I'm reading a very interesting book on the 2nd Amendment right now (which I will talk more about in a future post when I am finished with it) and one thought that it has brought to me is in regards to one of the main reasons the NRA & other gun nuts (if I may make my bias obvious) preach the sanctity of the incredibly ambiguous amendment. Do we honestly think that gun owners will rise up & overthrow the government? Is this even a good idea?

Let's be honest, armed rebellion against the United States of America is not going to happen. Despite how much the NRA or some militia might want you to think they are prepared to go all Red Dawn, they aren't. Not in any appreciable numbers anyway. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the lions share of the NRAs members would never support such action.

And more importantly, who would decide when the time for armed insurrection arrives? Is it people like Ed Brown, who ran a radio show where he suggested hunting down the judges prosecuting them (by the way, our old pal Ron Paul has compared Mr. Brown with Ghandi)? Or folks like Wayne LaPierre (who is far more interested in the money he can make off the fear of gun owners than he is about any sort of revolution)?

To me, the "insurrectionist movement" is at best a cynical ploy. It's obvious that there will not be a rebellion (sorry Montana..) but being able to constantly claim that the rampaging federal government is trying to steal your guns will keep all of the involved parties coffers nicely full. It's essentially the same as all the Moveon.org messages I get about gay marriage and how they need me to donate now. The main difference being it isn't suggesting I hoard weapons for an insurrection that will never come.

This is something I very rarely say — Ramesh Ponnuru is completely right about something. Ponnuru skewers this very silly article by Ian Millhiser at Prospect.org, in which Millhiser seeks to smear a limited-government interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by association with Michelle Bachmann, birthers, and every other form of far-right insipid nuttiness.

The Tenth Amendment, you might remember, says this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment is close to a dead letter in American jurisprudence; the unrestrained growth of the federal government reflects that modern courts have refused to find that it acts as any sort of brake on federal power. On the relatively rare modern occasions when the Supreme Court has found that the federal government has overstepped its enumerated powers, it has done so by interpreting the purported source of authority (such as the Commerce Clause). But many people feel this is incorrect. Is it the only possible reading of the Constitution? No. But it's an entirely plausible and principled one.

Millhiser is full of scorn for people who think that the Tenth Amendment might actually mean something — that it might prevent the federal government from exercising powers not specifically delegated to it. Millhiser expresses this scorn by dismissing limited-government advocates as "tenthers" (in an explicit attempt to associate them with truthers and birthers):

These efforts are all part of a movement whose members are convinced that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits spending programs and regulations disfavored by conservatives. Indeed, while "birther" conspiracy theorists dominate the airwaves with tales of a mystical Kenyan baby smuggled into Hawaii just days after his birth, these "tenther" constitutionalists offer a theory that is no less radical but infinitely more dangerous.

Tentherism, in a nutshell, proclaims that New Deal-era reformers led an unlawful coup against the "True Constitution," exploiting Depression-born desperation to expand the federal government's powers beyond recognition.

In other words, if you believe in limited government, constrained by the enumerated powers of the constitution, you are part of the lunatic fringe. The only "normal" viewpoint is the one that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants. Note that the New Republic has also picked up on the "tenther" slur.

Ponnuru immediately seizes upon the most ludicrous part of Millhiser's rant:

More important, there is something fundamentally authoritarian about the tenther constitution. Social Security, Medicare, and health-care reform are all wildly popular, yet the tenther constitution would shackle our democracy and forbid Congress from enacting the same policies that the American people elected them to advance.

This is transcendentally silly and almost perfectly Orwellian. It's authoritarian to believe that central government authority should be strictly limited to the enumerated powers in the Constitution? It's authoritarian to limit the government from doing things when those things are "wildly popular"? That sounds to me like the essence of anti-authoritarian constitutional government. Millhiser sneers that conservatives pushing for courts to interpret the Tenth Amendment meaningfully are contradicting their standard rhetoric about "judicial activitsm." Whether or not that is true (and that's an entirely different post), Millhiser is unconsciously echoing decades of authoritarian, pro-"law-and-order", pro-censorship rhetoric from the far right. Millhiser sounds exactly like the folks who thought it was authoritarian to, for instance, overturn extremely popular flag-burning laws under the First Amendment.

The pieces in Prospect and the New Republic reflect that our level of national discourse continues to suck. People who use "tenther" are on a par with the asswipes who insist on saying "Democrat Party."

Some folks in Kalona, Iowa have what they think is a cute idea to boost tourism. Are they having some sort of corn festival? A street fair? The world's largest ball-of-something?

Nope. They're using armed men to stop people with out-of-state plates on the highway, and asking them to come back and stay in Kalona for a day.

The armed men in question are police.

They think it's funny. County Sheriff Jerry Dunbar thinks it is funny. Chamber of Commerce member Larry Moeller thinks it is funny. The local news thinks that it is funny. For God's sake, the Chicago Tribune thinks it is funny:

Thousands of vehicles pass through the county on U.S. Highway 218 each day, and last Thursday chamber member Larry Moeller and Sheriff Jerry Dunbar set out to find a tourist to "arrest."

"We'll go up to the car and ask them if they have about 20 hours to spend with us here in Kalona," Moeller said.

Armed with binoculars and flashing red lights, the pair began looking for an unsuspecting passer-by.

The first car they stopped was allowed to leave because the people inside were on their way to the hospital.

Then, along came Ron and Cheri Cunningham of Sedalia, Mo.

"I was behind a truck that I'd followed for about 15 miles. I wasn't speeding. I didn't know what I could've possibly done," Ron Cunningham said.

Here's the thing: it's not funny. It's not amusing. It sounds like something out of a Stephen King novel. It's contemptible. I don't care if the deputy sheriffs are all sweetness and light and good manners after they pull over people with out-of-state plates. The point is, once they use lights or sirens or any other show of authority to stop a car on the highway, they have committed a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Fourth Amendment demands that police have sufficient and specific cause before seizing the occupants of a car by stopping it — for instance, probable cause that the driver has violated the vehicle code. There are a few exceptions for sobriety checkpoints and immigration checkpoints and other stops in which police may stop without a basis particular to a specific car, but those are very narrowly interpreted. By no stretch of the imagination do they extend to a program to stop people with out-of-state plates on the highway to ask them to shop in the town, or to donate to the Policeman's Ball, or to go to the Deputy Sheriff's girlfriend's gig at this awesome new bar.

So when County Sheriff Jerry Dunbar and his deputies, at the incitement of Chamber of Commerce member Larry Moeller, are pulling people over on the highway to promote tourism, they are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the people in question. It's not even a close call. The people might not mind, of course. The resulting harm to each individual might be slight. But it's a coordinated, knowing violation of the Constitution. That's contemptible. Jerry Dunbar took an oath to uphold the law. He's an oathbreaker.

And, by the way, I betcha some of those people really don't like it. Think about it. You're an out-of-state driver, in a place so much in the middle of nowhere that the next town over is called "Amish," and a cop pulls you over and asks you to come back to town and spend money. Just how safe do you feel saying "no thank you?" Do you think the cop might suddenly find something wrong with your car, some problem with your license or registration? Do you think you might find yourself subject to fines and forfeitures, like travelers through Tenaha, Texas?

Kalona's problem is that apparently nobody in local law enforcement or on the Chamber of Commerce is a grown-up. What might change their minds? Well, perhaps a federal class-action lawsuit for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. I'm sure there is some hungry, enterprising lawyer out there to look into that one. Or perhaps a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney for the District of Iowa inquiring into a possible criminal violation of civil rights. Do you think that might shake loose a grown-up in Kalona?

By the way, it was also contemptible when cops in Rancho Cordova, California did it to reward good drivers with $5 Starbucks gift certificates.

Who the hell is supervising these people?

Via Radley Balko.

The scene: as with so many such discussions, my car. Katrina is away at a party with the youngest. Tasked to take Evan (8) and Abby (6) to dinner, I have employed promises of shrimp and crab to persuade them to have their first Japanese meal.

Me: Okay. So Daddy will have some octopus. You guys can have shrimp tempura. And maybe some sushi. Maybe with some crab.

Abby: Daddy?

Me: Yes?

Abby: How do they kill the crab?

Me: Hand-to-hand combat.

Abby: Huh?

Evan. No. That's not how you kill a crab.

Me: OK. How do you?

Evan. You grab it by the leg. And then you smack it against the wall again and again. BANG BANG BANG.

Me: ….

Evan: Or you could go into a small, small room. Then you could hit the crab on one wall — BANG! — and then on the other wall — BANG! until it was dead.

Me: Okay. You have now officially creeped me the heck out.

Evan: [thrusting arms above his head] WOOOOOOO VICTORY!

Me: …

Abby: Daddy? Do you know how they kill an octopus?

Me: . . . . . no?

Abby: WITH A BAZOOKA! KAPOOOOOOSSHHSSHSHS!

Me: Okay, no more cartoons.

Today's New York Times has a feature about Sarah Thomas, the only female referee in big-time college football. First hired by Conference USA in 2007 and working a full slate of games for the first time this year, she appears eminently qualified, good at her job and there is no hint that anyone, anywhere on any team has any problems (other than the mild discomfort of a 19-year-old boy) with a woman wearing stripes, particularly vertical stripes which are slimming (an assist that Thomas needs far less than most of the beer-bellied waddlers on the field calling games with her). Somehow, though, near the end of the article, the author managed to write a sentence that made me – New York Jew liberal me – shake my head about the liberal assumptions that can undergird even the sports section of the Times.

Thomas has also worked the New Orleans Saints' training camps, and her name comes up as the most likely contender when the N.F.L. decides to add a female official.

Decides to add? How unfair to both the N.F.L. and to Thomas herself. To the N.F.L. because it supposes that the owners of the league have been a bunch of cigar-chomping tycoons harrumphing about how women won't become N.F.L. officials on their watch – until someone comes along, Truman-like, and forcibly integrates the ranks of football referees. And then to Thomas, because it undermines the rest of the article, which pretty clearly indicates that she is climbing the ranks on the quality of her calls on the field, and may someday be ready to be hired at the N.F.L. level on her own merits.

Another passage in the article indicates that, when she was on the verge of quitting the referree track for a different, more parent-friendly (if boring) career in pharmaceutical sales, she was coaxed back to officiating by people worried that one of the best female refs was hanging up her whistle. While I suppose this was a degree of preferential treatment – if a good but not legendary male ref decided to quit, who would care – I see no problem at all with cultivating female talent in an effort to diversify the ranks of officials. It does a huge disservice to Thomas, however, to indicate that she will be hired when the league is ready to hire a woman rather than that the league will hire a woman when Thomas is ready to call games in the N.F.L.

Good luck, Sarah, and you are going to need it. Your biggest champion may have just thrown a huge obstacle in your way.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a fierce speech today calling the Holocaust "a lie" and saying that confrontation with Israel was a “national and religious duty” of Iranians.

Reached for comment, Juan Cole, University of Michigan professor and prominent critic of Israel, said Ahmadinejad was misheard or mistranslated by a hostile and inattentive dual-loyalty running-dog imperialist Western press. "Moudy said the Holocaust is a pie," explained Cole. "And he doesn't mean a nice pie. He means a nasty pie, a definitely not pleasant or desirable pie. You don't understand metaphor." Cole also explained that the "confrontation" referred to by President Ahmadinejad was undoubtedly a political, literary, and spiritual one, to be waged by the surviving members of Iran's blogging community, government poetry ministers, and the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Eastern State Hospital — a Washington state mental institution which lists as a core value "empowerment of patients" — empowered patients this week by having 11 staff members take 31 of them to the county fair. Rides were ridden, hay was trodden upon, and things that are typically neither fried nor impaled upon sticks were eaten fried on sticks. So it went great.

What? Oh, yeah. That thing. Yeah, if you want to get all "technical" on Eastern State Hospital, an insane killer escaped.

Paul was committed after he was acquitted by reason of insanity in the 1987 slaying of an elderly woman in Sunnyside. He soaked the woman's body in gasoline to throw off search dogs and buried the remains in her flower garden. He reportedly said voices in his head told him she was a witch.

Hopefully nobody at the fair looks like a witch. Anyway, there's no way that Eastern State Hospital could have known that staunch Exodus fan Phillip Arnold Paul would escape.

In Paul's 1991 escape, he walked away from custody during a day trip was captured at the western Spokane County line. He attacked a sheriff's deputy in the jail booking area, knocking him unconscious and separating his shoulder, and was convicted of first-degree escape and second-degree assault.

I mean, other than that. Get off of Eastern State Hospital's back. They took reasonable protective measures, didn't they?

Thirty-one patients were on the trip with 11 staff members.

. . . .

They wear street clothing and need not all stay together, but staff members are required to keep each patient within eyesight at all times.

Oh, well then. As long as the 11 government employees are supposed to keep an eye on the 31 criminally insane people in street clothing on a crowded fairground, that's just fine. When you are taking a field trip with folks who have been involuntarily committed for torching old women who might or might not be witches into a noisy, crowded, busy place where they can disappear in an instant, it's totally reasonable to have a 11-probably-not-pyromaniac-killer to 31-pyromaniac-killer ratio. Haven't you heard of zone defense?

Look, as a crazy person, married to a mental health professional, I respect the concept that crazy people can in some instances be rehabilitated and that it is medieval to lock them in a hole forever. But — I have to admit that I always have grave doubts when mental health professionals assert that Arnie the Axe Murderer is all better and safe now. This is even more true when Arnie is in a government facility. I know most mental health professionals — including government ones — would never fudge, and will consider public safety. But there must be enormous pressure to (1) believe that what you are doing actually has an impact on these suffering people, and can help them, (2) believe that redemption is possible, (3) show the world (and the people who write your budget, and pay your salary, and hire you) that you are doing something that works. Eastern State Hospital says that the violent mentally ill can only go to fairs if they are "cleared by a treatment team of six to 12 clinicians, according to an extensive checklist." But what quality control of that process is there? And what pressures are brought to bear upon the people using that process?

Also, do you think that just maybe Eastern State Hospital could have, I don't know, gotten a few room mothers or something?

Via BoingBoing

The Obama Justice Department, continuing to play it's coy game of "boy the DOMA sure is terrible, it sure sucks that we have to defend it" today asked a Judge to dismiss a challenge to the DOMA by multiple married couples in Massachussets. The Justice Department argued that just because the State said they were married was no reason to extend them Federal rights provided to married couples. So, gay couples can not file joint returns for their income tax.

The Justice Department argued that Congress can decide issues of social reform as they pleased. "Congress is therefore permitted to provide benefits only to those who have historically been permitted to marry, without extending the same benefit to those only recently permitted to do so," the government argued in its written response to the lawsuit. So, the administration of our first black President is essentially arguing for Dred Scott? Wow!

Here's another great quote from the filing: "Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, and this Administration believes that Congress should do so. But its decision not to do so to this point is not irrational or unconstitutional." Aw, our hands are tied. I know it sucks, but we have to defend the laws on the books. What is going on over there? Why is this the one time they have decided to be principled? Obama has already turned his back on nearly every campaign promise he made, so why is DOMA the one time he wants to play by the rules?

It is my understanding that judges often have latitude in sentencing, particularly with respect to the terms of probation, but I still don't understand how it is within their authority to ban people from legal activity that is unrelated to the underlying offense. For example, a dickwad high school athlete in Hamilton, Ohio was convicted of assault and  sentenced to 180 days in jail plus 5 years of probation. As part of his probation he can no longer play team sports.

I understand why violent felons can't own guns, hackers can't own computers and or probationers can't drink alcohol. The terms of probation in those examples are varying degrees of understandable, and even if sometimes harsh, they make some kind of sense. I'd even understand it if Todd Bertuzzi was never allowed to play hockey again. But this seems a step too far.

In the words of the judge, ""We're going to see who Dwayne Hunter the person is, not who Dwayne Hunter the star athlete is." It wouldn't surprise me that being a star athlete made Dwayne Hunter the kind of entitled asshole that would get his kicks firing a beebee gun at people out of a car window. It does disappoint me that the physically gifted are given more chances at redemption than their spazzy peers. But I don't think the line from "pampered athlete" to "pot-shot taking sociopath" is quite as direct as the sports ban would imply.

Part of Hunter's probation requires that he "must get either a full-time job or enroll in full-time schooling within 30 days upon his release from jail." Good luck finding a job in Ohio, Dwayne; 11% of your neighbors can't. So I guess that leaves him with school. As an athlete being recruited by "everyone" before he hopped on board the stupid train, sports actually seems like the best way to get him back in school, and certainly to stay. Out of all of the schools that backed off when he got charged, I'm sure someone would take a flyer on him now that the judicial proceedings are over.

If the judge were really concerned with getting the kid an education, he'd rescind this headline-grabbing provision. I suspect, though, that the judge isn't concerned about that at all.

StoryBlox, an American company making charming handmade toys, is closing its doors thanks to the indiscriminately crushing economic burdens of the CPSIA.

Our toys are, and always were, safe. Every paint we’ve used is certified non-toxic and lead-free. We have documentation certifying every finish and glue that we use, as well. Unfortunately, none of this matters. The CPSIA legislation will require that we get a separate, destructive, 3rd party test on every single end-product toy we sell – regardless of the components, regardless of the cost. For a company that runs small productions, the costs of testing are so high that there is no way to cover them, let alone make any profit selling the products. For a company like ours, which does most of its business in custom, one-of-a-kind toys, the testing process would destroy each product before it could get to the customer that ordered it.

We do not mass produce our products, for that our customers love us, and for that congress has made it impossible for us to continue selling our toys without breaking the law. Some small businesses are taking the “just keep selling things until they catch you” approach, but I am not comfortable with that attitude. Regardless of my personal feelings towards this law, it is still law. Even if I could get my mind around the idea of ignoring a law because I disagree with it, the fines in place for ignoring the impossible requirements of this law are astronomical.

Our coverage of the CPSIA is here. Walter Olson's ridiculously comprehensive coverage of the act, its crushing effects on various segments of American small business, and the fecklessness of the people who passed it and will implement it is here.

The CPSIA is a perfect example of the members of a shallow media-driven government — strangers to substantive debate, rigorous inquiry, or principle — reacting hysterically to a misperceived risk, voting upon a lengthy grab-bag of provisions that few of them read and fewer of them understood, crushing lives as a result, and reacting with intransigence, entitlement, and defensiveness when challenged on it.

We can do better. We could hardly do worse.

Via.

I give you, Cthulhu, a unisex fragrance from Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab's "Picnic in Arkham" collection. It's a subtle little scent, described as "a creeping, wet, slithering scent, dripping with seaweed, oceanic plants and dark, unfathomable waters." So pretty much like Celine Dion.

There are several fragrances in the line, ranging from Miskatonic University to Shub-Niggurath to Arkham. With ingredients like bloodroot, black algae and embalming fluid one wonders who would want to smell like this. One thing I do like about this premise is it's acknowledgment of Lovecraft's use of scent in his descriptions. He always talked about esoteric smells and other olfactory triggers. I still believe that Lovecraft was one of the great describers in literature.

CoyoteBlog had a good post discussing a common political tactic: Party A criticizes a policy or practice of party B, and party B responds, in effect, "Well, you did it first." CoyoteBlog characterizes this as tu quoque:

. . . . a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

I'm going to dissent a bit. Like CoyoteBlog, I will use the Obama Administration's penchant for czars, which Patrick savaged here.

Look, if someone stood up and said "Let us debate. Resolved: the use of 'czars' is a poor practice which we should henceforth avoid," then I think it would unquestionably be tu quoque to respond "hey, your party's President used them first!" That would be non-responsive. A logical and responsive argument might employ prior use as one element ("Czars are effective for reasons x, y, and z. Prior administrations have used them successfully."). But "you sucked before we sucked" is a poor response to the exhortation "let's stop sucking."

However, let's face it — most political arguments are not so pure. Most attacks on Obama Administration czars, for instance, are not pure propositions that the use of czars is bad practice. Rather, most have other arguments embedded in them, explicitly or implicitly:

• I oppose President Obama because he has appointed czars, and czars are bad.
• President Obama is destroying American democracy by using czars, which are bad.
• President Obama's radical agenda includes using czars, which are bad.
• People should be OUTRAGED that President Obama has adopted the language of totalitarianism by using czars, which are bad.

In each case, the portion I have italicized reflects an additional argument — usually a purely partisan argument — beyond the argument "czars are bad." In each case, the argument "Wait a minute — czars have been used before, and the country didn't collapse" is pertinent. In several cases, the argument "you never said boo about this when your party was doing it" is also pertinent. The proposition I condemn President Obama for using czars contains the premise "this is why I am condemning President Obama." The response "this evidence suggests that you are condemning President Obama for some other reason, because you have failed to condemn other Presidents for doing the same" is directly responsive to that portion of the argument, though it fails to address the "czars are bad" portion. This is especially true when the arguments include appeals to authority, as they often do: "I've been a Congressman for 20 years and I've never seen anything so outrageous."

In case it isn't clear — and it ought to be — I think that both sides use tu quoque and falsely cry tu quoque in various circumstances. Take, for instance, Congressional rules limiting minority-party rights, holding up judicial appointees in committee, etc. In each case, it would be better if we could have an open debate on the substance. However, that does not mean that when politicians and commentators offer critiques that combine substantive and partisan elements, the partisan elements must go unrebutted.

And let's not forget that accusing nearly every politician of hypocrisy and dishonesty is an essential component of keeping them in their place and reminding the public at large that they are all unworthy of respect or trust. I refuse to bow to a logical scheme that says I can't make fun of David "Huggies" Vitter when he says ACORN ought to be condemned for promoting prostitution.

As a couple of you know, last year I started a personal site/blog at another domain for purely vanity purposes.  It was a nice site while it lasted (it still lasts), but I was drawn back to the 'Hat.  I don't intend to keep the blog portion of it alive, but I do intend to keep the domain for myself, and I've quite enjoyed keeping personal email accounts, etc. through Google Apps.

The site is registered through GoDaddy, but is hosted by Dreamhost, which is a fine hosting company, but not very helpful to those who wish to cancel hosting services.  Now I'm coming up on one year renewal, which I'm not inclined to keep (because while I'm keeping the domain I've already archived everything written on the blog, and don't care to preserve that for posterity).  But Dreamhost, if I cancel hosting (which I will), tells me that the cancellation will be effective immediately, which would also end my use of Google Apps (included through Dreamhost's hosting service), I think, which I don't want to happen.  And naturally I can't find a tutorial on how to cancel Dreamhost hosting service while keeping access to Google Apps, which means, primarily, email for me and a few other people to whom I've given accounts on that domain.

Google, unfortunately, also seems most unhelpful in terms of online guides for how to resolve such a problem.

Do we have any readers with experience with cancelling hosting through Dreamhost but keeping access to Google Apps, or repointing domains generally?  Anyone with insight into this problem on a basic level who might be willing to give advice?  Am I even asking the right questions?  If so or if not, please feel free to comment below, using a working email address in the provided comment line (NOT the text body of the comment – I can read your address behind the Popehat dashboard), and I'll get in touch via email.

God bless.

Oppression of the Jedi faith runs rampant in the United Kingdom, as supermarket giant Tesco defends its policy prohibiting shoppers who wear hoods, even for religious reasons.

Daniel Jones, 23, who created the International Church of Jediism, claims he was “victimised over his beliefs” by staff at the supermarket in Bangor, North Wales. …

Mr Jones, from Holyhead, said that staff ejected him from the store over security fears when he refused to remove his hood.

Mr Jones, also known by his Jedi name Morda Hehol, told The Sun: "I told them it was a requirement of my religion but they just sniggered and ordered me to leave.

Via Overlawyered, which with a total of two posts concerning British discrimination against adherents of the Jedi faith, automatically becomes the world's leading blog on Jedi religious freedom.

Hot on the heels of Ken's post concerning spam comments received from an alleged New York attorney, we receive the following comment, to this post.

The spam comment comes from, and links to, the office of Seattle personal injury attorney Bradley Johnson.  Here's a photo of Mr. Johnson:

While the post to which "Bradley Johnson" replied, and which he really enjoyed, concerns a competing Seattle attorney, he did not read it. The post is a squib, containing just a few words.  It was posted months ago, so it's hardly fresh.  No one actually reading the blog post would have "really enjoyed" it.  He just would have followed the link within.  And he certainly wouldn't bookmark this site, because the post is one of the most inconsequential bits of fluff we've ever published.

Ahhh, but the post does contain the keywords "Seattle" and "personal injury" and "lawyer." And that's why Mr. Johnson's spamming autobot left a spam comment on our blog.  Bradley Johnson, Seattle personal injury attorney (and I'm sure he's just a wonderful personal injury attorney), appears to be a spammer.

Update: He's still at it.  See here.