Fitna

It's only about fifteen minutes long, and isn't that remarkable. If it weren't for the calls for death against Geert Wilders and the server on his web site not permitting him to show the video, no one would have noticed it.

Warning for graphic images of violence.



There are articles about the Dutch government breathing a sigh of release that there has been no outbreaks of violence since the movie went up yesterday.

The Dutch government worked for months before the film appeared to defuse Muslim anger over its theme. In a statement broadcast live on television on Thursday in both Dutch and English, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said he rejected Wilders’ views.

But if Wilders views are wrong, why would the Dutch government need to work so hard to appease the Muslims?

If you've watched the movie, Wilders lets Islamic extremists speak for themselves. Unless you can argue that he took them out of context? The man who said, "[The Jews] are the ones who must be butchered and killed." Maybe he followed that up with a "Just kidding, folks. I love the Jews!" but Wilders cut that out so he could incite anti-Islamic violence?

Are there moderate Muslims? Sure, but there's no way of knowing how many, as they are mostly too frightened to speak out.

Are we at war? Yes, and there are no civilians. When the war is against terrorists -- who target civilians specifically -- there are no civilians.

It’s for our own good

There was an explosion last Thursday at a Times Square military recruitment center.

An explosive device caused minor damage to an empty military recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday, shaking guests in hotel rooms high above.

The recruiting station, located on a traffic island surrounded by Broadway theaters and chain restaurants, has occasionally been the site of anti-war demonstrations, ranging from silent vigils to loud rallies.

The Department of Homeland Security is looking into it. If it was terrorists, it was probably the home-grown kind.

Anti-war protestors have been targeting recruitment centers, usually with picketing and vandalism. Berkeley has received its share of bad press for telling the Marines their recruitment center wasn't welcome there and seeking to pass legislation that would make recruitment centers harder to open within their city limits than porn shops. The mayor of Toledo, Ohio got a lot of flack for denying the Marines permission to conduct military exercises within the city.

I could write about the immorality of using terrorism to advance any cause. I could mention that the ends do not justify the means. I could opine that violence and destruction are never the answer. But most people know that.

What really gets me, what annoys me to the point I feel compelled to blog about it, is the arrogance and condescension of these leftist, anti-war radicals.

Recruitment centers aren't doing the hard sell. They are there, in major cities, for young people who want to explore the option of a military career. ROTC and military recruiters have already been banned from plenty of college campuses and high schools.

Recruitment centers put posters and info in their windows. Maybe some of the officers linger outside the center. I don't know. We have one downtown in my city, but I haven't really paid attention. I do see men in uniform walking along the street from time to time.

These military personnel are not roaming the street, pulling unwary men and women into their center. Marines and sailors aren't roaming Norfolk, VA and San Francisco, press-ganging people onto ships and bases like the British Royal Navy of the 17th and 18th century.

But Code Pink, the council in Berkely, and other protest groups don't see it that way. They feel they have the right to intimidate both the military and prevent young people from making up their own minds. And therin lies the arrogance.

I've said it here: people are stupid. Not so much low IQ. It's just that most people don't think and most people don't want to think.

But I would never suggest that anyone -- aside from the truly mentally disabled -- be prevented from exercising their free will and free choice.

But a lot of these groups think anyone who doesn't think like them are, to put it crudely, retarded.

They obviously can't think for themselves, they reason. If they could, they wouldn't set foot in a recruitment center. Therefore, we have to prevent them from coming into contact with anything that is evil (evil being anything they disagree with). We have to protect them from themselves.

Arrogance. Pure, unmitigated condescension. And a totalitarian mindset that scares the hell out of me. I hope these people never get into postitions of real power, not more than they have already.

They Don't Like Us

On Destroyerclub, on a debate thread about the state of the U.S., one of the posters mentioned he didn't think there is a foreign country that likes us any more.

Oh dear. Other nations don't like the United States. Jealousy's a *****. If there's any topic that gets my indignation up, it's the plaintive cry that we're not 'liked.'

The other countries don't like us? Boo freakin' hoo. The important question is why they don't like us.

Europe doesn't like us? Europe ought to be more concerned about their own situation. European countries have a higher unemployment rate. Their birthrates are lower while their social and health care programs take a larger chunk of their income. The result: an aging population whose younger members won't be able to support the bloated social welfare cradle-to-grave nanny states they've created. It's worse than our own serious Social Security problems. Instead of solving their own problems -- sucking it up and doing without the six weeks paid vacation and paying more out of pocket for health care -- they'd rather harangue the USA to follow their example.

The fastest growing population in France, Holland, and others is Muslim immigrants, who have a higher birth rate than the native populations. This has lead to inner city enclaves of Muslim youths who are rabidly radicalized. They do not recognize the laws of their adopted countries. Non-Muslim women have taken to wearing head scarves when going through some sections of their cities because it's easier than being followed, harassed, and threatened with physical violence.

The Islamic populations around the world don't like us because we promote the basic freedoms of speech, religion, peaceful assembly, etc. which are the antithesis of their sharia law.

And I can see their point. Our freedom of speech and expression leads to an 'anything goes' society where vulgarity, crudeness, and impiety are not only tolerated, but now are trumpeted by our intellectual elites (and Hollywood, where anything approaching intelligence seldom rears its ugly, sane head).

Works of 'art' like Piss Christ are an unfortunate byproduct of the rights that allow me to post this without worrying that I'll be dragged before the authorities and fined or forced to publicly recant my opinions.

(And speaking of art, isn't it funny that among all the feces smeared Madonnas and bondage-themed Last Suppers you don't see any Piss Mohameds? Ask the editor of Danish newspaper The Jutland Post why. Ask Salman Rushdie (if you can get him on the phone). Ask Theo Van Gogh. Oh, no, you can't ask him.)

The Arab countries also hate us because we support Israel. Israel -- aside from being full of dirty, filthy, lazy, pig Jews -- has also committed the unforgivable offense of building a modern market economy and a high tech society despite having few natural resources and some monumentally rude neighbors.

This is very embarrassing to the Arabs, who, if they didn't have oil, would have sand and camels as their main exports. And even with their thriving oil fields, only the ruling families own the wealth. The rest of the population depends on their largesses. And even if their standard of living is high, their medical, technological and scientific advances stalled out sometime in the middle ages. Islam has not been conducive to free thought and experimentation these last thousand years. It's risky promoting new ideas or methods when any Imam among thousands can decide it's blasphemy and declare a fatwa.

Who else doesn't like us. Russia? And all the other countries who used to be part of the USSR? They've had economic and social problems since before the fall of the Tzar. The collapse of communism and the move to a more free market economy helped for awhile, but now with Time's Man of the Year skulking in the Kremlin, they've regressed.

China's still trying to make communism work with a limited free economy. But they want to be the next super power, so of course they don't like us. All those lead painted toys and poisoned tooth paste were real clues.

And Canada. Some Canadians still like us, but they're too busy following Europe's example and oppressing free speech. Ask Mark Steyn. Or Ezra Levant.

Mexico hates us, but they're all too busy trying to sneak in here to complain about anything except how prejudiced we are when we object to them sneaking in here illegally.

I don't think Australia hates us, which is good, because I'd like to have Australia's good will. Any nation descended from convicts and forced emigration is a country I want to have on my side. Seriously. I think Australians kick butt and I hope any carping coming out of there is from their version of the lunatic fringe who spawned Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan up here.

The strong are always hated by the weak. The rich are always hated by the poor. We need to suck it up, not descend to their level or make their mistakes.

If we ruin our economy, who will go to the tsunamis and other natural disasters with aid and money? If we stifle our creativity, where will the little Saudi princes get future versions of Wiis or iPhones? Where will the rest of the world go when they need new medical procedures that aren't available anywhere else? Or routine but crucial operations that have a two-year waiting list in their countries?

RMD*

*Rams of Mass Destruction

According to an article in NewScientist, rams may have been the world's first biological weapon.

Ancient written texts from the Middle East may reveal that the use of biological weapons dates back more than 3300 years, according to a new review.

The historical documents hint that the Hittites – whose empire stretched from modern-day Turkey to northern Syria – sent diseased rams to their enemies to weaken them with tularemia, a devastating bacterial infection that remains a potential bioterror threat even today, says the review.

Experts caution that more evidence is needed to firmly establish that the Hittites intended to spread disease using the animals. But they add that if this proves true, it might represent the earliest known use of biological warfare.

Tularemia, also known as rabbit fever, can pass from animals such as rabbits and sheep to humans through various routes, most commonly through insects such as ticks that hop between species. The bacterium responsible for tularemia, Francisella tularensis, causes symptoms ranging from skin ulcers to respiratory failure.

Modern medication can stop the tularemia from becoming fatal. But without proper antibiotic treatment, about 15% of infected individuals die, says Siro Trevisanato, a former microbiologist who has delved into the ancient texts.
Hittite plague

Tularemia is rare in many countries today, but remains a problem in some countries including Bulgaria, says Trevisanato, now based in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

He believes tularemia is to blame for a deadly epidemic dubbed the "Hittite plague" which raged through the Middle East in the 14th century BC. Around 1335 BC, letters to the Egyptian king Akhenaten reported a pestilence in Simyra, a Phoenician city near what is now the border between Lebanon and Syria.

The texts describe a terrible illness causing disabilities and death. Most tellingly, they mention that, because of the plague, donkeys were banned from being used in caravans.

According to Trevisanato, this indicates that the people living in the city were hit by tularemia. The disease can infect donkeys and the insects that they carry, so preventing the use of donkeys for transport may have been an attempt to quell its spread.
Roaming rams

A decade later, the Hittites to the north attacked the weakened area around Simyra. "The Hittites were able to steal booty, including animals, and brought the animals home," along with the tularemia the livestock harboured, Trevisanato explains. Not too long after, the Hittites themselves apparently began to suffer from an epidemic of tularemia.

History seems to have repeated itself a few years afterwards when another ancient people, the Arzawans from western Anatolia, saw the weakened Hittites to their east and decided to strike. "They thought, if we attack now, we can push the border back to where we want," Trevisanato says.

But strangely, during this period of warfare between 1320 and 1318 BC, records indicate that rams mysteriously began appearing on roads in Arzawa.

The Arzawans took the sheep to their villages and used them for livestock breeding. Soon after, though, they began to suspect a link between the appearance of the animals and the terrible disease ravaging their communities.

"They started wondering 'Why do these rams start showing up on the road?'" says Trevisanato. He believes that among the Hittites, "somebody must have had the bright idea" to send diseased rams over to their Arzawan enemies.

Ultimately, the Arzawans were so weakened that their attempt to conquer the Hittites failed.
Modern threat

Trevisanato's theory is intriguing, says Jonathan Tucker, at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, DC, US who studies the use of chemical and biological weapons.

He points out that there is no vaccine for tularemia and that experts consider it a "possible or likely biological warfare agent" in the present day.

Still, in order to consider the rams as a true biological weapon, evidence is needed to clearly prove that the Hittites understood the full ramifications of these animals towards their enemies, says Mark Wheelis, at the University of California, Davis.

"The intent would have to be not to just freak the enemy out, but to actually transmit disease," he explains. Until such intent to spread disease is proven beyond a doubt, Wheelis says any theory is speculative.

Journal reference: Journal of Medical Hypotheses (DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2007.03.02)

I love Wheelis' equivocating. Why would the site of sheep "freak the enemy out"? Unlike today, sheep and horses and other animals were rather common sights. No special trip to the farm or petting zoo were needed for little Hittite boys and girls to get back to nature.

I'm pretty convinced that the Hittites got the baaasic ramifications.

Another reason I like My Name is Earl

So, NBC decides to have a "green week." All week long NBC programs are supposed to have an ecological theme. I think the culmination is supposed to be 30 Rock, where Al Gore himself makes an appearance. At least in the clips they showed during Earl, the Goracle seems able to poking fun at himself (well, he let the writers do it).

On Earl tonight, the warden (Craig T. Nelson) puts Earl in charge of doing a "Scared Straight" show and picking three other convicts to take with him to the school.

Seems they'd tried busing in a class once, but it ended rather badly as a little person threw a kid in a washing machine and tried to board the bus wearing his uniform. So now they're gonna take the show to the schools.

Half-way through the program, the warden suddenly, and irrationally commands Earl to give the Scared Straight show an environmental theme -- make it green.

So Earl says something like: won't that seem a little out of place, kind of shoe-horning something in that has nothing to do with the show is about?

But of course the warden overrides him.

So later, as they're getting ready to go out, one of the prisoners says he's going to mention that while he's sorry his footprints lead the cops to him, he feels even sorrier about the large carbon footprint he was responsible for. And another prisoner says he's going to tell the children that he the thing he regrets the most about dumping the body is the littering.

Funny show.

Food, Glorious Food

Sometimes I run across something and don't have the time to put it in a blog here, so I save it.

Then I forget about it. Then something reminds me and I find it again.

Today, I ran across a blog called The Pioneer Woman. She's a Los Angeles native who married a rancher, loves the life and loves to chronicle her life in words and pictures.

More to the point of this blog, she also has a blog called The Pioneer Woman Cooks, plenty of recipes with step by step pictures of the food being prepared. If you aren't hungry after scrolling through a page or two, you aren't human!

This blog reminded me of a book review from USA Today online. It's about a book called America's Best Lost Recipes: 121 Kitchen-Tested Heirloom Recipes Too Good to Forget. And since they put several of the recipes in the review, I guess I can include a few of them here:

GRANDMA SYLVIA'S SALT BUTTER COOKIES
Cookies

•2 large egg yolks

•1 teaspoon vanilla extract

•1 teaspoon whiskey

•16 tablespoons (2 sticks) salted butter, softened

•2/3 cup granulated sugar

•21/4 cups all-purpose flour

1. Adjust an oven rack to the middle position and heat the oven to 350 degrees. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper. Whisk the yolks, vanilla and whiskey together in a measuring cup.

2. With an electric mixer at medium-high speed, beat the butter and granulated sugar together until fluffy, about 2 minutes. Reduce the speed to medium, add the yolk mixture and beat until combined. Add the flour and beat until incorporated. Shape the dough into 3/4-inch balls and space half the balls 1 inch apart on the prepared baking sheet. Bake until lightly browned around the edges, 10 to 12 minutes. Cool the cookies on the baking sheet for 2 minutes, then transfer to a wire rack to cool completely, about 30 minutes. Repeat with the remaining dough balls.

Filling

•1 ounce unsweetened chocolate, chopped

•1/4 cup water

•2 cups confectioners' sugar

1. Combine the chocolate and water in a small saucepan and stir over low heat until smooth, about 5 minutes. Off the heat, whisk in the confectioners' sugar until smooth.

2. Turn half of the cookies over (flat-side up) and spread with about 1 teaspoon of the filling. Top with another cookie. Let the filling set until hardened, about 20 minutes. (The cookies can be stored in an airtight container for up to 3 days.)

Makes 36 cookies

Notes from the Test Kitchen:

These cookies have a wonderful sandy texture and rich butter flavor. The chocolate filling is a sweet complement to the simple cookie. Be sure to use a fresh or cooled baking sheet for each batch.

CORN OYSTERS

Serves 6

4 medium ears corn, husks and silk removed

1/2 cup all-purpose flour

1/4 cup cornstarch

4 large eggs

1/2 teaspoon salt, plus extra for sprinkling

1/4 teaspoon baking powder

2 quarts vegetable oil

1. Grate the kernels from the corn into a medium bowl using the large holes of a box grater. Using the back of a knife, scrape any pulp remaining on the cobs into the bowl with the grated corn. Stir in the flour, cornstarch, eggs, salt, and baking powder until well blended.

2. Heat the oil in a Dutch oven over medium heat until it registers 350 degrees. Carefully drop 13 to 15 heaping tablespoons of batter into the hot oil and fry, turning once, until the corn oysters puff and are golden brown on both sides, about 2 minutes. Transfer to a paper-towel-lined plate. Add more oil to the pot if necessary and heat to 350 degrees. Repeat with the remaining batter. Sprinkle the corn oysters with salt. Serve immediately.

Notes from the Test Kitchen: Use only fresh corn for this recipe — frozen corn is too dry to produce a creamy batter. The key to this recipe is getting the oil temperature just right. Above 360 degrees and the exterior of the "oysters" will darken quickly before the interior is cooked through. Too low a temperature (starting under 340 degrees) and they will be sodden with oil. Avoid guesswork by using a deep-fat thermometer. These corn oysters are great with fried fish or any barbecue — serve with tartar sauce, hot sauce, or maple syrup.

Oh, heck. One more:
VIDALIA ONION PIE

Serves 6 to 8

6 slices bacon, chopped

2 medium Vidalia onions, sliced thin (about 3 cups)

3 large eggs, lightly beaten

1/2 cup sour cream

1/2 cup heavy cream

3/4 teaspoon salt

1/2 teaspoon pepper

2 teaspoons chopped fresh chives

Use favorite pie crust, the single crust one listed here, fully baked and cooled, or as a shortcut option, use Pillsbury Just Unroll Pie Crust. If using Pillsbury dough, follow package instructions to prebake pie shell at 450 degrees for 10 to 12 minutes, making sure to prick dough with a fork before it goes into the oven.

1. Adjust an oven rack to the lowest position and heat the oven to 350 degrees. Cook the bacon in a large skillet over medium heat until crisp, about 8 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer the bacon to a paper-towel-lined plate and set aside. Cook the onions in the bacon fat until browned, about 12 minutes. Transfer to a medium bowl. Whisk the eggs, sour cream, heavy cream, salt, pepper, and 1 teaspoon chives in a large bowl, then add the reserved bacon and onions.

2. Pour into the prepared pie shell and bake until the filling is puffed and cracked around the edges and the center barely jiggles when the pie is shaken, 25 to 30 minutes. Let cool for 10 minutes and sprinkle with the remaining teaspoon chives. Serve. (The pie can be refrigerated for up to 3 days.)

Single-Crust Pie Dough

Makes enough for one 9-inch pie

1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour, plus extra for rolling out the dough

1 tablespoon sugar

1/2 teaspoon salt

3 tablespoons vegetable shortening, cut into 1/2-inch pieces and chilled

4 tablespoons (1/2 stick) unsalted butter, cut into 1/4-inch pieces and chilled

4 to 6 tablespoons ice water

1. Process the flour, sugar, and salt in a food processor until combined. Scatter the shortening over the top and continue to process until the mixture has the texture of coarse sand, about 10 seconds. Scatter the butter pieces over the top and, using short pulses, process the mixture until it resembles coarse crumbs, about 10 pulses. Transfer to a bowl.

2. Sprinkle 4 tablespoons of the ice water over the mixture. Stir and press the dough together, using a stiff rubber spatula, until the dough sticks together. If the dough does not come together, stir in the remaining water, 1 tablespoon at a time, until it does. Form the dough into a 4-inch disk, wrap tightly in plastic wrap, and refrigerate at least 1 hour.

3. Let the chilled dough soften slightly at room temperature before rolling it into a 12-inch circle and fitting it into a pie plate. Trim, fold, and crimp the edges and freeze the unbaked pie crust until firm, about 30 minutes, before filling or baking.

4. Adjust an oven rack to the lower-middle position and heat the oven to 375 degrees. Line the chilled crust with aluminum foil and fill with pie weights or pennies. Bake until the pie dough looks dry and is light in color, 25 to 30 minutes. For a partially baked crust, transfer the crust to a wire rack and remove the weights and foil. For a fully baked crust, remove the pie weights and foil and continue to bake until the crust is a deep golden brown, about 12 minutes longer. The pie crust may be cooled completely or used warm, according to the particular pie recipe.

To Make Ahead: The dough can be refrigerated, wrapped tightly in plastic wrap, for up to 2 days or frozen for up to 2 months. Let the frozen dough thaw on the countertop until malleable before rolling. A fully baked pie crust can be stored at room temperature, wrapped tightly in foil, for up to 2 days.

Happy reading!

The Death of the Grown-up

An excellent book which traces the blurring of distinctions between childhood and adulthood in contemporary society.

It starts out with an overview of childhood. leading to a discussion of how the concept of the teenager is a relatively recent development.

Booth Tarkington's novel Seventeen was the first that dealt with teenagers specifically, but even then teenage years weren't seen as a separate period but more as a transition period where the aspiration was to become an adult. The main character's goal in the book was to borrow his dad's tuxedo -- a symbol of adulthood -- to impress a girl.

West pinpoints the beginning of the concept of "teen years" as a state distinct and separate from childhood and adulthood to the period just after WWII. Eventually, this emphasis leads to the elevation of the teenager years to a desired status, where before becoming an adult was the goal. By the fifties, being and acting like a teenager is a goal unto itself.

Which then leads to the wish to live in the teen period as long as possible, leading to a blurring of the lines between childhood/teen/adult behavior. That is, children who are encouraged by their peers (and advertising) to behave as teens at younger and younger ages. The slutty dress, acting out of sexual behavior, knowledge beyond their years.

What the book doesn't mention that I think is a factor also, is all the hormones that have been pumped into meat. It is common now for girls as young as 9 to begin developing prematurely. I'm not sure if something similar is happening with boys. The media don't seem inclined to report on it and everybody seems pretty unconcerned. I guess since they're already being pushed to sophistication, that their bodies are being pushed also by chemicals doesn't seem to matter.

To get back to the book, this same elevation of the teen years leads to the wish to remain in it for as long as possible. We're seeing "adults" in their twenties and even thirties who wish to avoid responsibility, to play and have fun over settling down, working on a career and, most important, parenting.

Since many people start their childbearing years in their late teens and twenties, we're getting parents who don't want to parent. That, coupled with the children who are expected to be preternaturally sophisticated, means we're getting people of all ages who engage in adult pastimes without the judgement or common sense to handle it.

The book goes on to trace how our lack of responsibility leads to a breakdown of boundaries, continual lowering of standards of decency and behavior. No sense of shame or knowledge of what is inappropriate. "Who are we to say X is bad" or immoral or wrong. With relativism, no type of behavior is better or worse than any other type of behavior.

This has lead naturally to cultural leveling (IE, no culture is better than any other culture) has lead to a loss of cultural identity. It's our biggest handicap when dealing with the Islamic threat. Since they know what they believe and we don't, we're at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting them.

To quote from the book:

There is a hollowness to the whole enterprise that is embodied by the captain's relativism, a barren chamber where the empty slogan "war on terror" echoes on without meaning. That is, terror is a tactic. You don't make war on a tactic, you make war on the people that use it. Imagine if FDR had declared "the war on sneak attack" or the "war on blitzkrieg." It doesn't make sense and neither does "war on terror." And not only does it not make sense, it also uncovers our biggest handicap going in: that perilous lack of cultural confidence, that empty core at our heart. Where an empty core has nothing with which to refute the absurdity of Bush=Hitler, an empty core has nothing with which to define "a war on terror." Who are we to say . . . who we are fighting . . . and why? p.143

Unfortunately, the book doesn't give much in the way of solutions. There are still plenty of people, I think, who become adults, even if it is later in life. But are there enough of them? And if adulthood is postponed until after 30, will they be too late to make a significant difference? Will there be enough people willing to to turn things around?

Carnival of the Insanities

My submission for this week's Carnival was picked up! It's the second link on #16 -- a little news item from Massachusetts.

Iran fined $2.65 billion for terrorism

From the AP:

Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday

I know I shouldn't be flip, but my first thought was, "I wonder if they'll pay it all in pennies."

Of course Iran isn't going to pay anyway. They've never taken responsibility for the bombing and they've ignored the trial.

The ruling allows nearly 1,000 family members and a handful of survivors to try to collect Iranian assets from various sources around the world. Finding and seizing that money will be difficult, however, and the families are backing a law in Congress that would make it easier for terrorism victims and their families to do so.

And as much as I think countries should be held responsible for acts of terrorism, the idea of monetary restitution doesn't hold much appeal.

It seems very primitive, harkening back to the days when a criminal could pay a "blood price" for murder or maiming and avoid punishment. And it reduces human life and suffering to a dollar figure.

I do see the need for restitution to help families recover from the loss of income caused by the murder or injury of providers. But it's not punishment and shouldn't take the place of punishment. Especially when it's on the grand scale of terrorism.

I suppose it's something. And in cases of terrorism, it's hard to pin down the true perpetrators.

Courts can pass sentence, but they can't force introspection or regret on the part of the perpetrator. Court mandated "apologies" make me grind my teeth. Without true repentance, it's just empty words. I'd sooner the judge sentence someone who's wronged me to wear a diaper and sing "I'm a Little Teapot" in a very public place. At least that would give me a good laugh.

You Gotta Laugh

Spammers are a constant problem at one of the websites I monitor. There are usually five to ten spammers a day who try to register, but we have it set that they need admin approval to activate the account.

Usually I delete them with emotions varying from resignation to exasperation. What's the point of registering for a site which doesn't permit you to post your links and pics unless you're approved? And when you add it all up, I'm spending a chunk of time on these jerks that would be better spent contemplating my navel or picking my teeth.

But today, as I took a look at the registration info, scanning the info the 'bot has submitted, which consisted mostly of sites promising to enhance an important piece of male anatomy, I did a double check of the spammer's "name":

"weepricle"