There have to be serious changes at the UN, as most people acknowledge. You know what I think is fundamental to the organization's future? That it learn how to defend itself, that its peacekeepers be capable of shooting back, that its ships be able to sail the seven seas and not be helpless to attack. A group of pirates have hijacked a UN ship. The UN should not be a pushover organization that can not defend itself from anyone. It shouldn't always have to rely on us to provide its manpower for operations. When the UN is in Rwanda, and violence flares, its peacekeepers ought to be prepared to and capable of putting down the criminals. When Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the UN's orders it ought to be able to do more than pass a sharply worded resolution. Honestly, this situation with the pirates would be comical if it weren't so depressing that an organization which was meant to be, and is capable of, doing so much good for the world can't even defend itself from pirates. Pirates, of all things!
The official wish of the Office of the Independent Blogger was for Sandra Day O'Conner to avoid resigning until next year and for Rehnquist to, too. The Office also holds two candidates for next year's election in its crosshairs as people that must be destroyed; one of them is Katherine Harris. (The other is Rick Santorum.)
Sandra Day O'Conner has resigned from the Supreme Court, and I have mixed feelings about it. I'm happy that this corrupt Justice, who stormed out of a party on Election Night in 2000 when Gore was announced the winner of Florida. Why did she storm out in fury? As her husband put it, "She was hoping to retire under a Republican President." God must have a great sense of humor because he gave her a chance to retire with Bush v. Gore and she took it, thus throwing her legacy to the wind and disgracing herself for the whole world to see. That aside, I'm worried about who will replace her, and am hoping for a Souter type rather than a Scalia. Wait and see.
Katherine Harris is the dirtiest woman that I have ever seen in politics. Her make-up habits rival a whore's and she's the most corrupt election official I've ever seen in all my life. George W. Bush owes his Presidency not just to the Supreme Court and Ralph Nader, but to Katherine Harris who did everything she could to stop the recount and who ultimately succeeded. Now she's running for the Senate, and how is she being repaid by the Bush White House? She isn't.
A little history: In 2002, Harris ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in a heavily Republican district and won. Two years later, she considered making a run for Bob Graham's Senate seat. But the White House wanted a different candidate in the race—Mel Martinez, then the secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In an effort to keep Harris out of the primary, Republicans approached her with a backroom deal, according to Florida media reports: Stay out of the 2004 race and the party will support your Senate run in 2006. Harris agreed, and Martinez ascended to the Senate.
Earlier this month, Harris announced, right on time, that she would indeed make a 2006 run for Florida's second Senate seat, now held by Democrat Bill Nelson. But the Republicans she counted on haven't lined up behind her—they've been actively looking for other potential candidates, among them retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks and Florida House Speaker Allan Bense. Karl Rove, White House senior policy adviser and deputy chief of staff, has gotten personally involved in recruiting Bense, according to Republicans quoted by the Orlando Sentinel. This week, Bense went to Washington to meet with Rove and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Elisabeth Dole. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has said that Bense would "be an awesome candidate if he decides to run; he's been a spectacular speaker." When asked about Harris, the governor has displayed a notable lack of enthusiasm, often talking as if she might not really be running.
Next year's election cycle is going to be interesting.
WASHINGTON — In the 1950s, the right wing attacked liberals for being communists. In 2005, Karl Rove has attacked liberals for being therapists. Thus is born a kinder and gentler form of McCarthyism.
...
Rove's instantly famous speech last week to the New York state Conservative Party should be read in light of this history and not be written off as a cheap, one-time partisan attack. On the contrary, the address by Rove, President Bush's most important adviser, provides the outlines of a sophisticated strategy aimed at making liberals and Democrats all look soft on terrorism.
Here are the key passages: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. ... Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: We will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: We must understand our enemies."
Liberals and Democrats were enraged by Rove because virtually every office-holding liberal and Democrat closed ranks behind President Bush on 9/11. They endorsed the use of force against the terrorists and, when the time came, strongly backed the war in Afghanistan.
But Rove knows how to play this game.
Yes he does, and read the entire editorial.
But don't be angry with Rove, he's the poor fat boy who got picked on by the bullies so much he began to worship them... he just needs a hug.
A majority of Americans now realize that President Bush deliberately misled the nation to promote a war in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's speech on Tuesday contained a chilling message: America has been taken hostage by his martial dreams. According to Mr. Bush, the nation now has no choice except to keep fighting the war he wanted to fight.
Never mind that Iraq posed no threat before we invaded. Now it's a "central front in the war on terror," Mr. Bush says, quoting Osama bin Laden as an authority. And since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.
"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake." -- Thomas Jefferson
President Bush went on the air this week to pretend again that things are OK in Iraq. Shades of President Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam nearly 40 years ago.
The most important similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that both Democratic and Republican presidents lied to us in wartime. To refresh your memory, here's how we got out of the Vietnam quagmire:
• Walter Cronkite, CBS-TV news anchor known as "the most trusted man in America," after a combat tour of Vietnam in 1968 declared, "There is no way this war can be justified any longer."
• Johnson lamented to aides, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." He announced he would not run for re-election.
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - President Bush said in a Danish TV interview aired Thursday that adhering to the Kyoto treaty on climate change would have "wrecked" the U.S. economy.
"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush told the Danish Broadcasting Corp...
He was worried that the economy would be wrecked by Kyoto almost as much as he has wrecked the economy - though his wreckage was without cause or result.
Did Bush consider the long term economic devastation global warming will cause?
Did Bush consider the fact that industries' efforts to conform to the treaty would spur innovations that could reduce oil dependence thus helping America's security?
Did he consider such innovations would spur economic growth (as past dramatic innovations have)?
or Did Bush consider that if he supported the treaty his oil friends would be miffed?
God I'm as sick and tired of saying this baloney as you are of hearing it - I was told this job was about a couple of hand shakes and some beer nuts but its hard - really hard.
The Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) is a cornerstone New Deal financial reform signed into law in 1935. It was the biggest battle in FDR's first term. Utilities had become cash cows for power moguls who created complex holding company pyramids for milking ultra-reliable ratepayer income to feed speculative investments. The crash of 1929 knocked these structures flat and took down millions of small investors who had been sold on the reliability of utilities as an investment.
Does any of that sound familiar?
Both the House and Senate versions of the energy bill now contain the PUHCA repeal provision.
...
Supporters of PUHCA point out that for 50 years, we have had reliable, cheap electric power that has allowed strong economic growth, and that no PUHCA-regulated energy holding company has ever gone bankrupt. Furthermore, it was partial PUHCA repeals in the 1990s that opened the door to Enron, Westar and other energy debacles.
Sure thousands lost money, retirement accounts were wiped clean, people were financially devistated, California's economy was weakened, but it was sure fun building tall buildings in Houston. Houston needs more cool tall buildings - why's everyone complaining?
But Mr. Bush didn't explain how a war meant to remove a tyrant believed to wield weapons of mass destruction turned into a fight against Muslim militants, a transformation caused in part by his administration's many errors since Saddam Hussein's defeat more than two years ago. The president also didn't speak candidly enough about the primary mission the United States now has in Iraq, which is not "hunting down the terrorists" but constructing a stable government in spite of Iraq's sectarian divisions and violent resistance from the former ruling elite. It's harder to explain why Americans should die in such a complex and ambitious enterprise than in a fight with international terrorists, but that is the case Mr. Bush most needs to make.
...
Once again, however, the president missed an opportunity to fully level with Americans, even though some of the hard truths he elided have been spelled out by his aides and senior military commanders. The insurgency, they have said, is not growing weaker; most likely, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, it will never be defeated by American troops, and it will continue for many more years. Iraqi troops probably will not be ready to take over from U.S. units for several years, at least. For now, the combined U.S.-Iraqi force is nowhere near large enough to hold territory taken from the insurgents or to secure the country's borders. Yet Army and Marine units are being pressed into their third tours of duty, even as recruitment of fresh soldiers at home lags badly.
Mr. Bush's account of his strategy for Iraq, which has remained virtually unchanged in the past year, doesn't answer the worrying questions raised by these facts.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States plans to produce highly radioactive plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times reported on Monday.
...
Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than plutonium 239, which is used in nuclear arms, according to the newspaper. Medical experts say inhaling even a speck posed a serious risk of lung cancer, the Times said.
Now before you all start freaking about it, let me just say my plutonium powered iPod simply rocks - I won't have to turn it off for 305,000 years.
Really Karl, you prepared for war? How did you do that, play golf or have dinner at the White House? You make the conservatives sound so strong, yet, if I recall Karl, you have never severed. I also recall that your puppet Bush ran to protect Austin from the Viet-cong while his fellow Americans were dieing in the rice patties of Vietnam. Cheney had more deferrals than a tree has leaves. So I ask again, how do conservatives prepare for war?
You prepare for war by jumping on a tragedy to divide America, to further your agenda, to create a war that did not need to be fought. - from Veteran: You Prepared for War?
Here's another good one.
Whenever I get into an argument with a conservative, the story is always the same. First, they tell me I'm unamerican and unpatriotic. After I show them my military ID and mention I was in OEF, their next response is to say that I'm hurting my fellow soldiers. Then I confront them and ask them what they've done for the troops. Have they petitioned congress to make sure that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have all the armor they need? Do they make sure that the Reservists still have jobs when they come home? Do they lift a finger to look out for soldiers families while they're away? Did they even send a care package? So far, everyone I've debated has given me a no to all of these questions. - from Enduring Freedom Veteran: How My Conversations with Conservatives Go
How about one more:
I'm writing you from [Location Withheld] Iraq, about 35 miles NW of Baghdad.. And I'm too tired to give Karl the verbal beating he deserves for his insults. I'm too tired because we're jsut a bit shorthanded over here, fighting his war for him. A war taht has made nearly every country in the world fear and distrust America, a war fought for a knowing lie dreamed up by Karl and his buddies, none of whom have ever heard a shot fired in anger, or helped pick up the parts of another human being after an IED blast.
...
To hear a man like Karl insinuate that only conservatives are really patriotic is a knife in the back to every man and woman in Iraq who serves here. At least a third of us voted against Bush and pals. The number increases every day that we stay here, forced to make bricks without straw for months on end.
...
Never insult me and my fellow liberals again, Karl. Watching a fat, hateful thing like you that has never faced any greater danger in your life than a long golf shot denigrate every liberal who has put on a uniform is more demoralizing than ten thousand speeches that uphold America's highest ideals from Sen. Biden or Byrd. - from Active Iraq Soldier: Karl, Come over _here_ and say that, Chickehawk
A great site.
Karl got you angry? The least you can do is sign the petition to Fire Karl Rove.
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Students in the Shi'ite Muslim religious Iraqi city of Najaf said that police recently arrested and beat several of them for wearing jeans and having long hair.
...
"They beat us in front of the people. Then they took us to their headquarters, beat us again, shaved our heads and tore our clothes.
"When we asked what we had done, they said that we had no honor," he told Reuters this week.
TUPELO, MS - Employees of Movie Gallery, the nation's leading hard-core sex video rental chain, are prime candidates for contracting sexually transmitted diseases according to Randy Sharp, director of special projects for American Family Association (AFA).
Sharp said, "Employees should be very concerned for their health because of the sexual activity that occurs in the store's back rooms where men are allowed to freely view explicit pornographic pictures on hundreds of video covers."
Actually if sexual activityoccurringring in the store's back room they should call the cops.
But the non-gross summary of tfascinatingting piece of investigative work is that the vidcassettesttes can give you AIDS or Hep.
And of course watching the videos themselves will make you go blind.
Oh and as far as I can tell Movie Gallery is a video chain that concentrates on rural markets. Yes its a red state video chain.
LAS VEGAS (AP) - The tiger-was-hungry theory was ruled out. And there was no proof that the animal was deliberately provoked by someone in the audience, or that a terrorist sprayed it with a behavior-altering scent, or that it was unhinged by a woman with a beehive hairdo.
But federal investigators still do not know what led a Bengal tiger to attack illusionist Roy Horn of Siegfried & Roy during a performance nearly two years ago.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's final report - dated Sept. 28, and consisting of the Mirage hotel-casino's internal investigation, a Las Vegas police probe and witness statements - was obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The case was finally closed late last year with no official determination of what set off the animal, named Montecore.
2 Years in the making, but I know I can sleep tonight knowing that a terrorist didn't spray the tiger with a behavior-altering scent.
In its comprehensive account of the mauling, the 233-page report said the nearly 7-year-old tiger did indeed attack Horn.
Yes that is right - The report is 233 pages!
News Flash: It was a Tiger (and tigers sometimes bite).
Coming up the 233 page report on why streetlights go out when I walk under them (am I an alien? I think that needs to be ruled out - don't you?)
Looking for the official report on the Downing Street Memos?
I was at Hershey Park with my family and as I waited for my son outside a particularly scary right (I can do roller coasters, I can do high rides, I can do spinning rides, I can’t do both), I met a man also waiting for his children to get off the ride.
“Too scary for me” I say.
“Yeah, I can’t do that ride. I tried a ride earlier today and a pain just shot up me chest. So that’s it for me today.” He says.
He goes on to explain this isn’t the first time this has happened. Last time at work he sat down holding his arm while his manager kept asking if he could send the ambulance. “I kept telling him no because I don’t have insurance.”
Now that it happened again he was thinking he might have to go to a doctor and deal with a potentially costly unplanned expense (and that is the best case scenario).
National HealthCare isn’t “the right thing to do.” It saves you money. We have a manger and employee spending employee time discussing whether or not to send for an ambulance. You have a Hershey Park customer with a not too fond memory of their park. And the saddest and most costly thing of all, you have some children who will lose a dad. You want to be cold about it: This will cost you tax dollars. Boys without dads have an increased likelihood of committing crimes, drugs, and going to jail. Girls without dads have a higher chance of getting pregnant out of wedlock (see that fat guy on the couch with the remote serves a purpose – somewhat).
The cost of our healthcare system is loss of productivity, it is millions being spent on paperwork, and it is doctor’s giving inadequate examinations because they need to fit in X number of patients a day to make it any money.
Oh, and lives and families will be saved.
You want to save more taxpayer’s money? Spend money on pre-schools and for every tax dollar spent on that and you save 2.62 dollars be reducing special education needs, juvenile arrests and the number of children held back a grade. Sounds like a done deal!
The study released this week by the Rand Corp. found that for each dollarspent, the graduation incentives and intervention programs that monitoredhigh school delinquents and targeted parents of high-risk youth fortraining were far more effective at stemming crime than simplyincarcerating people who already have committed crimes. A previous Rand study estimated that the "three strikes" law might reduceserious crime by 21%, but at a cost of $5.5 billion per year. The new studyindicates that a combination of the graduation incentives and parenttraining could cut crime just as much for less than $1 billion.
Whoa, that is a savings – sign me up – we’re talking tax cut!
Side benefit: Lives and families will be saved.
Doing the right thing isn’t a sissy liberal thing, doing the right thing is an extremely effective way of reducing the size of the government.
I remember back in Bush the elder’s day reading editorials that we had begun to live in the era of diminished expectations.
My how they have diminished. In this, the era of Bush the lesser, we no longer uphold America as a beacon and a standard. In this era of diminished expectations we joyful proclaim that “we aren’t as bad as Pol Pot.” Or “Hey, Saddam tortured more people then we did.”
I believe in America and proudly trumpeting our comparative victories over pond scum sullies us. We should be striving to be the best. Not better then crap. Too often America is only the “envy of the world” to the third world – we are losing our standing. Is this the New America Century?
* Support not to be defined as helping veterans: ** Support not to be defined as supplying troops with what they need to save their lives *** Support not even to be defined as feeding them edible food
Supporting our troops means never having to say you’re sorry?
Downing Street Memo Housing Bubble Set to Burst 75 a barrel for oil this year? Troops still dying in Iraq Warlords control large swathes of Afghanistan
In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” - George W. Bush 6/5/99
...
“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.” - George W. Bush 6/24/05
Even from a one sentence quote Bush sounded more coherent last century. I think we're going to find out a decade or two from now that the pretzel incident was actually a mild stroke.
AMERICAN students are quitting Queensland universities in the face of hate attacks by Australians angry at US President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.
Proving idiocy is international we've got American students and tourists abused because of their nationality - why not direct their anger towards their own politicians who act as Bush lapdogs?
"Around the world, the United States was long considered to be the unchallenged leader in all aspects of space exploration and technology. That is no longer the case," the two wrote in a report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The report listed four "serious barriers" to the U.S. space program:
-- the negative impact of U.S. export controls on U.S. space commerce and international cooperation;
-- the expected decline in the U.S. science and engineering work force;
-- inadequate planning for NASA's future;
-- the erosion of international cooperation in space.
Wow those four serious barriers is an amazing summation of the Bush Administration's failures everywhere.
No planning for the future
No educated work force for the future
No one wants to play with us anymore because we only play Calvin Ball and pout
and a schizo international trading policy
Bush's political team is faltering, as anyone with an iota of analytical skill can tell you, as the President's approval ratings sink and his agenda is stalled in the Congress. Not only is his legislative vision being blinded by the sand of "checks and balances," the American public has lost faith in the Administration's announcements about Iraq. Congressional Republicans, a group generally not regarded as "in touch with reality", are coming to realize a painful conclusion: The President's Social Security plan has crumbled.
The Washington Post wants to know if Bill Frist is "up to task of being President", a question whose answer is an unequivocal "NO". Of course, George W. Bush is the most unqualified man to ever be nominated for President and that didn't stop the Republicans from nominating him, did it?
China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.
U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.
But don't worry Bush will be President and you just know our fearless leader will have the wisdom and competence needed to deal with such a crisis.
And since the insurgency is in its last throes we know we'll have an available and able military ready to deal with the crisis.
There's news coming out of the Supreme Court, no word yet on whether or not Rehnquist will resign. (I hope he waits until next year.) Our treasonous Supreme Court has ruled that the Ten Commandments can be displayed in the Texas Capitol, but framed copies of the Ten Commandments can't be kept in a Kentucky Courthouse. Really, it's no skin off my nose either way, but I thought the split in their ruling was interesting. The Court declined to hear the appeal of two journalists, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, who wanted the court to clarify whether or not a journalist can be fined or jailed for refusing to name their sources. (Clearly, if we are to protect the Constitution, our journalists must be able to use anonymous sources to protect those who would otherwise not speak out because of fear.)
Republicans are demanding that, if Justice Rehnquist steps down (or Sandra Day), Bush appoint a real Conservative, not a girly man like Anthony Kennedy. That's fine with me if they don't pick an Anthony Kennedy-clone. David Souter was a good Republican choice, too, and maybe even a Sandra Day-type would be all right. I'll bet Republican readers didn't like that.
As a liberal, I know and understand that the chances of the Democratic Party receiving a candidate in the Senate who we can respect is low. Just take a look at the shortlist of candidates (this one, too) and there's, really, only one man that is pro-choice and, well, non-ideological: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Republican Justices come in two models: Ideological, such as Scalia or Thomas; or Sensible, such as Kennedy and Souter. (All of them, however, are, I must reiterate: treasonous.) Gonzales is Spanish for Souter, the Republicans have mockingly said and indeed it is. He's, really, the best we might get. However, I wouldn't be upset if a hard-right winger like Scalia were picked to replace Rehnquist. Scalia and Rehnquist are very similar, and so what harm will it do to us if someone that hard-right replaced Rehnquist? I think we ought to cut a deal with the Bush White House: Gonzales, or someone like him, to replace O'Conner if she retires (if not this term then the next) and you can have a Thomas-type for Chief Justice. Our main goal, since we really aren't in much of a position to negotiate or to defeat a candidate, ought to be in keeping the ideological markup of the Court the same for now. I know my opinion will rankle a lot of liberals, but I'm a pragmatic liberal and I think we need to keep in touch with the reality of our situation.
You know who I'd really like to see Bush nominate for the High Court, though? Kenneth Starr. It sure would be entertaining. (You can read about my attempts at corner Kenneth Starr over at my site, right here, here and here.)
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves." - John F. Kennedy
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
More Sites we often
like:
more coming...
"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.
Hey, this is what our banner looks like. You like it?
Hey, feel free to put it on your site and link it to here.
We'd really appreciate it.
you don't have to of course, but if you do that's great.