Yes, your humble and magnificent correspondent got banned from the Hannity forums:

---

You have been banned for the following reason:
quoting filter bypass and vulgar abuse.

Date the ban will be lifted: August 25th, 2006

---

Now, you might be wondering what could you say that would be so awful that you would get banned?

Nothing. I actually was quoting someone else who was vulgar and abusive. I included their quote in my response.

At least the piece of shit abusive motherfucker got warned.

BAN BAN BAN BAN

DeAnna,

Gramma, bless her heart, she told me you were "Diana." You would love Gramma, she's the best, a little blunt but the best anyway.

The truth of the matter is she left me your info and I lost it somewhere here in my apartment. I lose anything that isn't nailed down. So I launched an online campaign to find out some info, but obviously since I didn't have your name right I wasn't exactly successful.

Then like a week later I found your number. I called it and it was out of service. Obviously you had moved away from Orlando to who knows where. My search came to an end and I was very disappointed.

Anyway why would I not want to talk to you? This is one of the happiest days ever. Imagine not knowing almost anything about half of your family for 28 years! That's a long time. Josh and I know a lot less about you guys than you know about us it seems. I do NOT associate you with Mother or anyone else, only on a surperficial level. I harbor no ill will toward her. She's basically a stranger, so it's hard to have any kind of emotional attachment. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy she didn't abort Josh and I, I'm thankful for that, she's my mom and that won't ever change, I just don't have any contact with her and haven't for my entire life.

Hmm...you know what maybe I do harbor some ill will towards her. She was 18 when she left us but when I heard she up and left MORE kids I was enraged. People are supposed to grow up at some point. Not that I was ever in a position to do anything about it but it does piss me off when I think about it.

Josh may or may not respond to you soon - for his job he travels all over and doesn't always have time to look at MySpace. So if he doesn't get back to you right away don't be upset. I know he and I are just as interested in you as you are in us.

I want you to know that I love you, little Sister, and that I'm happy you got to us. Let the info exchange begin! First of all what are you doing in Little Rock? Let me know what your new number is so I can call you sometime this week. I'm applying for jobs, and planning a barbecue for this weekend (big arts festival here) so it will probably be a night time call.

Talk to you soon!
Jason

Are you angry about Joe Lieberman running for Senate?

Is open voter disenfranchisement better than the underhanded kind?

Discuss.

I just got back home from my walk to the bank. What an awesome day for a walk. I would have taken pictures to show you some things but (e:Joshua) broke the digi, and hasn't replaced it yet. ASSHOLE! Anyway, I saw something interesting today - a HUGE vapor trail that arced all the way across the sky.

It got me thinking, what the hell flew across our sky? No Joshy, I don't think it was a UFO so I'm going to preempt you right now. I stare at the sky enough to know that commercial jets leave smaller vapor trails that dissipate eventually. This thing was solid. The best guess I could make was that the vapor trail was left by a C-130 flying to Niagara Falls. I wish I would have seen it - those things are enormous and make a lot of noise.

I remember one day playing golf at the country club in PA when I saw no less than FIVE of these giant planes flying really low across the sky. It was really impressive. They carry tanks, and very large amounts of cargo in support of our military operations, as well as innumerable international aid missions. The pilots fly insanely long missions, not as long as B2 missions but it is probably an awfully boring job.

I also remember something I read in the book Inside Delta Force by founding member Eric Haney. Well, I vaguely remember it but I can give you the gist. It's been a while since I read the book. Anyway you remember our bungled Iran hostage rescue mission around 25 years ago, yes? Haney and his fellow Deltas, as well as some other troops, fuel and cargo, were in some of these C-130s flying to a classified staging area where the US forces would prepare for and launch the main rescue operation.

The guy in charge of the mission was a Navy Admiral, and so he wanted his branch in particular to shine. Generals and Admirals are like this - they love getting credit and getting promotions. So this Admiral employed Navy choppers to ferry our guys from the staging area to the main operational theater. They were completely inadequate for the job. On the way to the staging area a sandstorm kicked up and some of the Sea Stallions were unable to proceed. It was a failure of planning. The mission was aborted, but not before one of the Navy choppers lost control and collided with a C-130, with Haney and his Deltas inside of it.

The C-130 started to explode, and Haney saw that the pilots and a couple of marines immediately were torched. He was certain that he was going to die. Somehow his base human instinct kicked in and he decided if he was going to die he was going to die trying his ass off to get out. He booked it and miraculously made it out before the entire plane burst into flames. Right out of an action movie. Talk about a bad day at work!

Naturally Eric Haney is no fan of Jimmy Carter, even though both of them are natives of Georgia. I guess I don't blame him.

The bums are out in force today. Keep your heads low.

Since I don't want to leave a long comment on his journal, I'll just post my own response like Libertad.

Firstly, before I get into it too far, Hezbollah isn't "correct" about anything. They are stone cold killers. They famously devalue the lives of the people they purport to represent by using them as shields. Their chief goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish state, and their supporters wholeheartedly agree. They are not a good example for anyone who wants peace.

I agree that our abuse of the UN hasn't helped things. They are a corrupt and ineffective organization when it comes to keeping people alive and fed. The UN is famous for not being able to enforce law they write. Today millions are being destroyed, starved, persecuted and tortured, right under their nose, and all we see them doing is sitting at a table with fine china and wine, smiling. The newest resolution is probably the best the UN can do, and it is horribly inadequate. I think (and I've been guilty of this in the past) that the UN doesn't need to be piled upon, rather we should have been more "diplomatic" with our complaints, and worked harder to restore the UN, to make it better. Our choices have not been wise.

I wish that we could live in a world without war, but I am realistic in the sense that war will never cease to exist as long as someone has it in them to spill the blood of another in anger. More importantly, as long as there are people who pooh pooh, make excuses for, and mitigate terrorist bombings and killings there will always be a violent response because people resort to violence especially when the world ignores their dead, looking the other way.

In other words, I think the left has to take terrorism seriously, you have to be appalled by it, as much as the Israel bombings, if you want to see peace in our world. Nobody should make excuses for them. Nobody should gloss over despicable terrorist butcher jobs. If we want to see the end of war we also have to see the end of terrorism as well.

As much as it's the en vogue thing to do in some circles, it isn't correct to say that Bush is responsible for the world's violence. He in fact did not give anyone incentive to kill Jews, Indians, Muslims, Christians, or anyone else - people who hate do not need incentive. People kill Jews because they have gone through decades of indoctrination and hate training. Pakistanis kill Indians because of a long, ongoing territorial feud, among other things that I'm sure Ajay can elaborate on. To suggest that Bush is responsible for all of these things is only an exercise in blind partisan politics, something we all should be above if we really want to solve these problems. Now, if you want to say that the US and others fighting back would cause a bloody response from the Islamofascists, I could agree with that.

The problem for the Democrats is that they really don't have an answer for terrorism. People may not like the Republican response, but what the Republicans are offering (fight over there instead of over here) is a whole lot better than a vaccuum of ideas. I do have my quibbles, especially concerning Iraq, which was only attacked because it was an easy mark instead of a very important terror target. This Gore/Hillary (which I regret, ugh)/Shumer voter can be convinced to vote for a Democrat, but they have to have something other than some kind of vaporware "plan" they talk about (Kerry is famous for this) while bashing Republicans.

The Democrats are largely bullshit artists, doing what is politically convenient, to the anger and frustration of Democrats and Liberals everywhere who want a real anti-war candidate, and also to the frustration of other Americans who see them as appeasers and weak concerning our safety. They need to take a stand and stick with it. If all the left has to offer us is "Well, we're not Bush, we would be doing things differently" then they could very well crash and burn, despite the outrage against Republicans. I want to know what course is going to change. I want to know what Democrats are going to do about terrorism other than complain about every last thing the Bush Administration does. I am sick and fucking tired of this posturing and faking - I want a real plan from them if I'm going to give them my vote. I don't think it's too much to ask for. You, David, in this respect are 1000 times better than the politicians.

Anyhow, the real point here is that in order to see the end of war and terrorism, we need to be realistic in our approach, and we do need to convince the rest of the world that it is a serious problem that everyone on earth has a vested interest in. Us because we don't want our civilians getting slaughtered, and them because they definiitely don't want to experience a "real" assault on their populations as a result of terrorist bombings. It is good for nobody. We can talk honestly about our own policies that exacerbate the problems we see. We can change things. We can be better. We can ensure that we give the Islamofascists little to no excuse for their awful killing sprees. Do I think it is realistic to see the end of war, the end of violence? No, not in our lifetimes, but we can, no we must be honest about all of the problems and replace partisan hackery with ideas that set the end of violence and war in motion. We are the world's leaders, and it is our responsibility to show the world a better way. If we quit and resign war and terror to be utterly unsolvable, we can be sure that our days are numbered. Our lives depend on it.