Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Speaking of Nazi Imagery...

Here is this story about one aspiring Congressman named Tony Zirkle, along with a few rules to remember when seeking political office:

  • Don't show up at a white supremacist commemoration of Hitler's birthday.

  • Don't give a speech about white women being taken into sexual slavery in Israel to a white supremacist commemoration of Hitler's birthday while standing under a large portrait of Adolf Hitler.

  • Don't talk about sexually transmitted diseases supposedly being encouraged by pornography (or, as Zirkle likes to call it, the "porn dragon") from Jewish bookstores as "genocide" against the white race to a bunch of white power rangers wearing T shirts with portraits of Hitler on the back at a white supremacist commemoration of Hitler's birthday.

Good tips. Read the whole thing. It gets worse.

HT: Sully, and Megan McArdle

Ben Stein Has Lost His Mind

Maybe, as Tully suggests, it's because his problematic movie isn't doing so hot, or considering some of the faulty arguments he makes in his film, he really believes this, but this has got to be one of the revolting things I've ever seen:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Good word!? Come on Paul, you ought to know better. Stein ought to know better as well, but as Tully suggests in his post, it's all about coarsening the culture. Advance the idea that science is anti-God, yet rail against evolutionists who argue that belief in God is anti-science. The cultural divide deepens, and Stein wins more money. Oh yeah, and throw some Holocaust imagery for good measure, never mind the context. I guess anything goes in the culture war.

I mean, Stein has been known to advance absurd lies in the service of narrow ideological causes before, but this is just beyond the pale.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Considering Kosovo

Always-at-the-top-of-his-game Michael Totten is traveling to Kosovo, and doing his spot-on reporting from there. He has a good piece on Kosovo, and I found this excerpt fascinating:

Kosovo is the world’s newest country, and its unilateral declaration of independence is more controversial than the existence of Israel. It should be only slightly surprising, then, that many Kosovars, though most are Muslims, identify to an large extent with the Israelis. “Kosovars used to identify with the Palestinians because we Albanians are Muslims and Christians and we saw Serbia and Israel both as usurpers of land,” a prominent Kosovar recent told journalist Stephen Schwartz. “Then we looked at a map and woke up. Israelis have a population of six million, their backs to the sea, and 300 million Arab enemies. Albanians have a total population of eight million, our backs to the sea, and 200 million Slav enemies. So why should we identify with the Arabs?”


Bitter Academics, Torture, Tom Friedman, and Political Discourse

I particularly enjoyed this Bloggingheads diavlog with Dan Drezner, and Megan McArdle, in which they discuss topics such as the bitterness of academics, whether John Yoo should lose his tenure, the torture debate, the wisdom of throwing pies at Tom Friedman, and the nature of our current political discourse. It's too good all around to excerpt, but I'll say that I agree with Dan that the best way to undermine Yoo is not to take away his tenure, but to undermine his ideas, which is a good rule in general, as it's also not a good idea to throw pies at people either.

I aslo agree with Megan and Dan about the complexities of the torture debate, and that we've really had less of a debate on these issues, then we've had a shouting match. THat really applies to our discourse in general. All good stuff, and worth a look.

And Obama Cuts Him Loose...

Just a few hours ago, Obama commented on Reverend Wright's rants yesterday, and basically renounced his former Pastor:

At a news conference in Winston-Salem, N.C., Obama said Wright is exploiting old divisions in a way that is antithetical to his campaign of bridging the racial divide. The comments "give comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said.

Obama called "ridiculous propositions" Wright's assertions that the US government might have brought AIDS to black neighborhoods, that Louis Farrahkan is one of the greatest voices of the century, and that the US government has conducted terrorism. "There are no excuses," Obama said.

And this:

Obama said Wright's appearance Monday at the National Press Club in Washington was a "show of disrespect to me" and an "insult" to what his campaign is about.

Obama said he was particularly angered that Wright seems to believe that his prior denunciations of Wright's remarks were mere "political posturing." That shows that Wright doesn't know him that well, after all, Obama said.

"I may not know him as well as I thought, either," Obama said.

Indeed. I think, besides the vile rants that Wright spewed forth yesterday, what really got to Obama was the fact that Wright basically called him a phony. He called him a "typical politician," and basically echoed the charge of Obama's critics. Obama had to firmly break with him, although he cannot hide the fact that they had a relationship, which Obama didn't do. Wright has made himself Obama's adversary, and I think Obama has figured that out.

Wright Is Still Wrong

More on Wright's latest speech, in which he basically says the same hateful things he's said before, just with more bad political analysis thrown in, is forthcoming, but I just wanted to offer up this, via Dana Milbank in the WaPo:

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

First off, Farrakhan did in fact call Judaism a gutter religion, and even if he was talking about Zionism, and I know I should know better considering who we're talking about, but are we supposed to treat that statement as if calling Zionism a "gutter religion" is somehow a good thing? Are we supposed to agree with you, and Jimny "Douchebag Diplomat" Carter, that standing up for Israel is somehow a bad thing? I think not. Farrakhan was wrong then, and he's wrong now, and so are you.

Also, there's this:

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

One of the big problems I have with Wright, is his assertion that his brand of preaching and theology represents the mainstream of the black church. I find that assertion ridiculous. The prophetic tradition of black preaching is one thing. Wright's sermons are something else. Don't get me wrong, it's not as if Wright's the only one who preaches this way, but the idea that this is how the black chuch, or the church in general is to function is revolting.

And lastly, there's this, in which he totally throws Obama under the bus, and may cost him the Presidency:

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Ouch. To paraphrase the proverb, "My enemies I can handle, God save me from my friends."

Obama needs to cut this guy loose. I mean, he can't totally disown him, but he needs to publicly denounce Wright's views some more, and with more force than before.

HT: Instapundit, Patterico, and Sully

Thursday, April 24, 2008

You've Got To Love This...

In the spirit of this gem here, I present to you this:

That was cool!

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Well, Somebody Had To Try...

Apparently a bunch of anti-military douchebags decided to lay a bunch of American flags on the ground and walk all over them. In their warped minds, they call it art. Thankfully, one brave Vietnam vet stood up to them, and tried to pick up the flags. He wasn't the only one in the room with sense, as many took the time to walk around the flags.

You know what, they have the First Amendment right to be douchebags by disrespecting the flag, and the veterans who fought under it, and for their right, but they're still douchebags, and SPC Bennett had the right to call them on it. Bravo, sir, and thank you.

HT: Tully

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

John Dickerson Tries To Do The Heavy Lifting

He does a pretty good job, considering the task at hand, which is trying to justify, or explain away Obama's fracked-up cultural criticisms. He closes out with this spot-on point:

Obama supporters should know just how offensive it is to hear this line of argument. They've been on the receiving end of it for months, as Hillary Clinton and her allies have described them as deluded cult members who are marching behind the inexperienced senator because he gives a pretty speech. Obama supporters don't like it when their well-thought-out reasons for following Obama are dismissed as emotional, irrational, and thoughtless. They should understand, then, why people who don't support Obama—or in the past haven't voted for Democrats—don't like being told that they've drunk some kind of crazy Kool-Aid.


More on "Snobgate"

Well, over at Taylor Marsh's blog, that's what they're calling it in the comments. (HT: Instapundit).

You know, I try to maintain a consistent policy against hysteria, and to use Obama's own words, "fake controversies," on my blog, and in my political discussions. The thing is, the more I think about Obama's latest verbal infraction, I'm increasingly convinced that this really isn't a "fake controversy," or an example of phony outrage. This new firestorm and Obama's response to it, along with what seems to be, to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, a long train of political abuses, self-inflicted, leaves me with persistent questions about Obama's judgment, character, and his political sense. I may be overreacting, or in a pessimistic political mood, but, to be blunt, I'm wondering if he even makes it to the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

I mean, how many times can he keep fracking up like this, and people not start asking questions? I'm going to share my personal thoughts why this in fact a big deal later on, but consider this from Mickey Kaus, on why the "bitter" remark is the least of Obama's worries:

1) It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it's logically possible to say 'these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things," but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him). Yesterday at the CNN "Compassion Forum" Obama said he wasn't disparaging religion because he meant people "cling" to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they "cling" to "antipathy to people who aren't like them"--the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those "traditions that are passed on from generation to generation" that "sustains us"? Obama's unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians' excess religiosity.

2) Even if Obama wasn't equating anything on his list with anything else, he did openly accuse Pennsylvanians of being racists ("antipathy to people who aren't like them").

3) He's contradicted his own positions--at least on trade and (says Instapundit) guns.. Isn't Obama the one trying to tar Hillary as a supporter of NAFTA? Is that just 'boob bait'?

4) Yes, he's condescending. It's not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they'll change and become as enlightened as Obama or the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That's the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort--not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views--is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.

Yes, they do. I don't care how much stuff you promise them. Voters will not support you if they perceive that you don't respect their values, even if you in fact do. The culture matters.

UPDATE: John Judis over at TNR, all but sounds the death-knell. Let me say that I count myself as something of an Obama fan, but I've always been a swing voter in this election. I've leaned toward Obama in the past (I voted for him in the primary), and part of me still wants to, but as I've said before, I could vote for either of the three. This might be all moot by November, if things proceed as they are.

HT: Simon

Obama, Marx, Lieberman, and His "Bitter" Pill

You all must know by now about the kerfuffle over ill-executed and disquieting comments Obama made about small town voters being bitter, and "clinging to their religion and their guns." I'm going to elaborate on this later, but I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, so I'll link to my comment from this post by Tully over at SF, about one possible explanation for Obama's comments.

As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.

The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.

The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.

At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.

Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Tedious Task of Debating Glenn Greenwald

Via Kevin Sullivan of Independent Liberal, comes this post, on Dan Drezner's attempts to reason with the often insightful, but often- as-dogmatic-and-irrartional-as-his critcs Glenn Greenwald:

Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.

Read the whole thing.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

"He knows how to bring trash and soul together in a way that doesn't make one get in the way of the other"

Via Booker Rising, is this by Stanley Crouch, on the genius of Tyler Perry:

What Perry has mastered is the perfect mix of buffoonery, anguish and spiritual redemption. He knows he can hold his audience with variations on slapstick, pies in the face and clown costumes as long as he does not avoid the sandpaper that has scraped the hearts of so many who are lost, living far above or all the way down at the bottom. Finally, Perry knows that he must take his characters and his audience back to the church, where the greatest use of the English language other than Shakespeare lives. It's right there in the King James Bible, where forgiveness and redemption are made more than real in the big feeling of those who truly believe and who live it by the day.


Free Speech Still Under Assault

"The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' "

--Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

I may be one of the few left-leaning bloggers to take up this issue (I doubt it), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let this pass by. In Canada, a freedom-hating douchebag named Richard Warman has decided to sue bloggers with political views he does not like, namely one Kathy Shaidle, of the blog Five Feet of Fury. He's also gone after other conservative bloggers, like Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, Jonathan Kay, and the conservative chat site Free Dominion. He uses the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which by all appearances is a misshapen beast right out of Stalinist Russia, along with some rather misconstrued laws, to go after his political opponents. He used to work for the HRC, and Levant has been battling this kangaroo court for a while now, namely over his role in publishing the Muhammad cartoons.

Levant himself has all the specifics of the lawsuit.

Michelle Malkin has more.

I was taken aback by this, on Shaidle's blog:

Richard Warman's friends at the Canadian Human Rights Commission say "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.

Riiight. That's outrageous, and yet I fear that there are Americans who refuse to recognize the concept as well.

Let me say that I'm willing to do my part to fight this assault, and I'll donate straightaway, and those who can should do so as well. Some may no doubt wonder why a center-left liberal like myself would care about righty bloggers being silenced. As I see it, either we have free speech for everybody, or we don't have free speech. In other words, I wouldn't be much of a liberal if I didn't stand up for the rights of bloggers who are being being silenced, right, left, or whatever. If doing so puts me in common cause with those who may hate my political views, then so be it.

Just so you know, this isn't going to stop with Canada, and believe it or not, it's not going to stop with righty blogs.

UPDATE: It's already here, folks.

HT: Tully

McCain, "The 100 Years" Controversy, and Iraq

As I'm sure we've all heard by now, there has been much discussion (and distortion) over McCain's comments about who long American troops will remain in Iraq. The prevailing attitide that most war critics (and many sympathetic voices in the press) have towards McCain, is that he wants an unlimited commitment to Iraq, and is basically the same as George W. Bush. I am no Bush supporter, but I am for all intents and purposes a supporter of the Iraq war (come on, keep reading), and I respect McCain, not only because of his service, but for his history of standing up to Bush whwn it mattered. My point is, many have misinterpreted McCain's comments about staying in Iraq for a hundred years. Agree with him or not, it does no one any good to distort the record. McCain was essentially arguing that with regards to American public support for the war vis-a-vis progress in Iraq, most Americans aren't so much concerned with how long we're there, as much as they're concerned about our troops being killed or wounded. If things remain as they are now, fifty years from, heck even five years from now, naturally, that would affect public opinion.

The issue, McCain argues, is one of American casualties, nor American presence. We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over sixty years, in Korea for over fifty, and in Kuwait for over a decade. Most people aren't calling for us to pull troops out of Korea or Japan. Most people aren't calling for pullouts from Afghanistan, for that matter. Most people don't even think about our troop presence in Europe and Asia. I think that was McCain's point, agree or disagree.

The thing is though, there is an interesting discussion to be had, about the implications of a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq (assuming one believes that U.S. policy will ultimately settle on permanent bases), and how some argue that the issue is American presence. Andrew Sullivan offers this up:

My own view is that McCain's comment, in its most benign formulation, misses the key element here: Islam. One reader helpfully pointed out that occupied Japan also had a fiercely proud populace revolted by foreign troops. Sure: but it had been defeated as a unitary state and its Emperor (which we wisely retained) gave the occcupiers sanction. No such unitary state exists in Iraq; and Islam forbids the rule of infidels in its own heartlands - and Iraq has central religious importance for its various shrines and religious centers in the Muslim mind. Secularism has been in decline for a couple of decades. There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.

Sully's response has some problems. First off, while the Iraqi government is fragile and weak, it does in fact exist, and they have given us their consent, not to mention the U.N. mandate. The goal is ultimately to create a relatively stable society, and one key aspect of that is working out a formal framework regarding our troop presence. Secondly, we're not really running the country, as the Iraqi government (though fragile) is in place, and we are there as a support. Lastly, the question of Islam is important, but if the argument is going to be that an American presence in the Islamic world will ultimately lead to conflict, then the logical outgrowth of that argument is the view that we shouldn't confront terrorism at all, lest we run the risk of offending Muslims.

Call me naive, but I'd think we can confront terrorist threats in the Middle East, but allying ourselves with moderate forces who recognize terrorism as a common threat. It certainly doesn't always have to involve force, but sometimes force is neccessary. Just saying, is all.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Charlton Heston, 1924-2008

Sad news as truly one the icons of film and American culture has died. Whatever your views on his politics, he was a legit icon. Heston's potrayal of Moses remains the persistent image of Moses in my head. He played many iconic roles, from Moses, to Ben-Hur, to Andrew Jackson, to Michelangelo, to Captain Taylor from Planet of the Apes. He had that stone-faced look, and that gravelly voice, that will forever be in our minds.

RIP, and my condolences to his family.

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Tell Me She Didn't Just Say That

Consider this, via Althouse, on Amanda Marcotte's extreme views on abortion:

The underpinnings of the moral angst about abortion — the idea that a woman has no right to pry loose a flag a man has planted in her (even if he agrees with her decision, as most men in this case do), or that she should be punished for having sex — offend me to the core, and that many women go through anguish over getting abortions depresses me.

Ok, I'm trying not to vomit as I write this, but let me deal with this piece by piece. First off, did she just compare a human fetus to a flag planted on a field? Has the debate sunk so far now, that the fetus is reduced even further than a lump of cells, to a flag? Secondly, did I miss something, because I thought it takes two to make a baby. Why is it only the man that "plants the flag?"

As for the third and fourth points, I like Ann's responses:

Well, it offends me to the core that you think material like this helps preserve abortion rights (which I support).

I'm pro-life, for all intents and purposes, but my third point was going to be that even most clear-headed pro-choicers would find Marcotte's argument revolting, and Ann's comment here shows that.

The "abortion" shirt[the focus of the underlying post], on the other hand, admits that you've done something for yourself that involved sacrificing what many people believe is another human being. Why do you want to say that by T-shirt? In Marcotte's view, it's to show that you're proud of "taking care" of yourself "despite all the misogynist messages out there." I thought it was more to normalize abortion — to make it seem ordinary, widespread, and something that would be done without shame by nice, upstanding women.

Exactly. In Marcotte's moral sideshow of a universe, abortion is some sort of a moral smackdown to the "entrenched misygonist patriarchy" that supposedly punishes women with babies (fetuses?) they supposedly don't want, and she laments that women have the audacity to find ending the lives in their womb problematic. How dare they act like mothers? Don't they know that sex...oh I'd better stop here, before I say something that gets me in trouble

Mugabe Crushes His Opposition

Disquieting and disturbing news from Zimbabwe, as it's been reported that Mugabe has had the offices of the opposition raided. HT: The Walrus.

She hits it home in the commentary:

It's rather uncomfortable for journalists to document that though. Mugabe was a former media darling. It is difficult to admit mistakes, especially ones that never should have been made. To this day journalists seem incapable of summoning the moral outrage they applied (rightly, in that case) to apartheid and turning it against Mugabe. This despite the fact that he has turned his formerly prosperous country into a hellhole that most of his people would cheerfully leave for South Africa - present or past - or for old-time Rhodesia.

It is the African tragedy writ large all over again: a "liberator" who is really only interested in his own power. And a politically correct world that should be howling in outrage but doesn't. And journalists who express polite amazement at the inevitable.

I think I shall go be ill.

You're not kidding.

Tag, I'm It

Randy, the Internet Ronin has tagged me with another meme. Who am I to say no?

The Rules:

I. Link to the person who tagged you. (See above)

II. Post the Rules Here.

III. Share Seven Random or Weird Facts About Yourself:

1. I went to Space Camp (Space Academy) in the ninth grade.

2. I have an uncle who is involved in local politics. (Guess who!)

3. I spent almost $200 on comic books once.

4. I've been to New York twice.

5. I have copies of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Federalist Papers on my bookshelf.

6. I started school at age 2.

7. I'm 79 inches in height (6'7'')

IV. Tag 7 random people, linking to them:

1. The Walrus
2. Sean of Rife's Torch
3. David Schraub of the The Debate Link
4. plez of plezWorld
5-7: Any three of my co-bloggers from Stubborn Facts.

V. Leave a comment letting them know you've tagged them.

OK, then.

This of course assumes that all those tagged are willing to accept, but I think they will.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Thank You, Ric

The greatest of all time has bid his farewell, after a legendary thirty-six year career. Thank you, Ric, for all the memories.