Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Bloghopping: "Philosophical Musings"

Not many philosophical leanings that I can detect, but there's a perceptible lean to the left.

The host, "Da5id," wrote in a slightly older post that except for Iraq's stance on terrorism, Bush's criteria for winning in Iraq had been met with Saddam Hussein's regime.
Da5id says, in effect, that Hussein was neutral toward terrorism.

Da5id moderates commentary, but he's allowed quite a few disagreeing comments thus far, so I can hope that mine will appear in the near future (on his site):
Da5id suggested that Iraq was not allied with terrorist extremists ("Iraq wasn't an ally or an enemy in this regard").

If that were the case, then why did Hussein have a program to richly benefit families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine, and why did Hussein offer Osama bin Laden asylum in 1999?

Check page 66 of the 9-11 report for the latter, or just go to Google and enter the keywords "cnn hussein asylum osama" and look for the CNN links.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Offense struggles, Bucs lose to Giants 17-3

This game was tough to watch, and not because losing by two touchdowns is humiliating.

This game was like the other tough losses this season, because the Bucs had opportunities to take this game from the Giants, but simply failed to capitalize on their opportunities.

As is frequently the case in the NFL, the game came down to a handful of key plays.
1. Early in the game, with the Bucs trailing 7-0 and fresh off a defensive stop of the Giants on fourth down, Carnell Williams fails to receive an accurate toss on a toss-sweep. Giants recover, and two plays later take a 13-0 lead (14-0 after the PAT).
Still in the first half, Joey Galloway allows a second deep pass from Bruce Gradkowski to bounce off his hands.
Also in the first half, wideout Michael Clayton allows a pass to bounce off his hands in the end zone. The Bucs settle for a field goal on the drive.
Third quarter, Bucs trail 14-0. Driving into Giant territory, the Bucs go for the first down on fourth and about 8 yards to go (going from memory). Michael Clayton catches a quick slant over the middle, reaches first down yardage, and then fumbles the ball after being hit solidly by two Giant defenders. The ball gets knocked around a bit, and finally the Bucs recover back behind the first down marker. By rule, on fourth down only the player fumbling the ball can recover. The Bucs get no first down, and the Giants take over first-and-ten.

A closer game in the fourth plays out differently than one with a 14 point differential--and that's the game I'd rather have watched.
The Bucs played pretty solid defense, holding the Giants under 300 total yards, but the offense repeatedly failed to make plays when given the opportunity against a stout NY Giants defense.

I think the Bucs are a good team, but they're doing the things that bad teams do. Dropping the key passes is exactly that type of thing. Yes, the weather made it tough to catch the ball, but both teams shared the weather.
This game dealt a serious blow to the Bucs already reed-thin playoff hopes.

I need to see some accurate passing from Gradkowski next Sunday against the Saints. He's gone three straight weeks with a rotten passing percentage.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Scare Tactics

What's wrong with scare tactics in political campaigning?

It's simple, really. There's nothing wrong with political scare tactics except where the fright factor is significantly exaggerated (or manufactured) to the point where it counts as deception.

Thus, a scare tactic by Democrats stating that Bush's Social Security reform would deprive seniors of their benefits (where the plan specifies that the benefits of those 55 and older would not be affected) is a deplorable scare tactic.
A scare tactic where Republicans suggest that Democrats would fail to adequately press the war against radical Islamists would be likewise deplorable if Democrats would, in actuality, do a good job of pressing the war against radical Islamists.
It's all a matter of whether or not the scare is reasonably portrayed.

Opinions differ about Democrat response to this unusual new war. Some think that the Democrats would do a decent job, disappointing the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party. Others see the growing influence of that wing as a harbinger of future policy. Elected officials beholden to peacenik interest groups might well allow radical Islam to press an advantage--an advantage that may prove extremely costly to America and its allies.

I've had a difficult time getting antiwar Democrats to explain their foreign policy vision. Reading between the lines, many of them do seem to see the United States as the problem. By being nicer to other nations (how?) we would take away the issues that cause international terrorism.

I find it difficult to see how that would work. The U.S. is hated largely because of its cultural imperialism--and that's a cat that liberal policies won't stuff back into the bag without some impressively authoritarian steps.

I don't think the the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party has an answer.
Does that scare you?
Should it?

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Bucs down Eagles, move to 2-4

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers' defense made up for a turnover drought by forcing four Eagles turnover, including 2 interceptions returned for touchdowns by Buc cornerback Ronde Barber.

The Eagles' high-ranked offense racked up over 500 yards, in part because they returned to offense after giving up the defensive touchdowns. Philadelphia fought back from a 17-0 deficit late in the fourth quarter to take a one point lead with under a minute remaining in the game.

With 33 seconds left on the clock, Bruce Gradkowski completed a pair of passes and scrambled into Eagle territory with about 10 seconds left on the clock. An incomplete pass left 4 seconds on the clock, and the Bucs elected to try a long field goal on the last play of the game.

Matt Bryant, who had boomed a pair of kickoffs deep into the end zone earlier in the game, nailed a 62-yard field goal to win the game for the Buccaneers.
The NFL record for a game-winning field goal was Tom Dempsey's famous 63-yard kick for the New Orleans Saints.

Bryant was mobbed by teammates after the kick, and Buc fans turned jubilant while numerous Philadelphia fans sat in stunned disbelief.

I've heard quite a few reports of unruly Philly fans who had to be taken away by the police, but the ones in my section behaved themselves. They got pretty happy when the Eagles took the lead late in the game, but that made it even sweeter to see their disbelieving expressions after Bryant's winning kick.

Ellis Wyms, starting for Booger McFarland who was traded to the Colts, registered three tackles and a sack.

Quarterback Brad Gradkowski played okay, but did a terrible job throwing the deep ball today. He threw long three times, and on two of them Joey Galloway had achieved separation from the defender; the throws were way off-target. On the plus side, Gradkowksi committed no turnovers, and his scramble on the final drive got Bryant close enough to nail down the win.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Ouch! Ninth Circuit receives another upbraiding from the SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on Arizona's voter ID law.
The SCOTUS found that the Ninth Circuit failed to show deference to the decision of the District Court in upholding the ID law (voters must present identification in order to vote, although persons without ID may fill out a provisional ballot that may be counted if the voter presents an ID within five business days).
The SCOTUS was none too pleased that the Ninth Circuit failed to provide a justification for its ruling against the District Court:
... by failing to provide any factual findings or indeed any reasoning of its own the Court of Appeals left this Court in the position of evaluating the Court of Appeals' bare order in light of the District Court's ultimate findings. There has been no explanation given by the Court of Appeals showing the ruling and findings of the District Court to be incorrect.
(SCOTUS opinion, see page 5)

Sounds like a good law.
The SCOTUS also noted that allowing the law to stand will allow the effects to be evaluated in terms of outcome rather than in terms of speculation.

Hat tip to the Belmont Club.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Debra Bowen update

Following up on California secretary-of-state hopeful Debra Bowen's apparent mangling of survey data, I found a blog-style message board at Bowen's campaign website.

I found a message proclaiming Bowen's impressive debate victory (allegedly), and that seemed like a great place to renew my inquiry into the source she used for the dubious claim that supposedly induced her to run for the office in the first place.
1. Bryan Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 7:46 pm

During her introductory comments, Debra Bowen made the claim that 52% of Americans do not have confidence that their vote will be counted as it was cast.”
She cited a “recent” Pew Research survey, but the only one I can find with vaguely similar numbers is the one performed in the wake of the 2004 election.
Was that poll Bowen’s source?
(Debra Bowen for Secretary of State)
My name links right back to this blog, so it'll be interesting to see if they stop by before either answering or deleting my post.

On the use and abuse of statistics

My bloghopping took me recently to "The BRAD BLOG," which is the blogsite of Brad Friedman.
Friedman's "Huffington Post" bio describes Friedman as an "Investigative Blogger."

I dropped by, admittedly, because I couldn't resist the lure of potentially having a Bad Blogs' Blood post titled "Bad Blog: The Brad Blog."
When I stopped by, the second-to-latest post concerned a recent debate between incumbent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and challenger Debra Bowen.

Brad Friedman favors Bowens' voter "Bill of Rights," apparently.
At first blush, the list looks unrealistic (a right to vote in a tamper-proof election?).

My concern, however, is Friedman's review of the debate, since I'm curious as to whether or not he is best described as an "investigative blogger" or a "partisan hack" (and perhaps worthy of recognition at Bad Blogs' Blood).

In updating the post, Friedman accused McPherson of lying early on in the debate, but didn't add any details at that time.

I watched part of the debate, and in Bowen's opening statement she seems to have provided a staggering piece of disinformation, centered on her claim that "52 percent of Americans do not have confidence that their vote will be counted as it was cast.”
Bowen cited a Pew Research Center poll in support of her claim, and I believe I have identified the one she's talking about, though I've e-mailed her campaign to try to get an authoritative statement as to the source of the claim.

I responded to Friedman's post in the "comments" section, offering to compare notes on the opening statements. Since I posted, Friedman dedicated a post to lambasting McPherson, but he seems to have granted Bowen a pass.

So far, Friedman's looking like the partisan hack.

This story will probably continue at Bad Blogs' Blood.

Court ruling on Foley ballot issue

Judge Janet Lewis ruled, in response to a Democrat complaint, that signs in polling places explaining that voting for Mark Foley for Congress would result in a vote for a replacment GOP candidate, Joe Negron, were not permissible under Florida law.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters gets this one exactly right. Yes, it's unfortunate that voters do not receive an explanation as to how their votes will count, but in treating the issue of replacement candidates in the Florida Statutes, it was the legislature's job to craft an allowance for that type of signage.

Judge Lewis' ruling is consistent with the type of judicial restraint that conservatives should applaud.

Cap'n Ed also points out that party workers are likely to effectively spread the word that a Foley vote counts for Negron, so in any event the decision had no momentous impact on the election. If the election is very close this may be the difference, but those are the breaks.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Bucs trade McFarland to Colts, add Phillip Buchanon


I don't know how I feel about this one.

I think that the Colts address a legitimate need, since Corey Simon looks like he's effectively done for the year. For this year, the trade is a good roll of the dice for the Colts, since McFarland is a solid, if unspectacular, defensive tackle. He should help shore up Indy's run defense.

The Colts gave up a 2nd round draft pick to the Bucs.

The trade is a good one for the Bucs for sure with an eye toward the future. The Bucs have drafted well, and a round 2 pick could help address the age issues on defense. Booger McFarland's cap numbers were also substantial, so GM Bruce Allen obtains some welcome cap room by moving Booger to the Colts.
There's a chance that the Bucs will opt to solidify the defense through free agency next year.

What about this year?

McFarland was no Warren Sapp. Numbers have been known to lie, but not to this extent. McFarland's numbers come nowhere near Sapp's production at the same position. Substitute Ellis Wyms, subbing for McFarland against the Bengals, registered two sacks.
Apparently Wyms is the better pass rusher between the two. If Wyms can hold up against the run without too much of a dropoff from McFarland, then the trade is a good one for this year as well as for the future, provided that Wyms' backup plays nearly as well as Wyms.
Depth, after all, counts for something.

Anthony Bryant, a late-round draft pick from Alabama a couple of years ago, made the Bucs' practice squad at defensive tackle.
Bryant has good size for the DT position--bigger than the prototypical Tampa-2 DT--and he has excellent speed. The rap on Bryant was that he tired quickly and took plays off. Reports out of training camp offered that Bryant did much to shed the bad rap during the offseason. He showed up with better stamina this year and created a bit of a buzz in training camp. Evidently that buzz didn't translate fully into production during the preseason games, because Bryant didn't make the team.
Bryant isn't a lock to make the active roster, however. The Bucs drafted a DT this year, Julian Jenkins (Stanford), who plays well on special teams and has the versatility to play DE. Jenkins' playing time may increase and the Bucs may opt to address another need with the roster space created by the McFarland trade.

Buchanon figures to fill in for the injured Mark Jones returning kicks.
Buchanon was former high-round draft pick who has developed a reputation for being soft on tackling. That's not a good rap to have when trying to win a job at corner in Tampa Bay. It's hard to pin down Buchanon's future with the Bucs after this year. He's due to enter free agency. Maybe the Bucs give him a shot to win a job next year if he signs a cap-friendly contract.
Of note, rookie CB Alan Zemaitis (Penn State) has been as quiet during his first season as was Ronde Barber. The signing of Buchanon may mean that Zemaitis isn't progressing as much as hoped.
Zemaitis was pegged as a perfect fit for Tampa's cover-2 defensive scheme, but appeared to struggle during preseason. Ronde Barber had similar problems during his first season, let's remember, so don't count the kid out just yet.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Bucs rack up first win against Bengals

Another solid start for Gradkowski (though I'm not used to seeing so many incompletions from him).
Bad luck almost let this one get away, as the winning touchdown was first ruled an incomplete pass. The vast majority in the stadium didn't buy that for a second. Instead of the usual stadium chant that occurs in such instances (goes by the initials B.S.), the crowd offered the classy & confident chant of "Touchdown! Touchdown! Touchdown! (etc.)" while the head official reviewed the video replay.
And of course the crowd went wild with elation after the call on the field was reversed, giving the Bucs the deserved touchdown.

Great game--both teams made big plays, both teams had penalty problems. Biggest difference--the Bucs were able to run the ball while the Bengals could not.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Bloghopping interim report

I started a companion blog to this one a few weeks ago, one dedicated more directly to putting the hammer to the poor reasoning that I run into so frequently at liberal blogs (not that a conservative blog couldn't post nonsense).
I titled it Bad Blogs' Blood, and the first bloodletting has already taken place.

Not every liberal blog I visit merits such treatment, however. Unfortunately, most of the ones that avoid putting stupid things in cyberprint tend to tackle way more than political issues. One such blog is "Clareified" which I visited today. Apart from some unwarranted canonization of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the blog was smartly written and avoided saying overtly silly things (apart from some evidence that that blogger is a Yankee fan, anyway).

It just seems fair to mention the blogs that aren't so bad in addition to the ones that I intentionally expose as having no idea what they're talking about.

So, props to Dawn Summers. Your political views are wrong, but your blog is pretty good!

Note: Thanks to Dawn Summers for offering a good-natured reply on her blog and linking to this post (is that a real name or is it indicative of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fandom?).

Friday, October 13, 2006

Wauwatosa brawl update

I've located the original video that aired on TMJ4 in Wisconsin.

Those of you who have followed my comments on this story know that my recollection of the original video suggested that somebody had been in the corner behind the black suspect.

After seeing a later video, I changed that assessment, supposing instead that the original video had been edited so that it was harder to tell that one of the people seated to the suspect's right had left his seat and moved around to the suspect's right.

Here's the original video.

Once the scene starts in which the suspect is shown seated at the corner of the counter, watch the man to the suspect's right in the green shirt.
After the suspect shoves "Jorryn," green shirt guy disappears from the scene via the magic of video editing. It is "green shirt guy" that ends up to the right of the suspect as he faces Jorryn.

The nutty thing about this is that the video later aired on the same television station tells the same story without that edit. In the later version, it is easy to see that "green shirt guy" moves to confront the suspect.
I suggested in an earlier post that the second video seems to suggest that green shirt guy threw the first punch. I want to make clear that it remains hard to tell since the video appears to skimp on the frames-per-second.

I've contacted the station to inquire into the rationale for the edits and to inquire about the video itself, as to whether or not the full tape will be released as a newsworthy item. As of today, I've had a couple of tentative replies but nothing that addresses the particulars that I have asked about regarding the video or the editing process.

I stick with my initial assessment that the video will not support a hate-crimes charge against the suspect.

I wonder how the witness testimony stacked up against the full video.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Senator Harry Reid: closet conservative?

With all the talk about the GOP "culture of corruption," it's starting to look more and more as though Senator Harry Reid has been duping people for years into thinking he's a liberal Democrat.
From CNN:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is awaiting word from the Senate ethics committee on whether he failed to properly account for a business deal that allowed him to collect a $1.1 million windfall on land he hadn't personally owned for three years.

Reid sought the opinion after The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the senator didn't disclose to Congress that he first sold the land to a friend's company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He didn't collect the seven-figure payout until the company sold the land again in 2004 to others.

Hugh Hewitt pinpoints the key passage in the story:
Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to say on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.
(Hugh Hewitt)

Cheer up, Democrats. It's not like he e-mailed a young man to ask for a photograph. Or worse, got word that another Democrat had sent out overly friendly e-mails and then failed to pursue an investigation.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Saints march to 4-1, drop Bucs to 0-4

I've got a soft spot for the Saints, firstly because they trod the path of the unloved, pre-free-agency expansion team. Secondly because of the struggles in rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina.

So, I can offer sincere congratulations to the Saints and their fans.

Now, on the important subject: the Bucs.

Gradkowski had a nice game, throwing for over 200 yards and 2 TDs. The noticeable errors were small, aside from the fumble that resulted in an early Saints touchdown.

Despite having problems in the two biggest key areas of a football team--quarterback and offensive line--the Bucs played well enough to beat another tough team. If not for Reggie Bush's punt-return for a touchdown ... if not for a big penalty against Joey Galloway for pass interference ...
But it's not Woulda-Coulda-Shoulda-Land for the sake of saying the Bucs should have won, it's to point out the problem that has dogged this team in every game. In each game, the team has played solidly, and in each game the outcome has been determined by the big plays in the game.
Unfortunately, that equation has left the Bucs on the short end each time.

It was great to see Cadillac Williams have a solid game. Once Davin Joseph takes over for Sean Mahan, this team should be pretty solid running the football.
Gradkowski has shown early signs that he has the athletic ability and the moxie to do something in this offense.

Today was a big step away from playoff contention, but it showed some great signs for the Buccaneer offense.

If only I could find the silver lining in the play of the defense.
The defense is just playing okay. Okay enough to perhaps claw their way into the top 10 in the league again, but the thing that's missing from this year's defense is the big play. Yes, they came up with some two weeks ago against Carolina, but it needs to be a week-in, week-out thing in order for the Bucs to contend in the NFC South.

If it's a problem right now, it's likely to be a bigger problem next year. Every year is another year older, and it remains uncertain who will fill shoes like Brooks', Barber's, and Rice's.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Fight video from Wauwatosa

One story I'm tracking since my days of slumming at the Bad blog "Pandagon" concerns an altercation that took place in an eatery in Wauwatosa, which is a suburb of Milwaukee.

The news reports have presented a number of different edits of the surveillance tape, which TV news people describe as a brawl started by a man who disagreed with another group who wanted gay marriage rights.
The man, whom I take to be an African-American, left the restaurant briefly, only to return for the purpose of throwing ketchup bottles and the like at certain other patrons.
He was reported to police and is wanted on a number of charges.

The TV news story seems at least slightly at odds with the surveillance video, since the suspect was sitting in his seat eating his meal when a woman walked close to confront him. Though voices may be heard on the video, I have yet to see an attempt to provide a transcript of what was said.
The suspect shoves the woman and stands up. As he stands, it becomes apparent that another figure was standing nearby. So, this man was eating at a counter alongside others, having an animated political discussion, and two people moved to stand around him.
This second person moves toward the suspect after he shoves the woman, and the suspect swings at him. That's all we get from this video angle*
Video from another angle shows a different part of the restaurant, which is confirmed by the row of tables along the wall opposite the countertop--there are no such tables in the earlier video clip.
Here's the latest edit.
The first sequence runs a little longer than the versions the television station released initially. It shows a group of three or four continuing to confront the suspect, in a rather intimidating manner, in my opinion. Not that he's playing Mr. Innocent. He did push the girl who walked close to confront him, and he did strike out at person who moved toward him afterward. However, it seems to be the sort of situation that would have been defused if the four had simply moved away from the suspect. He doesn't come after them. Rather, he reacts to their movements in his direction.

My favorite bit from the second clip is where a guy in a green shirt throws something at the suspect, turns around to look up at the surveillance camera, and then moves back out of range of the camera. Check him out in the lower left. Green shirt guy is a victim, not a suspect, from what I can tell.
I still haven't figured out exactly what's going in the middle of the picture. One person is restraining another, but the person being restrained seems to be inclined to go after green-shirt guy instead of the suspect.

Hey, hey! With the extra footage in the latest release, it appears that green-shirt guy was the origninal guy who gets punched in the earlier segment.

The new clip even shows green shirt guy throwing a chair at the suspect! None of this has received mention in the news reports. All of the reports paint the suspect as the sole aggressor.
It looks to me as though green shirt guy tried to whale on the suspect after the woman was shoved.

I have to find the first video, however, because it gave the impression that there was somebody else in the corner who got punched first.

I watched the original edit of the video here, I believe. It's been taken down.
Perhaps it was the stop-action nature of the video that led me to think that a figure had been in the corner from the start of the altercation. From the latest video, it seems clear that green shirt guy rose from the counter and came after the suspect, and later threw a chair at the suspect. I think the video offers some evidence that green shirt guy threw the first punch, also.

The news coverage on this is just strange given the video evidence.
I sent an e-mail to the television station inquiring about the video (hoping for a release of the whole thing, or a least a rough transcript of the conversation) but no response so far (it's been a week).

It is still the case that the only witness accounts aired with these clips come from the three who were seated near the suspect, arguing with him.

Could their side be a little biased?

*Update: The portion before the asterisk contains observations I made based on an earlier edit of the surveillance tape. That's why later descriptions contradict the earlier ones. As noted in latter portion of the post, the chopped nature of the tapes led to some incorrect conclusions.
One aspect I find suspicious: In the earliest edit, I could tell that green-shirt guy threw something, but even after watching it a few times I couldn't tell what he threw. In this newer version, it is clear that he threw a chair at the suspect from about 15 feet away.
None of the television news reports (from WISC) has taken the slightest note of violence directed against the suspect.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Hugh Hewitt has posted a transcript of a recent interview with former and longtime Washington Post reporter Thomas Edsall, now of the Columbia School of Journalism.

The segment of the debate touches Thomas Woodward's credibility. Edsall, a former colleague of Woodward's at the Post, offers insight into Woodward's techniques and motivations.

Good stuff. It's the kind of thing that makes Hugh Hewitt's radio show the best political talk show on the air, bar none.

Here's a portion of the exchange:
HH: Have you read State of Denial yet?

TE: Not in its entirety. I've only read the excerpts.

HH: Okay. Do you believe everything Bob Woodward writes?

TE: No.

HH: Do you believe he saw Bill Casey at the hospital bed scene in Veil?

TE: I have real problems with that.

HH: What's the mean, real problems? You don't believe him?

TE: I know the doctor who was treating Bill Casey, and the doctor who is someone who I think is very credible told me that Bill Casey was dead by all standards, except burial. And for him to have said anything cognizant at that time just was incredible to him. And this doctor is a liberal Democrat.

HH: Have you ever published that?

TE: No.

(read the rest)

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Another liberal blogger throws in the towel

Helpless Michael Hussey, of the very poor Florida blog "Pushing Rope" has joined Pandagon in giving up, though via a different strategy.
Hussey just posts out of ignorance, such as claiming that Bush's Social Security reform plan gave young people a choice between private pensions and social security in an either/or manner. Then he turns into a punching-bag in the commentary section, alternating between pathetically inept replies and total avoidance of the subject.

Hussey recently joined some other liberal bloggers in trotting out a chart that marked job gains by the yearly percentage (averaged), where the the data ended in the year 2004. Thus, he sought to make the aftermath of the sagging tail-end of the Clinton economy and the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks representative of Bush's economic policies. That's nothing less than lying with statistics, since it is a deceitful practice at its core.
I took Hussey to task over it, and rather than defend his actions he played the game of (first) claiming that his graph had struck a nerve--I averred that lying bloggers strike a nerve with me--and then by claiming that I can't quit his blog (reference to "Brokeback Mountain" perhaps influenced by his blogging on disgraced Republican representative Mark Foley).
I told Michael to remind me again in three weeks how I can't quit his blog.
I don't have time to waste on pathetic characters like that. Or at least I choose not to. :)

Michael's blog will rank in the lower depths of bad blog hell. The space dedicated to these losers will be Bad Blogs' Blood in honor of black bugs' blood.