Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
General Yaalon gets it right
Posted by: McQ on Friday, August 04, 2006

Writing in the Washington Post today, retired Israeli LTG Moshe Yaalon (former chief of staff of the IDF) points out the hard truth about civilian casualties in Lebanon:
Terrorists are fanatics, but they are not idiots. If the terrorist tactic of using human shields helps them achieve their goals, they will utilize it. If it undermines their goals, they will abandon it.

If we want to live in a world where civilians are never used as human shields, then we must create a world in which employing such measures results in the unequivocal condemnation of terrorists and in forceful action against them by the civilized world.

If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.
As usual though, the world has it reversed and as such reward the terrorist for their behavior. As Yaalon points out, as long as it works to their advantage they'll continue using human shields without a second thought.

Rampant moral relativism. For many it is far worse, apparently, to accidently kill innocent civilians than it is to cynically and purposely use their lives to advance your cause.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ-

Stop posting about what’s happening in Lebannon! Like, your last million posts are about this stuff! Libertarians aren’t supposed to care about the Jooos :)

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Quagmire! Graveyard of Zionist empire! Genocide! Massacre! Ethnic cleasing!

Hah, shark! Missed your chance.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.
and just what does "we will not tolerate the use of human shields" look like? a strongly worded letter from the UN? is there any historical record the hezbos, et. al., respond to this "pressure"?

i truly hope i’ve put up a strawman
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
and just what does "we will not tolerate the use of human shields" look like?
You quit with the "hey their terrorists, what do you expect?" (see, this all ties together) rhetoric while condemning the nations who fight them and accidentally kill the civilians they use as human shields.

Thought that would be obvious.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sure, it is wrong to use human shields. But in addition to killing civillians who are being used as human shields, Israel is killing civilians who are not being used as human shields too.
It is far worse, apparently, to accidently kill innocent civilians that it is to cynically and purposely use their lives to advance your cause.
Sure, some are being killed accidentally. But some are being killed knowlingly as well.

It is a familiar tactic on the right to make gross generalizations about everything. E.g., all Arabs are Jewish hating, Hezbollah loving, fanatical terrorists. The notion that every single civilian killed by Israel is a human shield and is killed accidentally is simply another gross (and demonstrably false) generalization.

Indeed, Human Rights Watch has just produced an extensive report, rich in detail, thoroughly investigated, that flaty refutes the very claims you make here. An tiny excerpt:
In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their ten children, and the family’s Sri Lankan maid.

On July 16, an Israeli airplane fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing eleven members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five, and seven

Others civilians came under attack in their cars as they attempted to flee the fighting in the South. This report alone documents twenty-seven civilian deaths that resulted from such attacks. The number is surely higher, but at the time the report went to press, ongoing Israeli attacks on the roads made it impossible to retrieve all the bodies
Another excerpt:
Human Rights Watch research established that, on some limited occasions, Hezbollah fighters have attempted to store weapons near civilian homes and have fired rockets from areas where civilians live. However, such practices do not justify the IDF’s failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

On July 15, for example, a group of villagers from Marwahin left the area in a convoy, in part because Hezbollah was attempting to store weapons behind their homes, and residents feared a retaliatory IDF strike.9 Two rockets believed to have been fired from Israeli helicopters struck a white pick-up and a passenger car in the convoy on the road between the villages of Chamaa and Biyada, killing twenty-one civilians (see “Attacks on Fleeing Civilians”). A U.N. team trying to retrieve the bodies came under fire from the IDF.10 While the villagers’ flight could be attributed in part to Hezbollah’s unlawful attempt to store weapons in Marwahin—the main reason for flight was the Israeli warning to evacuate within two hour—Human Rights Watch found no evidence to suggest that Hezbollah fighters were near the civilian convoy when it got hit.

Christian villagers fleeing the village of `Ain Ebel have also complained about Hezbollah tactics that placed them at risk, telling the New York Times that “Hezbollah came to [our village] to shoot its rockets.… They are shooting from between our houses.”11 `Ain Ebel was a former stronghold for the Israeli-backed South Lebanese Army (SLA), a force opposed to Hezbollah. According to an official from `Ain Ebel, some villagers told him that Hezbollah had fired at Israel from certain positions close to their houses, although so far Human Rights Watch has heard no reports of Hezbollah entering any village homes. No villagers have died but a number have been injured (mostly from broken glass), and Israeli fire had destroyed roughly eighty of 400 houses, he said.12

Human Rights Watch is hardly asserting that all Israeli strikes have targeted civilians. There are obviously many cases in which Israeli forces attacked legitimate military targets, such as rocket launchers and dug-in military positions. However, in the cases documented below, no apparent military objective existed in the civilian houses that Israel attacked. Villagers interviewed privately in one-on-one settings stated credibly and consistently that Hezbollah was not present in their homes or the vicinity when the attacks took place, and Human Rights Watch found no other evidence to suggest that Hezbollah had been there.
I realize that facts do not matter to most wingers. And if you can come up with facts to refute the assertions made in the HRW’s report, be my guest. But I’m going to take a wild guess that you won’t even try. For wingers, ideology trumps reality.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Sure, it is wrong to use human shields.
Wow, how nice of you to concede that.

Here comes the "but"....
But in addition to killing civillians who are being used as human shields, Israel is killing civilians who are not being used as human shields too.
And again the relativism. Does the word "purposeful" reside anywhere in your vocabulary?

I see the circumstantial evidence you’ve gathered, but I’m talking about policy, intent, plans. Anything which would make it obvious that the Israelis are on the same moral plane as Hezbollah. That they intentionally kill innocent civilians.

But first, you’ll have to explain why, logically, Israel would have such a policy. And if they have one why they’ve executed it so poorly (with the fire power they have there should literally be thousands upon thousands of dead civilians in Lebanon ... if they’ve a clear intent to kill innocent civilians that is).

It’s clear why Hezbollah has such a policy.

They can count on moral relativists like you not to know the difference.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sheesh.

Maybe the IDF should randomly fire unguided rockets into Lebanon for each rocket fired into Israel. Tit-for-tat, you know.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
It’s funny that you claim to care about facts and yet cite HRW as if they’re anymore a neutral authority than Al Jezeera.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Indeed, Human Rights Watch has just produced an extensive report, rich in detail, thoroughly investigated, that flaty refutes the very claims you make here.
I sure hope they investigated more thoroughly than they did with the Palistinian Beach incident or Jenin...

MKKK, I know you’re not a moral relatavist. For that, you’d actually have to have a base set of morals.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It is a familiar tactic on the right to make gross generalizations about everything. E.g., all Arabs are Jewish hating, Hezbollah loving, fanatical terrorists. The notion that every single civilian killed by Israel is a human shield and is killed accidentally is simply another gross (and demonstrably false) generalization.
It is a familiar tactic on the left to make gross generalizations about everything concerning the right. E.G. all people who don’t agree with them are ’Right wingers, or wingers’, all people who don’t agree with their view make gross generalizations which are hardly accurate (go and find the place where it’s been suggested on QandO that EVERY civilian killed by Israel was a ’human shield’ and post the link, ’But I’m going to take a wild guess that you won’t even try’)
That people who don’t agree with them are immune to ’facts’ and that ideology always trumps reality.


Am I pissed at Israel for some of the things they do? You bet, because I agree, it’s widening the war and generating ill will. But I believe they’re actually trying to preserve Israel and minimize civilian casualties in Lebanon and trying to destroy Hezbollah, and they’re sometimes making very big, very bad, very tragic mistakes.

Now, what do you think I believe about Hezbollah, and their choice to launch rockets and stash missiles in civilians areas and to randomly fire those missiles towards Israeli towns in the hope of killing a few Jews (and those pesky Israeli-Arabs if some get in the way)
Bad mistakes, trying to minimize civilian casualties? I don’t think so.
Indeed, Human Rights Watch has just produced an extensive report, rich in detail, thoroughly investigated, that flaty refutes the very claims you make here
Human Rights Watch research established that, on some limited occasions, Hezbollah fighters have attempted to store weapons near civilian homes and have fired rockets from areas where civilians live.
EVERY claim made here?, mister gross generalization? I guess not, according the report you kindly provided.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It is a familiar tactic on the right to make gross generalizations about everything.
Oh, it is? Goodness. What would you call this statement?
And if you can come up with facts to refute the assertions made in the HRW’s report, be my guest.
Pray tell, mk, exactly how does one refute an assertion?

So are you taking a class on ironic self-refutation or something?

yours/
peter
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
As a side note, This is a good example of an attempt to win the propaganda war. Objectively.

As for my personal feelings,
For many it is far worse, apparently, to accidently kill innocent civilians than it is to cynically and purposely use their lives to advance your cause.

Yeah, pretty much. The knock against one side is that they don’t really care that innocent people are dying. And the knock against the other side is... the same thing. So with neither side exactly morally pure, the abstract stuff cancel out and we come back to the fundamental question: who is doing the things that kill the civilians?


We blame people for things they do accidentally all the time in real life. When push comes to shove, we judge on results.

If what we want is a strictly targeted operation, the absence of international pressure on Israel would not be beneficial to the likelihood of Israel conducting said operation in a targeted manner.







 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
mk,

I am afraid you have a problem with the definition of fact. Fact:
On July 16, an Israeli airplane fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing eleven members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began.
Assertion: That they were not in the vicinity of a legitimate target, legitimate targets themselves or that it was not accidental. I would like to hear your answer to McQ’s query as to exactly why the IDF would target civilians directly as a matter of policy. Typically the point is to try and terrify a population into submission. The IDF is doing nowhere close to the kind of thing necessary to accomplish that if HRW is to be believed.

glasnost,
If what we want is a strictly targeted operation, the absence of international pressure on Israel would not be beneficial to the likelihood of Israel conducting said operation in a targeted manner.
To an extent, yeah, but it likely makes it more common because you are rewarding the practice of using human shields. It also can backfire. If Israel feels they are being treated unfairly they are likely to be a little less worried about possible collateral damage from their strikes. They will be judged guilty anyway, so why hold back when the line isn’t so clear? The worlds attitude is leading in aggregate to more, not fewer deaths.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
So with neither side exactly morally pure,
Yeah, neither side is EXACTLY morally pure, Glasnost, but that is a silly point. NO ONE is exactly morally, pure but Israel sure comes a WHOLE lot closer to it than Hezbollah.

Personally, as an armchair chicken hawk general I’ve got to say, Israel has blown this operation, and badly, diplomatically, public image-wise, AND militarily, the one area they OUGHT to have won handily.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And again the relativism. Does the word "purposeful" reside anywhere in your vocabulary?
You imply that if the killings aren’t purposeful, they are completely innocent. But there is a middle ground; I can knowingly or recklessly kill someone, even if if it not my purpose to do it. If I drive my car in a crowd full of people, it may not be my purpose to kill any of them. But I know, or should know, that I’m going to do it. If I then say to the jury: "It wasn’t my purpose to do it," do you think they would find me completely innocent? Not a chance.

For some reason, you seem completely incapable of conceiving of any mental states other than purposeful and completely innocent. Not surprising.

Have you ever heard of the crime of manslaughter? The prosecutor doesn’t have to prove an intent or a purpose to kill. Just a reckless state of mind. And it is a crime. Israel is on that moral plane. An immoral one. Again, I realize that in your moral universe, manslaughter wouldn’t qulaify as a crime, since there is no "intent" to kill. But for the rest of us, it is.
But first, you’ll have to explain why, logically, Israel would have such a policy.
Hatred. Intimidation. Why do soldiers commit war crimes? All sorts of reasons. Why do we torture? Doesn’t make any sense to do so. Kind of counterproductive. But we do it anyway.

The why doesn’t matter. A prosecutor doesn’t have to prove a motive. The simple fact is it is happening. Israelis are killing innocent civilians - knowingly - who are not human shields. The HRW report documents it.
I sure hope they investigated more thoroughly than they did with the Palistinian Beach incident or Jenin...
Actually, HRW eventually admitted the IDF’s version of the beach incident couldn’t be contradicted. Or are you trying to boost their credibility?
Pray tell, mk, exactly how does one refute an assertion?


By citing a source that has investigated the incident and documented contrary evidence. Duh.
But I believe they’re actually trying to preserve Israel and minimize civilian casualties in Lebanon and trying to destroy Hezbollah, and they’re sometimes making very big, very bad, very tragic mistakes.
But why do you believe this when the facts show otherwise? For instance, look at the example of the cleric. They bombed the house of a cleric. A non-combatant, but a sympathizer. The purposefully bombed the house. It was not a mistake. How could it have been? The IDF knew exactly what it was doing. And in the process, children were killed. That was no accident either. Kids live in houses, you know.

Again, I’m not saying Hezbollah is better. On may levels, it’s worse. My only point is that the right in this country seems to believe that every single civilain causaulty caused by Israel was a mistake that could not have been avoided. And that is just wrong. Israel is knowingly killing innocent civilians who are not combatants or shields.

Wake up.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The knock against one side is that they don’t really care that innocent people are dying. And the knock against the other side is... the same thing.
No. It is not. But you provide the perfect example which proves the point about moral relativism.

The knock against one side is they’re killing civilians - accidentally - while trying to root out the terrorists. The knock against the other side is it is cynically and purposely using civilians as shields and exploiting their deaths to advance their cause (because they can count on the moral relativists among us to chose your formulation of equal immorality on both sides over the reality of the situation).

Now tell me again how two are morally the same?
We blame people for things they do accidentally all the time in real life. When push comes to shove, we judge on results.
More moral relativism. When we look at a death we attempt to determine whether it was caused accidentally or purposefully. Morally and legally we deal with accidental death completely differently than we do a purposeful death (manslaughter v. murder, for instance). So no, we don’t just judge on results ... unless we’re moral relativists.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Good point, McQ, but does it go far enough?

I fault Israel for jeopardizing the mission by trying to avoid civilian casualties. The warning Israel provides (dropping leaflets) before attacks has allowed Hezbollah to escape fire and re-group. I don’t understand this, it makes no military sense. However, I don’t have the military background like McQ, and I may be wrong. Am I?
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Hatred. Intimidation. Why do soldiers commit war crimes? All sorts of reasons. Why do we torture? Doesn’t make any sense to do so. Kind of counterproductive. But we do it anyway.
Policy ... as in national policy. Not incidents and anecdotes. Policy. Like Hezbollah’s policy of using civilian areas from which to launch its attacks on Israel.
You imply that if the killings aren’t purposeful, they are completely innocent. But there is a middle ground; I can knowingly or recklessly kill someone, even if if it not my purpose to do it.
Recklessness isn’t a policy of killing civilians. Again, given the firepower possessed by the IDF, if it wished to purposely kill civilians, there wouldn’t be a few hundred dead and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that.
Actually, HRW eventually admitted the IDF’s version of the beach incident couldn’t be contradicted. Or are you trying to boost their credibility?
Heh ... yeah, when they were forced into a corner.
A non-combatant, but a sympathizer. The purposefully bombed the house. It was not a mistake.
So says HRW without corroboration. As you point out, an assertion. Nothing more. And with HRW’s recent assertion being found to be false, you’ll excuse me if I wait for that corroboration before accepting their side of this story.

Oh, and this:
By citing a source that has investigated the incident and documented contrary evidence. Duh.
You first. It was you who said it was an assertion. Look up the word.

And we’re the "wingers". Heh ...
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
My only point is that the right in this country seems to believe that every single civilain causaulty caused by Israel was a mistake that could not have been avoided
They absolutely are, the idea being that had Hezbollah not f*cked with Israel, nobody would be dying now.

The mistake was Hezbollah starting the war.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It always seems to me that the relativist view is arguing, ultimately, that when one side in war employs human shields, they by default win the war. By surrounding a weapon with innocents, that weapon is no longer a legitimate target for the opposing side unless they can destroy it without harming any of the human shields.

I think part of this is a misunderstanding by some of the reduced casualty capability of precision weapons, which is comparative not absolute. Today, removing a rocket launcher in a building means blowing up the building, killing anyone inside, and possibly killing or wounding people in close proximity. There’s also the danger of missing the target. But 60 years ago, to do a similar thing would mean carpet-bombing the surrounding 4 city blocks multiple times.

Comparatively, precision weapons have greatly reduced civilian casualties in armed conflict. But they have also accidentally allowed human shielding to become a viable propaganda tactic for winning, because there are many who believe, wrongly in my opinion, that "precision" means you should be able to guarantee that no innocent will be killed, and if you cannot you have no moral justification for firing your weapons at a human-shielded enemy. And if you can’t fire while they can, you lose.
 
Written By: Scout
URL: http://
m’kay wrote

the right in this country seems to believe that every single civilain causaulty caused by Israel was a mistake that could not have been avoided
not quite. the IDF could have stood down & let their people be qassam catchers

seems that m’kay took a late lunch and all that blood is in his/her stomach. with that, i’ll avoid wordy arguments & go straight to show & tell:

do you get it now?

if HRW is a useful idiot, what does that make m’kay?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
My only point is that the right in this country seems to believe that every single civilain causaulty caused by Israel was a mistake that could not have been avoided.
Really? And of course all those which were avoided, no one ever knows about, do they? Well, really they do. Again, for the umpteenth time, if Israel weren’t trying to avoid civilian casualties, given their firepower, there would be casualties in 5 figures right now, not hundreds.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Scout -

You’re onto something, but you’re missing a level of analysis. If Hizballah was firing a weapon surrounded by innocent people and the IDF was unable to strike anything around it, many factors come into play when determining the morality of the strike, among them the likely lethality of the weapon being fired, and the availability of less indiscriminately lethal methods, like Israel’s current house-by-house fighting. But there’s more than that here. If Israel is not striking weapons and killing lots of civilians, and Hizballah is firing lots of weapons and killing Israeli civilians, then Hizballah doesn’t win. Hizballah loses. Especially in this situation of limited war with heavy world opinion and coming great-power intervention. Whoever kills the most civilians loses. Morality and tactics merge.

more later, out of time.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
You know what would be enlightening? If we could search archives to see just how many times MKKK has ever written negatively against terrorists, and out of those very few occassions, how many times he hedged his words with some anti-GOP, U.S. or Israel point.


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
scout:

by logical extension (may i?) of "Whoever kills the most civilians loses. Morality and tactics merge.", i’d like to offer the latest offering of (hopefully only) rhetoric from within the past 48 hours:

  "the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel"

guess who? (hint: he’s scanning the horizon for the 12th imam)
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
correction: swap ’Scout’ with ’glasnost’. i must’ve posted while having a wargasm
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
It was not a mistake
So you think the IDF was after the kids?

I expect we won’t get an answer to this one - other than some fudging about how they ought to have known there could be children present and shouldn’t have deemed the cleric an appropriate target because HRW says he wasn’t (of course HRW and you know better than Israel why the IDF might select a target).


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Ok, this is the second post that’s been hit with weird comments. Is this some kind of hacker attack or just plain stupidity?
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
I’m a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel.
I agree with the main thrust of what the General is saying. The moral obtuseness of far too much of the world is frightening.

But I have to call BS on this line McQ: "For many it is far worse, apparently, to accidently kill innocent civilians ..."

I am SO tired of hearing excuses made for Israel killing innocent civilians.
Yes - Israel does indeed try to minimize civilian deaths by doing a number of things, such as dropping leaflets.
Yes - she is more moral in how she conducts war than any other nation (including the USA).
But to pretend that SOME of the deaths are ACCIDENTAL is simply a lie.
It’s far too easy, and I see far too many pro-Israelis (like myself) dismissing the deaths in a similar fashion.

Ultimately, I blame Hezbollah and the Lebanese people. If Hezbollah wasn’t trying to eradicate Israel, none of this would be happening. If they weren’t hiding amongst civilians, there woudl be far fewer civilian casualties. And if the Lebanese didn’t allow Hezbollah to attack Israel from Lebanon, these Lebanese innocents would not be dying.

But it’s just too easy to sit back and dismiss all the innocent loss of life in Lebanon as unfortunate but necessary part of Israel defending herself. It’s not true.

Perhaps the worst part is that a lot of what Israel is doing, if not all, is futile. Different strategies must be applied. Pressuring Syria. Maybe attacking Syria and/or Iran. Helping the Lebanese take control fo their state. Go after the leaders, and those teaching the hatred (mullahs). Hell, I don’t know what the asnwer is, but I do know that this will only achieve short-term results, and at the same time create many more enemies for Israel.

I’m all for killing Hezbollah. But all of these inncoent people dying can not be written off as "accidents" or as a necessary/unfortunate part of war. Sorry, but that’s not true.

The governments and institutions of the world are failing us, and we are heading over the cliff. For 6 years, after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the UN et al (even Israel!) sat by and allowed Hezbollah to grow stronger, and gain in power rather than make sure UNSCR 1559 (?) was enforced.
 
Written By: slick
URL: http://
But all of these inncoent people dying can not be written off as "accidents" or as a necessary/unfortunate part of war.
Why not? The presence of civilians is not a bar to taking the shot anyway.

Are you suggesting that Israel is killing civilians simply for the sake of doing it, a la Hezbollah?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
hi evrery one
yes it is right Hezbolla are using our Village Ainebel to launch rockets towards Israel but if Israel clearly understand and they are sure that people from my village are not the one who is doing this. i dont understand why Israel is attacking a village that was once a friend of Israel instead of attacking Hizballa’s rockets launchers directly in their Villages.
 
Written By: Maria
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider