Talking to my dad a while back, I was reminded of a fundamental of Christian right philosophy I had worked hard to forget. My dad, who is a retired high school AP government teacher with a master's degree, nonetheless loyally takes the fundamentalist position in virtually any argument. The topic on this particular day was Prop 8. He offered the standard arguments: marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage would devalue traditional marriage, etc. So I asked him to just try to argue his side as a government teacher, from a purely constitutional point of view. He couldn't bring himself to it. I told him that there was no way Prop 8 could withstand legal scrutiny, specifically under the fourteenth amendment. My dad smiled wryly and threw up his hands and said, "I know I'm behind the times, but what's a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist supposed to do?!"
The truth is, my dad is a very half-hearted fundamentalist. He knows better, but he hedges his bets on eternity by arguing weakly on the Lord's side. It's a phenomenon I hadn't thought about for a long time, this superstitious defense of "Christian values" no matter how ridiculous, extra-legal, or just plain mean it is. Later on I heard a woman on the radio trying to explain why her organization opposed gay enlistment in the military, and I realized that it's not the military, or marriage, or adoption that worries religious conservatives. After all, Baptists and Mormons - to name just two of the most conservative religious groups - are not doing much to uphold the sanctity of marriage, with divorce rates of 29% and 24%, respectively. There are currently close to 143 million orphans in the world, and around 100,000 in the U.S. alone; but fundamentalists would deny these children a loving home because the prospective parents are gay. And as for the military - if our former Baptist-in-Chief had a respect for the armed forces, his impetuous deployment of military personnel was an odd way of showing it.
Fundamentalists simply feel compelled to oppose gay-anything. If referendums to abolish gay car buying, or gay bus riding, or gay moviegoing were on the ballot, they would be out in the rain holding signs for those, too. The thinking goes, since homosexuality is a sin, we must fight it in whatever form it appears. Not to excuse it, but it's not an altogether illogical viewpoint. What's remarkable about it is that it only applies to homosexuality. It's an oft-mentioned fact that homosexuality is only mentioned a handful of times in the Bible, but the other side of that is that other sins, such as idolatry, hypocrisy, and greed are mentioned dozens of times, and fundamentalists are mostly, strangely, silent on them. Why weren't there crowds of right wing picketers outside the offices of AIG, Goldman Sachs, and GM?
The answer is simple: homosexuality is icky. If idolatry or greed involved guys kissing guys(hypocrisy does involve this; do ya hear me Larry Craig? Charlie Crist? Mark Foley?) then right wingers would be johnny-on-the-spot fighting them. But homosexuality is gross, so someting must be done! Fundamentalists aren't angry because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible - they're thrilled by it; if only eating with your mouth open and picking your nose in public was a sin!
Fundamentalism has always been about the church trying to re-shape the world in their own image, using the Bible to justify their work. Unfortunately, the Bible isn't always clear or profuse in in its condemnation, so fundamentalists have to do a kind of biblical gerrymandering, carefully drawing boundaries that include the important matters and exclude the inconvenient. They're basically doing to the Bible what that infidel Theist Thomas Jefferson famously did: tearing out the pages of the stuff they don't like and keeping what fits their world view. That's what this is all about; fundamentalists don't try to make the world conform to the Bible, they try to make the Bible conform to their worldview. Of course, in this country fundamentalist leaders have every right to fight for their ideas, no matter how narrow and hateful they may be; but they're playing with loaded dice, dressing up their arguments with threats of fire, brimstone, and happy gay couples. At least they could be honest and admit we are battling over secular principles, instead of declaring a holy war that their followers feel a spiritual obligation to support.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Email to the Stephanie Miller Show Re: Abortion
Stephanie & the Mooks,
As a progressive Christian, I listen with frustration this week as the murder of George Tiller and the issue of abortion are discussed on your show. As you have acknowledged repeatedly, there are passionate people on either side of this fiercely emotional issue, and I believe it is the passion - to a greater extent than on any other issue - that gets in the way of any compromise or even understanding between the two sides. People can't even agree on labels: it's inaccurate and unfair to label people "anti-choice" or "pro-abortion." The vast majority of pro-lifers are not, as Jim Ward calls them, "mysoginists" who are trying to subjugate women, and pro-choicers are not abortion-loving death merchants. To me this issue comes down to logic and where it leads you. If you believe - as most Christans seem to - that life begins at conception or soon after, it follows logically that abortion is murder, because that is what ending a life is called. If you believe that life begins much later in a pregnancy, or even right at birth, then you will probably consider abortion a terribly difficult, yet morally acceptable choice. Whether abortion is right or wrong ultimately has nothing to do with religion or gender; it's not wrong because God says so and it's not right because women say so. If abortion is morally wrong, then arguing that abortion is okay because it has always been around is not an acceptable argument, any more than justifying robbery because it has always been around. Also, if abortion is wrong, that certainly doesn't justify the murder of George Tiller, and to be consistent, pro-lifers must lead the charge to prosecute the murderer, while at the same time asking the judge or jury to spare his life. It's unfortunate that science can't solve this issue, and that emotion will always take center stage in this debate, because both sides have eschewed the search for common ground by making it an issue of good versus evil.
Joel Swett
Antioch, CA
As a progressive Christian, I listen with frustration this week as the murder of George Tiller and the issue of abortion are discussed on your show. As you have acknowledged repeatedly, there are passionate people on either side of this fiercely emotional issue, and I believe it is the passion - to a greater extent than on any other issue - that gets in the way of any compromise or even understanding between the two sides. People can't even agree on labels: it's inaccurate and unfair to label people "anti-choice" or "pro-abortion." The vast majority of pro-lifers are not, as Jim Ward calls them, "mysoginists" who are trying to subjugate women, and pro-choicers are not abortion-loving death merchants. To me this issue comes down to logic and where it leads you. If you believe - as most Christans seem to - that life begins at conception or soon after, it follows logically that abortion is murder, because that is what ending a life is called. If you believe that life begins much later in a pregnancy, or even right at birth, then you will probably consider abortion a terribly difficult, yet morally acceptable choice. Whether abortion is right or wrong ultimately has nothing to do with religion or gender; it's not wrong because God says so and it's not right because women say so. If abortion is morally wrong, then arguing that abortion is okay because it has always been around is not an acceptable argument, any more than justifying robbery because it has always been around. Also, if abortion is wrong, that certainly doesn't justify the murder of George Tiller, and to be consistent, pro-lifers must lead the charge to prosecute the murderer, while at the same time asking the judge or jury to spare his life. It's unfortunate that science can't solve this issue, and that emotion will always take center stage in this debate, because both sides have eschewed the search for common ground by making it an issue of good versus evil.
Joel Swett
Antioch, CA
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Rugged Hypocrisy
To hear my parents' critique of Barack Obama's first 100 days, you might imagine them reading me Horatio Alger stories at bedtime when I was a child and having a picture of Teddy Roosevelt on the mantle. You've heard the talking point, the one-word catch-all response to every plan Obama and other Democrats propose - "socialism" - which seems to mean any direct help government might give to people without jobs, healthcare, or clean air and water.
Evidently these are problems people must solve entirely on their own, despite the fact that a major share of the blame rests, directly or indirectly, with the very people wanting to withhold the solution.
I admit, it took me a long time to see issues like corporate greed, healthcare, and welfare from an unslanted and realistic viewpoint. The wealthy have done an extraordinary job of establishing corporate profligacy as a national virture, of weaving greed into the fabric of our national identity, so much so that the mere mention of government assistance to any segment of society triggers a chorus of angry chirping, not just from the one percent of extremely wealthy people who anticipate a tax increase (which they will find a way to dodge), but from the 41% of the poorest people who also voted for George Bush!
One event that really opened my eyes to the corporate corruption in this country is my ongoing battle with Kaiser Permanente to get regular psychotherapy visits consistent with my condition, which Kaiser diagnosed. It's a typical issue of a corporation offering you something before you buy, then withholding it afterward. The problem is, in my case, Kaiser is withholding a service that is considered crucial to maintaining mental health, not unlike seeing a dietician or nurse practitioner is crucial for a diabetic's physical health. The bottom line is, if Kaiser's top priority was their patients' health, people like me would get the help we need; but Kaiser is a for-profit business, so their top priority is making a profit. A general principle of capitalism is that a business has a natural incentive to provide a quality service above all else, because if it doesn't it'll go out of business. This, of course, is true, unless that business provides a service everyone needs, and every business in that field provides exactly the same quality of service.
The thing is, there are some things that just shouldn't be subject to market forces or bottom line considerations, a person's health foremost among them. And people know this. I don't believe that your "average" American would stand by and watch a child's teeth rot for lack of dental care, or let a person with lupus suffer with crippling pain, or see a woman deliver a baby with no pre- or postnatal care - without intervening. But Americans are so conditioned to defend corporate interests as a pillar of American life like apple pie and baseball, that they fight to kill programs that reflect their own values.
The truth is, my parents raised me to care about other people, to empathize, to pick a person up, to do whatever is necessary to help the helpless. They don't practice the cold, selfish Republican rhetoric that they preach. And Teddy Roosevelt, whom conservatives exalt as a self-made champion of individual responsibility, was really not one to let capitalism run amok and leave the needy to care for themselves. He was a fierce advocate of corporate regulation to protect the interests of consumers and workers, and his "Square Deal" program was designed to ensure that everyone, regardless of social station, could get ahead and have access to the basic necessities. This is what we supposedly stand for as Americans - a basic right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - a system where, as Teddy Roosevelt put it, "the creature of man's making (corporations) shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it."
Evidently these are problems people must solve entirely on their own, despite the fact that a major share of the blame rests, directly or indirectly, with the very people wanting to withhold the solution.
I admit, it took me a long time to see issues like corporate greed, healthcare, and welfare from an unslanted and realistic viewpoint. The wealthy have done an extraordinary job of establishing corporate profligacy as a national virture, of weaving greed into the fabric of our national identity, so much so that the mere mention of government assistance to any segment of society triggers a chorus of angry chirping, not just from the one percent of extremely wealthy people who anticipate a tax increase (which they will find a way to dodge), but from the 41% of the poorest people who also voted for George Bush!
One event that really opened my eyes to the corporate corruption in this country is my ongoing battle with Kaiser Permanente to get regular psychotherapy visits consistent with my condition, which Kaiser diagnosed. It's a typical issue of a corporation offering you something before you buy, then withholding it afterward. The problem is, in my case, Kaiser is withholding a service that is considered crucial to maintaining mental health, not unlike seeing a dietician or nurse practitioner is crucial for a diabetic's physical health. The bottom line is, if Kaiser's top priority was their patients' health, people like me would get the help we need; but Kaiser is a for-profit business, so their top priority is making a profit. A general principle of capitalism is that a business has a natural incentive to provide a quality service above all else, because if it doesn't it'll go out of business. This, of course, is true, unless that business provides a service everyone needs, and every business in that field provides exactly the same quality of service.
The thing is, there are some things that just shouldn't be subject to market forces or bottom line considerations, a person's health foremost among them. And people know this. I don't believe that your "average" American would stand by and watch a child's teeth rot for lack of dental care, or let a person with lupus suffer with crippling pain, or see a woman deliver a baby with no pre- or postnatal care - without intervening. But Americans are so conditioned to defend corporate interests as a pillar of American life like apple pie and baseball, that they fight to kill programs that reflect their own values.
The truth is, my parents raised me to care about other people, to empathize, to pick a person up, to do whatever is necessary to help the helpless. They don't practice the cold, selfish Republican rhetoric that they preach. And Teddy Roosevelt, whom conservatives exalt as a self-made champion of individual responsibility, was really not one to let capitalism run amok and leave the needy to care for themselves. He was a fierce advocate of corporate regulation to protect the interests of consumers and workers, and his "Square Deal" program was designed to ensure that everyone, regardless of social station, could get ahead and have access to the basic necessities. This is what we supposedly stand for as Americans - a basic right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - a system where, as Teddy Roosevelt put it, "the creature of man's making (corporations) shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thoughts on Miss California
Miss California's bumbling response to a question about gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant might have caused her to finish second in the contest, at least according to her. In the two days since the pageant there has been a lot of uproar by people on the left and the right, and this time the right's response has merit.
The question at issue, posed by gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who is gay, was probably inappropriate for the pageant forum. Hilton asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
I say "inappropriate" because it is a loaded question that inevitably would create the appearance of favortism if it is believed that the judge(s) is expecting or hoping for a particular answer. It would be like asking a contestant if they agreed with the Iraq War, or whom they are voting for; the questions are supposed to showcase the poise and eloquence (such as it is) of the candidates, not to extract political views. So whether or not I agree with the answer is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the ability of the contestant to think on her feet and give an answer that is linear and makes sense, and if the politics of Miss California's answer didn't hurt her, the substance of it certainly did:
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”
The whole point of a pageant answer is to say something bland, yet palatable, so that no one can really complain about the meaning of the answer, as long as it makes sense from beginning to end. Here, Miss California starts out giving the answer she thinks Perez Hilton wants, then she either has an attack of personal integrity or she realizes that members of the judges' panel and the audience might not agree with the answer she is giving; I really don't know which. What's funny about this is imagining the engine in her brain straining and bending and overheating as she tries to construct an acceptable, vanilla answer to this unfair, non-softball question.
Obviously, people on the right are crying foul because they believe, as I said earlier, that Perez Hilton's question was loaded, and in this sense they're right.
At the same time, people on the left are upset at her answer, which is unfair, because a pageant answer isn't supposed to be "right." If we learned nothing else from the 2008 presidential campaign, it's that we never, ever, want to hear political opinions from a pageant queen.
The question at issue, posed by gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who is gay, was probably inappropriate for the pageant forum. Hilton asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
I say "inappropriate" because it is a loaded question that inevitably would create the appearance of favortism if it is believed that the judge(s) is expecting or hoping for a particular answer. It would be like asking a contestant if they agreed with the Iraq War, or whom they are voting for; the questions are supposed to showcase the poise and eloquence (such as it is) of the candidates, not to extract political views. So whether or not I agree with the answer is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the ability of the contestant to think on her feet and give an answer that is linear and makes sense, and if the politics of Miss California's answer didn't hurt her, the substance of it certainly did:
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”
The whole point of a pageant answer is to say something bland, yet palatable, so that no one can really complain about the meaning of the answer, as long as it makes sense from beginning to end. Here, Miss California starts out giving the answer she thinks Perez Hilton wants, then she either has an attack of personal integrity or she realizes that members of the judges' panel and the audience might not agree with the answer she is giving; I really don't know which. What's funny about this is imagining the engine in her brain straining and bending and overheating as she tries to construct an acceptable, vanilla answer to this unfair, non-softball question.
Obviously, people on the right are crying foul because they believe, as I said earlier, that Perez Hilton's question was loaded, and in this sense they're right.
At the same time, people on the left are upset at her answer, which is unfair, because a pageant answer isn't supposed to be "right." If we learned nothing else from the 2008 presidential campaign, it's that we never, ever, want to hear political opinions from a pageant queen.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Anarchy in the IMC
I have one genius idea that would instantly induce rabidly committed parent participation in the search for solutions to our district's and -more broadly- our state's education budget's woes:
TAKE AWAY SPORTS! TAKE...A...WAY... SPORRRRRTS! NO MORE FOOTBALL!!! See how fucking fast parents haul ass to the district office with checkbooks and reporters in tow. Any parent who finds our plea for copies "whiny" is sooo past convincing of any other grievance we have - what more basic material do students and teachers need than paper with stuff on it?
I thought Obama's line about high school drop-outs "failing their country" the other night was a nice sentiment, albeit naive as hell. But when a kid asked me to explain that this morning, I suddenly felt so hypocritical. I understand the rhetoric, and I have no sympathy for drop outs, but who's failing whom?
I have to give my fellow Knitting Circle homies credit. I surrendered this issue the moment after I heard about it.
I chose to offer my considerable knowledge and shephardly nature to teaching because I thought, despite all the bullshit my parents (both teachers, one in MDUSD) warned me about, that I would spend the better part of my school day enchanting students with the discovery of classic literature and inspiring them to brandish their pens, like King Arthur wielding Excalibur, and loftily scale new heights in poetry and prose. Instead, I help kids re-assemble their novels and tape them togther; I take complaints about the run-down quality of the materials I pay for; and I have to put all my assignments on tranparencies that are too blurry to read. And I'm getting to where none of this really bothers me, anymore. After all, if I worry, they win. I'm providing a free service to people under the banner of an employer whose ONLY job is to provide material support to my intellectual efforts. So why am I the one who ultimately has to bear the weight of a crisis that should cause concern first to practically everone but me? Why do I have to carry this weight during the day, then run, crying, into the arms of Dave Cosca at night? Fuck that (the carrying, not the embracing). I'm going to do what I can with what I'm provided, and I'll start taking my job seriously again when anybody else outside of the teachers does.
Workers unite! I'm with you, Kropf. No bullshit. I even subscribe to Mother Jones now.
Whatever goes upon a soccer van is bad. Whatever goes upon four bald tires or eats wings in Kropf's room at lunch is good. I'm out.
TAKE AWAY SPORTS! TAKE...A...WAY... SPORRRRRTS! NO MORE FOOTBALL!!! See how fucking fast parents haul ass to the district office with checkbooks and reporters in tow. Any parent who finds our plea for copies "whiny" is sooo past convincing of any other grievance we have - what more basic material do students and teachers need than paper with stuff on it?
I thought Obama's line about high school drop-outs "failing their country" the other night was a nice sentiment, albeit naive as hell. But when a kid asked me to explain that this morning, I suddenly felt so hypocritical. I understand the rhetoric, and I have no sympathy for drop outs, but who's failing whom?
I have to give my fellow Knitting Circle homies credit. I surrendered this issue the moment after I heard about it.
I chose to offer my considerable knowledge and shephardly nature to teaching because I thought, despite all the bullshit my parents (both teachers, one in MDUSD) warned me about, that I would spend the better part of my school day enchanting students with the discovery of classic literature and inspiring them to brandish their pens, like King Arthur wielding Excalibur, and loftily scale new heights in poetry and prose. Instead, I help kids re-assemble their novels and tape them togther; I take complaints about the run-down quality of the materials I pay for; and I have to put all my assignments on tranparencies that are too blurry to read. And I'm getting to where none of this really bothers me, anymore. After all, if I worry, they win. I'm providing a free service to people under the banner of an employer whose ONLY job is to provide material support to my intellectual efforts. So why am I the one who ultimately has to bear the weight of a crisis that should cause concern first to practically everone but me? Why do I have to carry this weight during the day, then run, crying, into the arms of Dave Cosca at night? Fuck that (the carrying, not the embracing). I'm going to do what I can with what I'm provided, and I'll start taking my job seriously again when anybody else outside of the teachers does.
Workers unite! I'm with you, Kropf. No bullshit. I even subscribe to Mother Jones now.
Whatever goes upon a soccer van is bad. Whatever goes upon four bald tires or eats wings in Kropf's room at lunch is good. I'm out.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Letter to SarahPac - submitted to and ignored at its website
Dear SarahPac
So what are Sarah Palin's ideas and goals for the country, other than having Sarah Palin as President? Can somebody at "SarahPac" tell her she needs at least a high school senior's knowledge of civics and some intellectual curiousity to responsibly lead the country? I'm not a pretentious Alaska-hater or liberal dogmatist, either. It's just very, very deflating to think the future of this country lies in the hands of people who are 10% skill and 90% ambition. God help us.
Joel Swett
So what are Sarah Palin's ideas and goals for the country, other than having Sarah Palin as President? Can somebody at "SarahPac" tell her she needs at least a high school senior's knowledge of civics and some intellectual curiousity to responsibly lead the country? I'm not a pretentious Alaska-hater or liberal dogmatist, either. It's just very, very deflating to think the future of this country lies in the hands of people who are 10% skill and 90% ambition. God help us.
Joel Swett
Monday, January 26, 2009
Letter to Rush Limbaugh - submitted to and ignored at his website
Dear Rush,
I listened to your show as a teenager and liked the way you parodied and reduced people to stereotypes. I even subscribed to your newsletter. Eventually, though, I went out into the "real world," met "real people," and learned how destructive it could be to apply the generalizations you offer on your show, in "real life." I realized pretty early on that you were an entertainer first and pundit second, but unfortunately a lot of people I know never got the message. They go on quoting you chapter and verse, ignoring the discrepancies between the world you present and the world they live in, and they fervently oppose the "liberal" candidates and pundits whom you have labeled as snobby, drug abusing, polarizing eltitists; and they see no irony in this!
While I wouldn't have envoked you the way President Obama did in his meeting, I don't blame him for the sentiment, either. People listen to you, then they call their congressmen, who then go into battle on Capitol Hill fighting bills that may very well benefit the country, but a bunch of dittoheads got a hair across their ass, so they fight on. THIS is what bothers me about your show - that you gleefully proffer half-truths and distorted "facts" in the service of entertaining your audience, which are then acted upon as political reality, muddying the discourse and clogging up the wheels of government. Is it your fault you have a huge audience who believes everything you say and acts on it? Of course not, and it would be wrong for anybody to begrudge you the opportunity to do your show. And I don't expect you to endorse or even passively wave at policies you oppose; I completely understood your comment about wanting to see Obama's plans fail - I thought you were completely misinterpreted - and I wouldn't expect anything different from a conservative talk show host. But as you know when it comes to the issue of free speech, legal rights and moral responsibilities do not always coincide. I imagine President Obama's reasoning in suggesting that Congressmen not listen to you is that since you're an entertainer and your ratings depend largely on the controversy of the day, real or imagined; and since you have not shown much moral restraint in the kind of discourse you pursue, that it would be extremely counterproductive to have a person whispering in their ears who has everything to gain by shamefully pouring untruths about the state of the country and the President's plans to address them down their throats, the good of America be damned.
Sincerely,
Joel Swett
I listened to your show as a teenager and liked the way you parodied and reduced people to stereotypes. I even subscribed to your newsletter. Eventually, though, I went out into the "real world," met "real people," and learned how destructive it could be to apply the generalizations you offer on your show, in "real life." I realized pretty early on that you were an entertainer first and pundit second, but unfortunately a lot of people I know never got the message. They go on quoting you chapter and verse, ignoring the discrepancies between the world you present and the world they live in, and they fervently oppose the "liberal" candidates and pundits whom you have labeled as snobby, drug abusing, polarizing eltitists; and they see no irony in this!
While I wouldn't have envoked you the way President Obama did in his meeting, I don't blame him for the sentiment, either. People listen to you, then they call their congressmen, who then go into battle on Capitol Hill fighting bills that may very well benefit the country, but a bunch of dittoheads got a hair across their ass, so they fight on. THIS is what bothers me about your show - that you gleefully proffer half-truths and distorted "facts" in the service of entertaining your audience, which are then acted upon as political reality, muddying the discourse and clogging up the wheels of government. Is it your fault you have a huge audience who believes everything you say and acts on it? Of course not, and it would be wrong for anybody to begrudge you the opportunity to do your show. And I don't expect you to endorse or even passively wave at policies you oppose; I completely understood your comment about wanting to see Obama's plans fail - I thought you were completely misinterpreted - and I wouldn't expect anything different from a conservative talk show host. But as you know when it comes to the issue of free speech, legal rights and moral responsibilities do not always coincide. I imagine President Obama's reasoning in suggesting that Congressmen not listen to you is that since you're an entertainer and your ratings depend largely on the controversy of the day, real or imagined; and since you have not shown much moral restraint in the kind of discourse you pursue, that it would be extremely counterproductive to have a person whispering in their ears who has everything to gain by shamefully pouring untruths about the state of the country and the President's plans to address them down their throats, the good of America be damned.
Sincerely,
Joel Swett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
