people who died and their families and friends. I sincerely hope our government will do everything in it's power to help find and wipe the terrorists responsible for this attack off the face of the planet. The sooner we kill these terrorists, the safer everyone will be -- whether they're in Indonesia or anywhere else across the planet.

**Update**: If someone runs across a way to donate money to victims of this attack, please post it in the comments section and I'll add it to this post. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to help.

**Update #2: Indonesia's Defense Minister says, "the Bali bomb blast is linked to al-Qaida with the cooperation of local terrorists."

From the same article,

"Jemaah Islamiyah has already been implicated in a plot at the beginning of this year to bomb foreign embassies in the region, and Australia says it is a prime suspect in the Bali attack.

“The attack bears the hallmarks of JI,” said an expert on al-Qaida, Rohan Gunaratna. “Only the JI has both the intention and capability to conduct a professional terrorist attack like the Bali operation.”