the changes for me, at 39, are amazing. in my prolonged bachelorhood i resented friends for suggesting family life was any better than my life or anyone else's (for that matter.) and i stand behind that. what it means to me, however, is growth. maybe some have children too early and so, are inclined to neglect some of what can be most rewarding in favor of doing their own thing. well, i did my own thing. i sought neither fame nor fortune but i did seek my own, and often until the wee hours of the morning. i know what it is to live for one's self. i have given to others but these past 20 years, i have lived for me. when i went blazing into the japanese night life, disco-disco in aomori city, drinking with the filipino waitresses on yellow pole road, playing snooker in sapporo so long a busload of people had to wait for me to rise the next morning, dancing with the australian models in the roppongi district, whiskey and water and hot baths, midday sakes at the appi ski resort, i was getting to know me. i was quieter then. i had need to listen closely. i liked that under the influence of alcohol, others said more, and what they said had more meaning and was more honest. back in the u.s. and living in the o.c., i experienced the life of a frat boy, though i was not in college at the time. four guys in a 4-bedroom house and we bought into the beer commercials on tv. while hollow at its core, that lifestyle was fun, (for a season.) some things that occurred there, (often in drunken stupors,) are embarrassing. what a vapid and stupefying life the quintessential frat boy lives. but, i was getting to know myself. years later i lived on the floor of a friend's apartment-i was that poor. got a job at a book store. went back to school. still, i drank, in order to experience, in order to touch, to know. and, i began to smoke pot again. it was during this time, writing a column in the college newspaper, that i began to find my voice. i loved writing from day one. i remember starting kindergarten a year early and getting kicked out only to return the next year. i remember being disappointed with the lack of stimulus i found there. the next year, (1st grade,) i met miss hintzoglu who encouraged me to make letters and i have enjoyed it ever since. but everything i ever wrote up until these years of drinking and smoking pot and writing in the college newspaper and other publications, was like grammar practice. it was like infield practice or drills with coach bobby knight. suddenly, i was alive to my own voice and it was alive to me and everything around me finally started to make sense. real sense-not that sense like, 'i'm a big dummy and why was i so slow.' that sense like, 'wow, why do i see this and get this, while 90% of everyone else thinks it folly to even consider?' my voice came from listening. often times, when writing in those days i would have a walkman strapped to my noggin with zack de la rocha and rage against the machine screaming inside my head. "turn on the the radio, nahhh fuck it! turn it off!" and i hardly heard it 'cause i was listening to me, trying to make out what i was feeling, why i was feeling it. and i suppose i discovered my voice. i sat in front of that little mac of mine for hours and days. and i was a savage in the land of lost covenants. i recognized the false promises and out-and-out lies i had ingested since childhood and my voice roared to the fore on the strength of indignation.
i am sure i discovered my voice once before, as terra does now. but when i discovered it the second time, i discovered myself. i discovered what was important to me. i discovered the lies about christopher columbus. i discovered the false notions of mine childhood: easter bunnies and tooth fairies and santa claus and cupid and leprechauns and the boogie-man and satan and god. i discovered the myriad contradictions all about me: yes, the love of money is the root of all evil, but no, gordon gecko is neither good nor to be admired.
here's the point. it will be nice to turn 40 this year. i am at peace with myself. i am happy i spent so much time drinking and smoking-those things helped me to become who i am, (mostly by helping me to know human nature.) i am happy i lived 20 years of my life for me. i think the next 20 will be for terra. as for the first 20, what did not kill me only made me stronger. i knew even at moments during it all, i would be blessed with a perspective all my own. unlike the rich kid who goes out and gets blasted on every drug imagineable to numb the pain of not being challenged in life, to numb the pain of not knowing the difference between love and material gain, to numb the pain of feeling apart from rather than a part of the fabric that is the common man, (the proletariat if you will,) i sought the casual high in which i revelled in the joy of being alive and the joy of touching and loving my fellow man.
"of the people." it is all i ever wanted. i feel rich somehow for having that perspective. i do not overidentify with my family, my roots, the color of my skin, the shape of my eyes, my city, my state, certainly not my country!?! i love my family. i love faith and terra. i do not, however, love them more than all of the other people in the world combined. i am of the people. it is important to me to be of the people. i am for humanity-that is my team and my cause.
when i discarded god, i did not leave a vacuum in that place. i filled the void with humanism. the humanism of paul kurtz and fidel castro.
i am unoffendable. call me a drunkard on account of my irish ancestry and i will look away. say i eat dog-meat because you heard they do that in the phillipines. why should i be offended by such a thing? say i have multiple chins or bad skin or that my 40-year-old paunch is showing, (as if i imagined myself the precious, supermodel, flower,) and i will defer to kundera. (these things are not me, i am on the inside.) i will define myself by subtraction. i grant not permission to offend me, not with words anyway.
i have read marx and nietzsche, dostoyevsky and chekov, hamsun and ibsen, bukowski and celine and rushdie and gibran and tayeb salih and the apostle paul and jane austen and garcia-marquez and richard rodriguez and malcolm x and gao xingjian and walt whitman. i found value in each and every one, great value. i have concluded there is no superior tribe. in fact, i recall mencken discussing the science of a widening gene pool and i suspect he was on track in suggesting the mongrel would have the leg up in any race for superiority.
and in wanting to lead by example i say, i am not interested in having a leg up. i have an overdeveloped sense of justice, to be sure, but i do not want more than. i require material only that allows me to socialize, (i.e. that which places me in the same social strata as my neighbors.) and for that, like almost every man i ever met, i am ready, willing and able to work.
perhaps we are a baby species and our borders are representative of this fact. perhaps nationalism has it's place and time, (now,) and one day it too will pass away. i know i feel no greater kinship with a man who pulls lobsters from the sea in maine than him who does the same in baja california. one is my countryman and one is my neighbor. one speaks my language while the other sounds like home. one was not involved in the revolt against king george and the other did not fight as an aztec nor as a spaniard. all flags are division symbols.
they are not of the people.
my voice, the one i discovered the second time, feels to me like it is, of the people.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
terra the orchestra leader, or, night of the bleating geese
terra lays on the floor the conductor, and we, her concert band follow her every whim. one of terra's regular spots is on a blanket on the floor with a portable mobile over her. she is discovering her voice. she hoots and hollers, cackles, peeps, moos, snorts, squeaks and squaks. and whenever that sound comes out of her mouth, her mother and i mimic her.
"unnghhhhhh." "UNNGHHHHHH."
"hoo!" "HOO!"
"ahhhhhllhh uhh.." "AHHHHLLHH UHH.."
we love this little girl and somewhere in one of the countless magazines or books laying around the house on parenting, we read that mimicking may have a positive effect on encouraging terra's speaking abilities. apparently there are possibly even greater implications.
terra will not recall discovering her voice. she won't recall her daily routine of eating every four hours or that she was at the 4.5 month mark when she began skipping the 2:30am feeding in favor of sleeping through the night. (ahhh, but we will. . .) she won't reminisce someday about how she used to eat, burp, play with mama, go to her back on the floor with the mobile, get carried around a bit, swing for 20 minutes, nap, diaper change then back to mama's breast again. this has been her four-hour plan. it is her life today but she won't remember it. we will.
and so our home is strangely wonderful to me right now. terra is healthy and happy and growing. faith and i are learning what it means to be devoted to a family, how difficult it can be to live together and raise a child, and how rewarding it is to feel this elastic band of love which tethers us all to one another.
"unnghhhhhh." "UNNGHHHHHH."
"hoo!" "HOO!"
"ahhhhhllhh uhh.." "AHHHHLLHH UHH.."
we love this little girl and somewhere in one of the countless magazines or books laying around the house on parenting, we read that mimicking may have a positive effect on encouraging terra's speaking abilities. apparently there are possibly even greater implications.
terra will not recall discovering her voice. she won't recall her daily routine of eating every four hours or that she was at the 4.5 month mark when she began skipping the 2:30am feeding in favor of sleeping through the night. (ahhh, but we will. . .) she won't reminisce someday about how she used to eat, burp, play with mama, go to her back on the floor with the mobile, get carried around a bit, swing for 20 minutes, nap, diaper change then back to mama's breast again. this has been her four-hour plan. it is her life today but she won't remember it. we will.
and so our home is strangely wonderful to me right now. terra is healthy and happy and growing. faith and i are learning what it means to be devoted to a family, how difficult it can be to live together and raise a child, and how rewarding it is to feel this elastic band of love which tethers us all to one another.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
the icon's death makes me sad, but not for the obvious. . .
Thompson Probably Planned Suicide
Feb 23, 1:18 PM (ET)By DAN ELLIOTT
DENVER (AP) - Journalist Hunter S. Thompson did not take his life "in a moment of haste or anger or despondency" and probably planned his suicide well in advance because of his declining health, the family's spokesman said Wednesday.
Douglas Brinkley, a historian and author who edited some of Thompson's work, said the founder of "gonzo" journalism shot himself Sunday night after weeks of pain from a host of physical problems that included a broken leg and a hip replacement.
"I think he made a conscious decision that he had an incredible run of 67 years, lived the way he wanted to, and wasn't going to suffer the indignities of old age," Brinkley said in a telephone interview from Aspen. "He was not going to let anybody dictate how he was going to die."
i could almost cry. yeah, i loved hunter s thompson. who wouldn't? in this day and age, (and place,) a man who lives on his own terms is a man among men.
i haven't read everything hunter s thompson-not even close. i read fear and loathing in las vegas in my early twenties because i required a crash course in overcoming fundamentalism. i'm fairly certain it was sandwiched between kerouac's on the road and one of the carlos castaneda books. i never tried the drugs thompson and castaneda spoke of: mescaline and acid and heroin and all the others because i was fearful. from early on, (and to my credit,) i knew i had but one life and one body. however, i loved the way these guys lived in these books. while there may have been the occasional tug of capitalism, (the occasional need to pay one's way,) generally, the main characters were apathetic about what is perhaps most important to most of us daily. sal and dean went off galivanting like two lost lunatics in search of the perfect jazz joint. castaneda's characters could spend entire days, prostrate on a porch observing a dog. (according to castaneda, the drug of the brujo even had the ability to displace him from our dimension for several years.) and hunter s th0mpson and his lawyer threw caution to the wind when they pulled off Highway 15 outside of barstow to ingest (more) drugs in their quest for what could be described as; fuller life.
these books had/have joy. they still resonate with youthful exuberance and wonder. for me, fear and loathing was a wild ride. these were insane characters the likes of which, i had never come close to meeting in real life. however, it was nothing more. i am still not sure i understand exactly what gonzo journalism means. i mean, i know the definition, but what it really means? eh. the truth is, i just didn't think thompson was all that amazing. his scathing political commentary on president nixon, on the other hand? brilliant, cutting and insightful.
what makes me sad is how hunter s thompson had to go. i wish he could be here to write about it for us. i wonder how he'd say it.
i like how his publicist said it. it sounds reasonable. it sounds like thompson finished his life as he lived it, on his own terms. but was it really his terms? did he really prefer to end the 67-year run by air-conditioning his cranium? did he want to be found in his kitchen, bloody and unrecognizeable to his own son, sprawled on the floor in an awkward postion, lifeless and soiled?
i am also still saddened by the fact dr jack kevorkian remains imprisoned. he is a political prisoner and i imagine hunter s thompson would have preferred to die a dignified death with the assistance of a professional like dr kevorkian.
i suppose the problem with choosing one's own death is the message it sends to others. it's really the flip side of the cloning issue. those of us who maintain belief systems involving a higher power feel that system threatened by man's god-like quality of being able to choose the time. hence, the practice is criminalized.
there was a touching and insightful piece several months ago in the la times magazine about a california man who needed to make a pilgrimage to oregon in order to choose the relative time of his own death. the article represented man's evolution on the subject and reminded me, (since this viewpoint made it into the mainstream media,) we will not tarry in this place forever.
i am sad hunter s thompson had to go by a gun shot administered at his own hand. i respect him immensely, however, for facing his death down rather than allowing it to face him down.
i am not suggesting there is no quality late in life or any such thing. perhaps it should be like a sex change operation? you can't just run out and get one of those in a fit of depression. it takes years of proving the desire to change one's sex is not a whim before it becomes legal for the operation to take place. similiarly, i doubt hordes of people would run to off themselves if laws suddenly changed. but for those who would choose such a thing and after a season of sort of proving they truly desire this end, (and not just to end chronic physical pain,) well, one sees more dignity in a quiet, dimly lit room, with the music of a string quartet softly playing in the background, as a drug is administered and layers of metaphorical muslin cloud the drifting consciousness.
on february 21st, 2005, the writer hunter s thompson achieved release from his mortal coil. had he survived, his attempted suicide would have been considered a crime by the state of colorado. but then, thompson always was a straight-shooter.
Feb 23, 1:18 PM (ET)By DAN ELLIOTT
DENVER (AP) - Journalist Hunter S. Thompson did not take his life "in a moment of haste or anger or despondency" and probably planned his suicide well in advance because of his declining health, the family's spokesman said Wednesday.
Douglas Brinkley, a historian and author who edited some of Thompson's work, said the founder of "gonzo" journalism shot himself Sunday night after weeks of pain from a host of physical problems that included a broken leg and a hip replacement.
"I think he made a conscious decision that he had an incredible run of 67 years, lived the way he wanted to, and wasn't going to suffer the indignities of old age," Brinkley said in a telephone interview from Aspen. "He was not going to let anybody dictate how he was going to die."
i could almost cry. yeah, i loved hunter s thompson. who wouldn't? in this day and age, (and place,) a man who lives on his own terms is a man among men.
i haven't read everything hunter s thompson-not even close. i read fear and loathing in las vegas in my early twenties because i required a crash course in overcoming fundamentalism. i'm fairly certain it was sandwiched between kerouac's on the road and one of the carlos castaneda books. i never tried the drugs thompson and castaneda spoke of: mescaline and acid and heroin and all the others because i was fearful. from early on, (and to my credit,) i knew i had but one life and one body. however, i loved the way these guys lived in these books. while there may have been the occasional tug of capitalism, (the occasional need to pay one's way,) generally, the main characters were apathetic about what is perhaps most important to most of us daily. sal and dean went off galivanting like two lost lunatics in search of the perfect jazz joint. castaneda's characters could spend entire days, prostrate on a porch observing a dog. (according to castaneda, the drug of the brujo even had the ability to displace him from our dimension for several years.) and hunter s th0mpson and his lawyer threw caution to the wind when they pulled off Highway 15 outside of barstow to ingest (more) drugs in their quest for what could be described as; fuller life.
these books had/have joy. they still resonate with youthful exuberance and wonder. for me, fear and loathing was a wild ride. these were insane characters the likes of which, i had never come close to meeting in real life. however, it was nothing more. i am still not sure i understand exactly what gonzo journalism means. i mean, i know the definition, but what it really means? eh. the truth is, i just didn't think thompson was all that amazing. his scathing political commentary on president nixon, on the other hand? brilliant, cutting and insightful.
what makes me sad is how hunter s thompson had to go. i wish he could be here to write about it for us. i wonder how he'd say it.
i like how his publicist said it. it sounds reasonable. it sounds like thompson finished his life as he lived it, on his own terms. but was it really his terms? did he really prefer to end the 67-year run by air-conditioning his cranium? did he want to be found in his kitchen, bloody and unrecognizeable to his own son, sprawled on the floor in an awkward postion, lifeless and soiled?
i am also still saddened by the fact dr jack kevorkian remains imprisoned. he is a political prisoner and i imagine hunter s thompson would have preferred to die a dignified death with the assistance of a professional like dr kevorkian.
i suppose the problem with choosing one's own death is the message it sends to others. it's really the flip side of the cloning issue. those of us who maintain belief systems involving a higher power feel that system threatened by man's god-like quality of being able to choose the time. hence, the practice is criminalized.
there was a touching and insightful piece several months ago in the la times magazine about a california man who needed to make a pilgrimage to oregon in order to choose the relative time of his own death. the article represented man's evolution on the subject and reminded me, (since this viewpoint made it into the mainstream media,) we will not tarry in this place forever.
i am sad hunter s thompson had to go by a gun shot administered at his own hand. i respect him immensely, however, for facing his death down rather than allowing it to face him down.
i am not suggesting there is no quality late in life or any such thing. perhaps it should be like a sex change operation? you can't just run out and get one of those in a fit of depression. it takes years of proving the desire to change one's sex is not a whim before it becomes legal for the operation to take place. similiarly, i doubt hordes of people would run to off themselves if laws suddenly changed. but for those who would choose such a thing and after a season of sort of proving they truly desire this end, (and not just to end chronic physical pain,) well, one sees more dignity in a quiet, dimly lit room, with the music of a string quartet softly playing in the background, as a drug is administered and layers of metaphorical muslin cloud the drifting consciousness.
on february 21st, 2005, the writer hunter s thompson achieved release from his mortal coil. had he survived, his attempted suicide would have been considered a crime by the state of colorado. but then, thompson always was a straight-shooter.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
i like what shaq didn't do
people have spats. your circle of friends has spats. your family certainly has spats. if spat implies the quarrel is brief, then okay, shaq and kobe have had a full blown feud. the difference in their case is the feud is exposed to a much larger community than most of our feuds.
i empathize with kobe. he made a mistake of immaturity. he said something in a moment in hopes of finding a way out of something. whatever actually happened, kobe wanted to check it like he does an opponent with the ball.
and so kobe is enduring the wintry season we all might in our circle of friends or in our families if we made a mistake but again, his celebrity makes it all the colder.
shaq has every right to be pissed off. if a friend of mine was accused of a crime and his testimony was read in open court which attempted to, (or in essence,) sullied my character, i, too, would be upset.
i enjoyed that shaq disregarded kobe at the all-star game. i think it was the act of someone who is refusing to forgive. i say this without knowing if kobe has even asked for shaq's forgiveness in a genuine manner. shaq's big, cold shoulder punctuates the fact that he is not beholden to forgive simply because the spat is in the public eye. i imagine some guys, (perhaps a latrell sprewell, based on his record,) would have publicly threatened to kick kobe's butt. and let's face it, shaq could put a big jack dempsey style beat down on kobe if ever. and that's why i like what shaq didn't do. he hasn't threatened kobe like kids on the playground. he's been thoroughly grown up about all this. he has refused to compromise his principles by maintaining his cool towards the colleague who acted distastefully toward him. for all the clowning, shaq is a consummate professional.
i empathize with kobe. he made a mistake of immaturity. he said something in a moment in hopes of finding a way out of something. whatever actually happened, kobe wanted to check it like he does an opponent with the ball.
and so kobe is enduring the wintry season we all might in our circle of friends or in our families if we made a mistake but again, his celebrity makes it all the colder.
shaq has every right to be pissed off. if a friend of mine was accused of a crime and his testimony was read in open court which attempted to, (or in essence,) sullied my character, i, too, would be upset.
i enjoyed that shaq disregarded kobe at the all-star game. i think it was the act of someone who is refusing to forgive. i say this without knowing if kobe has even asked for shaq's forgiveness in a genuine manner. shaq's big, cold shoulder punctuates the fact that he is not beholden to forgive simply because the spat is in the public eye. i imagine some guys, (perhaps a latrell sprewell, based on his record,) would have publicly threatened to kick kobe's butt. and let's face it, shaq could put a big jack dempsey style beat down on kobe if ever. and that's why i like what shaq didn't do. he hasn't threatened kobe like kids on the playground. he's been thoroughly grown up about all this. he has refused to compromise his principles by maintaining his cool towards the colleague who acted distastefully toward him. for all the clowning, shaq is a consummate professional.
Monday, February 21, 2005
joe scarborough and the american people
joe scarborough's television show is not one i usually watch but occasionally i see him and stick around for a few moments. during this past presidential election i got more of him and chris mathews than i normally would in a year, (msnbc got me w/ keith olbermann's show; countdown.) scarborough bugged me though i was hard-pressed to pinpoint what it was about him that bothered me. sure, he has an air of arrogance, that whole "i-know-this-and-why-the-rest-of-you-don't-get-it-is-beyond-me," attitude comes through but he is a bright guy so i guess it is to be expected. i had to look and listen closer to understand what really bothered me about joe scarborough. lo and behold, i finally figured it out.
scarborough talks about the republic and our democracy in such a way that he often refers to the majority as somehow manifestly right. he talks about the country's values being represented by the election of president bush or being evident by, for instance, all the gay marriage resistence being seen around the country in the form of legislation.
this is where joe scarborough fails and where we fail by not pointing out the error of his way.
some people have said bush's reelection represents the country's values despite the divide it made evident. i agree with this idea. i believe bush did get more votes and therefore, i believe his values more closely resemble the majority of american's values. however, the issue that gets lost herein is the idea of right and wrong. after all, people evolve.
what i get from scarborough is that since the majority thinks a certain way and has voted that way, they are right. otherwise, he does not talk about what is right and wrong.
what about gay marriage? most people's views on this subject stem from their religious beliefs. a guy like scarborough, when talking about the issue, will likely come on the air with some guy who works for an organization lobbying washington against these unions and let him explain why gay marriages represent the absolute undoing of society and america. then he may have someone else explain why we should all just lighten up a bit and let these marriages proceed. then, scarborough will jump in and tell you the trends and how many people have rallied against the idea and how this clearly represents the values of america and americans and slam dunk, these good people can't be wrong and this idea can't be right.
still, once you get away from the religious implications, it seems reasonable to allow gay people to wed each other. why not? what's the harm? the legal rights provided by marriage seem appropriate to any one person who is devoted to another.
i brought the subject up with a friend a few days ago and my friend expressed concern that if we allow gay people to wed each other today, tomorrow people will want to wed animals. from homosexuality to beastiality in one fell swoop. i said i thought we could go ahead and draw the line at same species. in fact i could not imagine it would be necessary to draw such a line. further, i don't think i want to legislate against a guy who wants marry his great dane. i merely want to recommend lots of counseling.
it seems some people think of marriage as a holy union ordained by god but as church and state are separate in the united states, it seems to me it is mostly a legal union which affects a person's taxes and/or rights relating to children. to that, i wonder, who wouldn't want to allow every citizen the same rights? perhaps i am being naive but i do not believe any faction in this country, including the so-called christian right, means to discriminate against another group because of a difference of opinion. it is my feeling some people just haven't thought about this enough and taken in enough information to form their best opinion of it yet.
joe scarborough does not help. rather than simply saying, here is where the people are, this is their values and that is that, he should be saying, here is where the people are and since this issue represents such a great division among americans, let us look at what is right and wrong about it. i am not going to be watching scarborough anyway but i still think the public would be better served by an effort to educate rather than one that accepts the status quo as some new age divine right of kings.
scarborough talks about the republic and our democracy in such a way that he often refers to the majority as somehow manifestly right. he talks about the country's values being represented by the election of president bush or being evident by, for instance, all the gay marriage resistence being seen around the country in the form of legislation.
this is where joe scarborough fails and where we fail by not pointing out the error of his way.
some people have said bush's reelection represents the country's values despite the divide it made evident. i agree with this idea. i believe bush did get more votes and therefore, i believe his values more closely resemble the majority of american's values. however, the issue that gets lost herein is the idea of right and wrong. after all, people evolve.
what i get from scarborough is that since the majority thinks a certain way and has voted that way, they are right. otherwise, he does not talk about what is right and wrong.
what about gay marriage? most people's views on this subject stem from their religious beliefs. a guy like scarborough, when talking about the issue, will likely come on the air with some guy who works for an organization lobbying washington against these unions and let him explain why gay marriages represent the absolute undoing of society and america. then he may have someone else explain why we should all just lighten up a bit and let these marriages proceed. then, scarborough will jump in and tell you the trends and how many people have rallied against the idea and how this clearly represents the values of america and americans and slam dunk, these good people can't be wrong and this idea can't be right.
still, once you get away from the religious implications, it seems reasonable to allow gay people to wed each other. why not? what's the harm? the legal rights provided by marriage seem appropriate to any one person who is devoted to another.
i brought the subject up with a friend a few days ago and my friend expressed concern that if we allow gay people to wed each other today, tomorrow people will want to wed animals. from homosexuality to beastiality in one fell swoop. i said i thought we could go ahead and draw the line at same species. in fact i could not imagine it would be necessary to draw such a line. further, i don't think i want to legislate against a guy who wants marry his great dane. i merely want to recommend lots of counseling.
it seems some people think of marriage as a holy union ordained by god but as church and state are separate in the united states, it seems to me it is mostly a legal union which affects a person's taxes and/or rights relating to children. to that, i wonder, who wouldn't want to allow every citizen the same rights? perhaps i am being naive but i do not believe any faction in this country, including the so-called christian right, means to discriminate against another group because of a difference of opinion. it is my feeling some people just haven't thought about this enough and taken in enough information to form their best opinion of it yet.
joe scarborough does not help. rather than simply saying, here is where the people are, this is their values and that is that, he should be saying, here is where the people are and since this issue represents such a great division among americans, let us look at what is right and wrong about it. i am not going to be watching scarborough anyway but i still think the public would be better served by an effort to educate rather than one that accepts the status quo as some new age divine right of kings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
