Answering A Critic
I have finally experienced one of the rites of becoming a decent blogger.
Someone ranted about one of my political posts. (Hurray! Hurray!)
In my opinion, the only way to avoid being ranted against is to keep one's blogging mouth shut, but if you keep your mouth shut, then you can't become a decent blogger.
Anyway, being that the post in question was published on this blog - as well as at Dodo World - I'd like to share with you my critic's rant, as well as share with you my reply to the rant.
First, the rant was in reply to my post Political Party Worship.
In that post, I had this to say about Oklahoma's current governor:If Gov. Henry were a Republican instead of a Democrat, then Istook would be running for re-election to Congress, because there are no serious complaints against Gov. Henry.
Here is how my critic replied:Henry has not been a good governor. He signed legislation that gave illegal immigrants government benefits, has let over 500 violent offenders out of prison, and has grown state government by 32% over the last two years. This is only a few of the things our "so-called" good Governor has done. Maybe you should do a little digging before you claim that Istook is just trying to sling mud.
So, to follow blogging custom, I will dissect and critique this reply.
First, let's consider the legislation that the reader refers to.
Some time ago, the Oklahoma legislature passed a bill that permits the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state-owned colleges, as opposed to paying the higher out-of-state tuition.
This particular bill had bipartisan support in the Oklahoma legislature, and two of its sponsors were Republicans.
Plus, the purpose of the bill was to end the practice of punishing children for the sins of their parents.
What my critic fails to consider is the fact that children don't get to choose where they live. As a rule, children have to live wherever their parents or legal guardians live, and this rule applies to the children of illegal immigrants, too.
The beneficiaries of the aforementioned legislation are young adults who were Oklahoma residents during the last part of their childhood and - this is the important part - who have applied for legal residency in the USA. These people aren't hiding from the federal government. Now that they are adults, they are trying to conform to the USA's immigration laws.
It makes no sense to me to punish these young people for the wrongdoing of their parents.
Now, let's consider the other accusations that my critic makes against Oklahoma's current governor.
. . . has let over 500 violent offenders out of prison, . . .
I don't know what it takes for a convict in another state to be released from prison early, but I do know that in Oklahoma the governor doesn't just let convicts out of prison. Convicts aren't released early unless the state's Pardon and Parole Board recommends an early release. The last time that I checked, Oklahoma convicts were released early during the administrations of Republican governors.
. . . and has grown state government by 32% over the last two years.
Oklahoma's government doesn't grow unless Oklahoma's legislature lets it grow, and during the past two years the House-half of Oklahoma's legislature has been under the control of the Republican Party. Plus, the aforementioned growth is being paid for by a growth in the amount of tax revenue that Oklahoma receives from the oil and gas industries.
And speaking of taxes, earlier this year, Oklahoma's governor pushed for a reduction in Oklahoma's state income tax because he thought that the state's budget surplus justified a tax reduction. The Governor worked with Oklahoma's Republican Speaker of the House in order to get the tax reduction, and in doing so, the Governor upset Oklahoma's Democrat Senate President Pro-Temp, who almost derailed the Governor's attempt to lower taxes.
So, is Oklahoma's current governor behaving badly?
I don't think so. Many other Okies don't think so, either.
According to a SurveyUSA poll taken August 25-27, 60% of the Oklahoma voters polled favored Oklahoma's current governor over his Republican challenger, who is favored by only by 34%.
So, when I say that there are no serious complaints against Oklahoma's current governor, I have data to back me up.
For what it's worth, the last Democrat to serve as Oklahoma's governor was David Walters. He was voted out of office because enough of us Okies believed that he was doing a lousy job. So, we Okies aren't inclined to keep a governor just because that person belongs to a particular political party.
Posted by Dodo David at 08:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Who Knew Jeff Goldstein was Hot?
I always thought him and Ace were fags.
But then after that leftist threatened to "Jon Benet" his son, I found out he was married with child.
He guest hosts over at Hot Air today. Pretty funny stuff...he's a handsome guy!
Posted by Aaron at 12:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
LGF gets his man!
In another win for the blogs, LGF got its man:
Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day when you pigs get your throats cut'
Yaakov Lappin
A Reuters employee has been suspended after sending a death threat to an American blogger.
The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut."
It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.
In the threat, the Reuters staff member, who has not been named, left his email address as "zionistpig" at hotmail.com.
Reporting the message to his readers, Johnson wrote on his website: "This particular death threat is a bit different from the run of the mill hate mail we get around here, because an IP lookup on the sender reveals that he/she/it was using an account at none other than Reuters News."
Speaking to Ynetnews, Johnson said: "I was surprised to receive a threat from a Reuters IP, but only because it was so careless of this person to use a traceable work account to do it."
He added: "I think it's more than fair to say that Reuters has a big problem."
'Employee suspended'
After bringing the threat to the attention of Reuters, Johnson was told by the news organization's Global Head of Communications, Ed Williams: "I can confirm that an employee has been suspended pending further investigation. The individual was not an employee of Reuters' news division."
In an additional twist, Johnson traced the movements of the sender of the threat, and found direct parallels between the internet locations of the sender and Inayat Bunglawala, Media Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain.
Bunglawala, who contirbuted an editorial to the Guardian website, has attracted negative attention in the past after making anti-Semitic outbursts, and has declared that the British media was "Zionist-controlled."
In the comment section of the Guardian, underneath his own editorial, Bunglawala denied sending the threat, blaming "Zionists" instead.
"That was not me! Methinks some Zionists are up to mischief," he wrote.
"There is strong circumstantial evidence connecting Bunglawala to the threat, but there is no way for me to verify this for certain. Only a Reuters network administrator would have access to the necessary records," Johnson said.
Posted by Aaron at 11:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bigotry and other symptoms of A.S.S.
Hugh Hewitt comes out swinging against the bigotry that develops under Andrew Sullivan Syndrome. Sullivan's continued decline in efforts to best David Brock have been noted on this page many times. Hewitt's simply has had enough of it:
Mostly, though, Sullivan's invention and use of the bigoted term [Christianists] was intended as shorthand for those who think George Bush a very good man and a very good president. I am a defender of the president, though not when I think he or his Adminstration makes an error like the ports deal or the briefs in the Michigan affirmative action cases. Sullivan's frenzied, sometimes even hysterical attacks on pundits and analysts who admire the president and his team are the means to understanding Sullivan. He is consumed by Bush hatred. So much so, in fact, that he has branched out into hating those who not only don't hate Bush, but admire him.
Kathleen Parker defines this "Christianist" slander for us:
These are rich times for conspiracy theorists, and the mother lode these days may be found in the fevered minds of anti-Christianists.
Among paranoiacs who see a Jerry Falwell or a John Hagee in every burning bush, U.S. support for Israel isn't about protecting the only healthy democracy in the Middle East, but about advancing Armageddon and, yes, the Second Coming.
At last, we'll get to know what Jesus would drive. Most likely, he'd drive out the conspiracy theorists on both sides of this imagined apocalypse.
For those who do not spend their days pulling imaginary bugs out of their eye sockets, "Christianist'' is a relatively new term that roughly refers to a virulent strain of right-wing political Christianity that, supposedly, parallels Islamist lunacy.
I am firm in my long held belief that anti-Americanism is the new, more en vogue, anti-Semitism. All the worlds problems will be solved now with not only the destruction of Israel, but the destruction of the United States.
No job? It's their fault - the Americans TOOK it from you. No food? It's their fault - Americans won't GIVE you any. No children? It's their fault - Americans REQUIRE us to use your children as bombs.
And the left helps these folks spin their web of conspiracy:
A slew of new books have emerged with titles like "American Theocracy,'' and "Kingdom Coming,'' that tackle the perceived emerging Christocracy, while op-ed-ists opine that right-wing evangelicals are directing foreign policy through the White House. Words like "theocrats'' and "American Taliban'' have become commonplace in describing those who fill televangelism's La-Z-Boys.
All you need to do is take any speech by Hitler, switch Jews with Americans, and you have the Democratic and international communities platform of grievances.
This site bid a fond farewell to Sullivan years ago when he essentially stated that America will only be truly free and a force for good is if we closed down all of our terrorist S & M torture chambers around the world and replaced them with bathhouses with a 24 hour chapel for those who want to get married before they have sex with 10 men.
Posted by Aaron at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Silly Week at Dodo World
In order to provide the blogosphere with comic relief from all of the serious stuff, Dodo World will be featuring a week of silliness.
Each day from July 30th to August 5th, Dodo World will feature a silly photo gleaned from the Internet.
Here are the titles for the upcoming silliness:
Sunday: Cat-holicism
Monday: The gender of a computer mouse is . . .
Tuesday: Why Men Can't Use The Women's Room
Wednesday: Flipper Meets Elsie
Thursday: While Rednecks Sleep
Friday: Microsoft Word for Women
Saturday: Beer Troubleshooting
Of course, Dodo World will still be offering free Krabby Patties to all visitors.
If you have a silly photo or image to share with the blogosphere (a clean one, that is), then feel free to submit it to the Dodo.
Posted by Dodo David at 05:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
More on Greenwald's Plageristic Tendencies
Ace is putting the heat on Glenn Greenwald (the gentleman who labelled me a racist) and his knack for lifting ideas from blog comments.
Posted by Aaron at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Dodo Beats FOXNews To Story
Surprise, surprise.
The FOXNews website has finally gotten around to reporting a story that appeared on my blog four days ago.
It is the story about the Penis Pump Judge.
Unlike the Dodo version, the FOXNews version does not include a photo of either the defendant or a penis pump. (Nor does FOXNews have the great header and clip art.)
To read the FOXNews version, click here. To read the Dodo version, click here.
Posted by Dodo David at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Dodo World is born.
After much procrastination, this blogger has decided to strike out on his own with his own independent blog, Dodo World. (Yes, I'll continue to blog here, too.)
Considering that there must be a zillion blogs in existence now, why start another one?
Well, for two reasons.
First, as much as I appreciate the opportunity to blog here at Lifelike Pundits, I wish have my own blog so that I can control its tone.
Second, I am in need of a hobby to keep me busy while my wife and son are out of the country.
A reasonable person might ask, "What makes your blog special?"
Hey, I am special . . . at least in my own mind.
Actually, my goal is to make my new blog an acceptable "watering hole" for people of all political orientations. Many older blogs are slanted in favor of a particular political orientation (conservative, liberal, etc.) I want my blog to reflect my own brand of political orientation - that of Dodo.
Plus, I want to feature non-political stuff, as well as express my own weirdness from time to time. As stated in my blog's theme song, "I'm strange, and I like it. That's just the way I am."
Here are links to some of the first posts at Dodo World:
Dodo World Theme Song
Observations from Mamalynn (humor)
A Taste of Heaven (religious joke)
You may be Scottish if . . . (humor)
Political Orientations
More Defining of Political Orientations
Where are you on the political compass?
Posted by Dodo David at 02:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Is Best of the Web Today Reading Lifelike Pundits?
I don't think they lifted from my piece earlier, but it feels good to know the professionals are on the same page:
Then there are the polls. The lead story in USA Today is headlined "Poll: 51% Oppose NSA Database." The paper's Susan Page reports:
A majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not-yet-disclosed efforts to gather information on the general public.
But the poll results tell a more complicated story. The first question is, "Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" Results: Too far 41%, about right 34%, not far enough 19%.
So Page could have written her lead paragraph as follows:
A majority of Americans do not think the administration has gone too far in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism. Thirty-four percent say the balance it has struck is "about right," while 19% say it doesn't go far enough.
The paper, that is, could have written a pro-administration story or an anti-administration story based on this poll, and it opted for the latter.
That sounds like my piece below that I wrote this morning!
Posted by Aaron at 06:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Kitty Litter Makes the List
Right Wing News surveyed congressional leaders, commentators and the like on who they read daily.
Posted by Aaron at 02:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Hell, I thought it was just technical difficulties!
I guess our site was under attack last night by "internet jihad" as we also use hosting matters:
A post by Annette of HM on one of their support forums indicated:
We are seeing another round of attacks after changing the IPs on the target server. This is an indication that the target from earlier either was not the primary target or was a byproduct of the original attack and identified as the primary target.
Read more at Malkin.
Posted by Aaron at 06:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Something for all bloggers to think about
Over at Rightwing Nuthouse, Rick Moran has posted a commentary about the blogosphere that I think every blogger and blog reader should read.
Here is an excerpt from that commentary:
In people’s haste to be first, or different, or just plain ornery and contrary (all the better to get links and readers) a culture of “shoot first and ask questions later” has arisen in the blogosphere that quite frankly, is proving every bad thing that the MSM has been saying about blogs from the beginning. Many of us – including myself – have been guilty in the past of hitting that “Publish” button when perhaps it would have been prudent and proper to take a beat or two to think about what we just wrote and the impact it might have beyond the small little world we inhabit in this corner of Blogland.
Scalp hunting has become the national pastime of blogs. Both lefty and righty lodgepoles have some pretty impressive trophies hanging on them; Dan Rather, Mary Mapes (twice), Eason Jordon, Trent Lott, Ben Domenech, to name a few more noteworthy ones.
But is this what we are? Is this what we are becoming? Are we nothing more than a pack of digital yellow journalists writing pixelated scab sheets vying to see who we can lay low next? If this be the way to fame and fortune in the blogosphere, I truly fear that, like television, the last great technological breakthrough that promised to change the world, we will degenerate into a mindless, bottomless pit of muck and mudslinging, dragging down the culture and trivializing even the most important issues.
To read Moran's entire commentary, click here.
Posted by Dodo David at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
RedState admits that Ben Domenech plagiarized
RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky has a post titled On behalf of RedState.
Krempasky begins his post with the following paragraph: "A young man took something and called it his own. He owes apologies to those writers, his editors, and especially his friends who have rushed to his defense in the past 48 hours. It is an embarrassing offense -- and one rightly criticized."
The young man that Krempasky refers to is RedState co-founder Ben Domenech. Being that he is Domenech's friend, Krempasky doesn't directly admit to what his friend Ben did. Nowhere in his post does Krempasky actually say that Domenech engaged in plagiarism and then lied about doing so.
At least Domenech does a better job of admitting to his guilt. In his post titled Contrition, Domenech states, "I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this - nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement."
Posted by Dodo David at 03:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
More Domenech
It gets even worse; NRO found more examples of plagiarism by Domenech.
To give you a feel for what our staff has found:
• In a movie review of Pay It Forward on the weekend of October 21-22, 2000, Domenech writes:
…Pay It Forward is exactly the type of film that the casual moviegoer will love, and critics will pan.
In a October 18, 2000, review of Pay It Forward on "the flick filosopher" website, writer Maryann Johanson writes:
This is a film the studio knows casual moviegoers will love and critics will not…
Here's more from the same review. Ben Domenech writes:
Most kids come up with plans to put up recycling flyers or clean up the neighborhood, but Trevor's idea astounds even his teacher…
Maryann Johanson writes:
Most kids come up with plans to post flyers about recycling and such, but Trevor's brilliantly simple idea astounds even his teacher…
Domenech:
…when the naively youthful Osment is asked whether the plan might be 'overly utopian,' relying as it does on an act of faith in 'the goodness of people,' the boy's wonderfully optimistic reply is, 'So?'
Johanson:
Eugene wonders if the plan might be 'overly utopian,' relying as it does on 'an act of faith in the goodness of people,' and Trevor's naively childlike and wonderfully optimistic reply is, 'So?'
Note particularly that bit about "a feel for". They present a fair number of examples.
I'm sympathetic to the guys over at Red State. For the last several days they've seen Ben get attacked by the idiots on the sinester side of the aisle, with ridiculous, baseless and disgusting charges. So that when suddenly it is discovered that Ben did commit plagiarism, their instinct is to rally around.
But the time is past for that.
Posted by pat at 09:57 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More on the Domenech Plagiarism Scandal
Here are statements by others pertaining to the plagiarism of Ben Domenech.
From the blog Decision '08:I was quite vocal in welcoming the concept of Red America to the Washington Post, and that hasn’t changed. Unfortunately, Domenech was a poor standard-bearer. The left, of course, were having a field day with the plagiarism allegations, and to their credit, they were right.
Let’s have none of this half-hearted grudging acknowledgment - we were right with RatherGate, and they were right here. Furthermore, they did us a service, believe it or not, by finding these examples of ‘idea theft’ and bringing them to light. We don’t want the conservative viewpoint, in such a high-profile outlet, to be represented by a plagiarist.
From the editors of National Review Online:
A MESSAGE TO OUR READERS [The Editors]
As the previous links on the matter mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO.
From B. Preston of JunkYardBlog:The only serious charge against Ben is that he’s a plagiarist. That charge, unfortunately, sticks. Atrios and Kos and others have found numerous examples of his lifting whole passages from other writings and passing them off as his own. They appear to be genuine examples of plagiarism. There’s no excuse for that. . .
I understand defending a friend. I absolutely understand it. I do not understand and cannot condone, however, blaming everyone else for one man’s pattern of behavior going back several years. Ben blames his editors at the Flat Hat, then blames his editors at the Post. He hasn’t yet blamed the editors at NRO, but that may because he was himself a contributing editor—blaming them in a sense blames himself, and apparently that’s out of bounds. I’m sorry, but these excuses don’t fly and have to stop. Now.
From someone claiming to have been Domenech's editor while Domenech wrote for his college newspaper [Source]:
This all seems to have happened really fast. I hadn't really checked the news til midday today when I saw all of this happened. It might be kind of moot now, but I was Domenech's editor at The Flat Hat when he was writing the reviews. Four people, including me, would have handled his copy, the others being my assistant section editor, the managing editor and the editor.
This should seem obvious, but no one on the editorial staff was going into Salon (or wherever) and pasting whole sections into his reviews. We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5. We may have put additional words in the story, but it would never have been completely foreign content. It was just editing.
Here are a couple of responses to the alleged self-defense that Domenech posted at RedState:
Sheesh - By: etatsder
Everyone is wrong and people are just out to sabotage you ever since you were seventeen? Grow up. This reminds me of how a majority of African Americans defend O.J. Simpsons simply because he is one of them rather even though it is obvious with the blood is on his hands (figuratively and literally).
Take heart Ben. You could committ mass murder and people here would still defend you.
Sad.
Why resign then? - By: squeaky wheel
Should have let them fire you. By resigning your case is unresolved, at least in my eyes. Had you let them investigate the matter, then you would have been absolved, as the case may be, after the investigation. This would have lended to your credibility . . . I don't think you owe anyone an explanation, I can respect that. But you have left me wondering if you are indeed telling the truth in this matter.
Oh, if you don't already have an account at RedState, then you can forget about posting a response to Domenech's alleged self-defense, at least not until next Wednesday at the earliest. The website has the posted the following announcement: "NEW USERS ARE RESTRICTED FROM POSTING STORIES, DIARIES, OR COMMENTS FOR FIVE DAYS AFTER SIGNUP."
Still, you can check out the comments section and see for yourself how the RedState lemmings are following Domenech over the credibility cliff.
As I see it, a conservative lemming is just as bad as a liberal lemming, and a conservative blogger who lacks humility is just as bad as a liberal blogger who lacks humility.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Conservative blogger caught plagiarizing - Thank you, Liberals.
When Michelle Malkin anounced that Ben Domenech's blog Red America was being featured on the Washington Post's website, I applauded. Imagine it - a conservative blog featured by a left-leaning newspaper.
Liberals objected to Red America, and they searched the blogosphere for any dirt that they could find on Ben Domenech.
Well, the liberals hit paydirt. They caught Ben Domenech plagiarizing.
As soon as Domenech's plagiarism was exposed, conservative bloggers Rick Moran and Michelle Malkin called for Domenech's resignation.
Over on the website The American Thinker, Moran wrote the following:If we conservatives have any claims to promoting honesty and decency, there will be more calls on the right for Mr. Domenech to do the honorable thing and save himself and his employer the embarrassment of being fired by resigning immediately. Little can be gained from his continuing to blog at the Washington Post as I for one never plan on linking to anything he writes and would hope that other conservatives would join me in such a boycott.
Over on her blog, Malkin wrote the following:I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can't ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can't be dismissed as "lies" or jealousy attributed to Ben's age.
As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I've had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I've also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.
The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down.Domenech has yielded to pressure and has resigned from his position at the Washington Post. [Click here for the WaPo announcement.]
No matter how much conservatives and liberals disagree with each other on socio-political issues, both groups agree that plagiarism is taboo, especially on the blogosphere where bloggers are trying to earn respect and trust. Plagiarism is harmful to conservatives and liberals alike. So, if it takes liberals to expose acts of plagiarism, then so be it. Such liberals should be applauded for providing a service to all bloggers.
Update: Over at his blog RedState, Ben Domenech claims that he is innocent of the charge of plagiarism. He doesn't bother to address all of the evidence against him, especially the evidence of what he did after he left college. Instead, he makes comments such as the following:
Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe.
Actually, it is his word against that of the conservative blogosphere. Michelle Malkin originally defended Domenech. She wouldn't have changed her position unless her own research revealed that the plagiarism charge was valid.
Posted by Dodo David at 03:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
A Tribute to Kitty
I put up a long post today celebrating our birthday girl, Kitty Myers. Stop over Kitty's place and wish her many more!
Posted by pat at 02:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Responding to Jack Klugman
In his post LIBERALS NEVER FAIL TO AMUSE, Pat mentions a post that actor Jack Klugman wrote for The Huffington Post.
Being a fan of Jack Klugman, I read his post and then posted a response to it. In particular, I responded to this statement that Mr. Klugman made: "God is not a Republican, and it's about time we gave Him equal opportunity on our platform."
The platform that he refers to is the Democratic Party platform.
What follows is my response to Mr. Klugman.
Shabbat Shalom, Mr. Klugman.
I agree with your comments about God, and I am both a Christian and a Republican. (Oops! I hope that this blog's screeners will allow me to post comments anyway.)
There is one thing that I would like to know. How do you expect God to be given equal opportunity on the Democratic Party platform if Democratic leaders won't openly admit that God may have made rulings on some controversial moral issues?
One reason that the Democratic Party is perceived to be anti-God is because some of the most vocal Democrats don't include biblical values in their description of American values.
For example, both the Tanak and the New Testament condemn sex between two people of the same gender. So, does the national Democratic Party openly support a ban on same-sex marriages?
Have you ever noticed that the Republicans who are opposed to abortion on demand base their opposition on something that they have read in the Tanak?
Now, if Democrats won't include biblical values in their description of American values, then what set of religious values will they include?
How will the Democratic Party convince Republican voters that the Democratic Party is pro-God while there are Democrats who mock the religious beliefs of those same Republican voters?
Granted, I don't want the USA to be turned into a theocracy of any kind. Just imagine a theocracy based on Scientology. NASA would be forced to put out a huge welcome mat for the space aliens that Tom Cruise and his ilk believe in. If you think that creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, then you'd throw a fit if the book "Dianetics" were mandatory reading in public schools.
By the way, Mr. Klugman, I am glad to learn that you are still alive and kicking. The next time that you post something on this blog, please answer one question: What was Quincy's first name?
By: DodoDavid on March 17, 2006 at 09:16pm
Posted by Dodo David at 12:14 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Why Do Liberal Bloggers Mislead Their Readers?
This one's too funny. Jane Hamsher, who blogs at Fire Dog Lake, makes a post over at the HuffPo that proves the point wonderfully.
Entitled "No Surprise: Poll Shows Feingold's Popularity Soaring", the post claims:
The response of the Senate Democrats to the Feingold censure resolution aptly demonstrates how thoroughly disconnected they are from the strong feelings in the netroots community about the illegal NSA wireteps. They seem to have no concept of stepping into a leadership position and channeling that emotion into positive action. So let me speak in a language that even the dullest, the most remedial, most thick-witted Democratic consultant can understand.
According to a new Rassmussen poll:
"Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable."
Every day that goes by and the party leaders do nothing but carp about an investigation that will never happen they are single-handedly delivering the loyalty, dollars and activism of the base over to Russ Feingold.
Now of course, the message that Hamsher is sending is that the route to popularity for the Democrats is endorsing this Feingold censure resolution. Just do that and they'll see their poll ratings soar as well!
Except that Hamsher links to this post, which is entitled:
Poll Finds Most Oppose Bush Censure
The post (at Taegan Goddard's Political Wire) reads as follows:
A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 38% of Americans believe President Bush should be censured for approving the domestic wiretapping program, but that 45% are opposed to the proposal advocated by Sen. Russell Feingold (R-WI).
However, the poll may have boosted Feingold as he contemplates a 2008 presidential bid. "Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable."
A similar poll yesterday found a slight majority in favor of censure. Scott Shields compares the two.
But it gets even better, because that post in fact understated the Rasmussen polling result. Clicking through to Rasmussen, we find out some more about just how unpopular the censure resolution is, that Taegan Goddard somehow forgot to mention in her post:
Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who believes it is important to censure or impeach the President. Forty-two percent (42%) are less likely to vote for such a candidate.
When we initially asked if people had a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Feingold, his name recognition was very low--15% favorable and 23% unfavorable. After asking questions about censure and informing respondents that Feingold was the advocate, his numbers jumped to 32% favorable and 41% unfavorable.
Advocating censure does offer a boost for Feingold within the Democratic Party. Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable.
The flip side is that Republicans have an overwhelming negative opinion of the maverick Senator--9% favorable and 74% unfavorable.
Goddard, who I believe is liberal (her blogroll skews left) reported the key finding of the poll which is that censure is unpopular, but highlighted the one morsel of good news for Feingold, that Democrats liked him better when they found out that he supported censure.
Hamsher, who's a flaming liberal nutbar, omitted to tell her readers the "bad" news in the poll, and just chose to highlight the fact that Feingold's numbers went up among Democrats when told about his support for censure. How much you want to bet that within the next couple hours, there will be liberal blogs linking to Hamsher's post and claiming that the American people support censure?
This is idiotic. Hamsher's a big star in the liberal blogosphere; her blog regularly gets 320,000 visits in a week, which puts her somewhere around 25th in traffic in the TTLB (note that several blogs above her are listed twice, and that all the baseball blogs above her are really just different blogs combining their traffic by having one site meter). And she's absolutely misleading her readers in order to push her agenda in favor of the censure.
We could mislead our readers as well. For example, suppose I were to put together a post that claims "Bush job approval soars thanks to Russ Feingold"? I could link to Rasmussen which shows a 41% approval rating, compare that to the Pew Center poll which had Bush at 33% and say, "Look, Bush's poll numbers just jumped 8 points!"
But it's a lie, and worse, it's a worthless lie. Bush's poll numbers are indeed about the worst they've been. I believe Rasmussen more than I do the Pew Center, but even their 41% is tied for the lowest ratings this month and probably one of the lowest for Bush ever.
Hamsher, confronted with numbers that demonstrated rather well that the censure resolution is unpopular with the American public, could have argued that the poll was invalid. She could have argued that her readers need to convert a couple people to the censure side. Instead she chose to mislead them into believing it was already quite popular and that the Democrats' opposition to it was somehow against their best political interests.
Posted by pat at 07:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Quote of the Day
"If Americans can’t learn the difference between Dubai and Damascus, we don’t stand a snowball’s chance in the desert of defeating Islamic terrorism." - Indepundit
Posted by Aaron at 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Blogosphere Spreads Eminent Domain Hoax
This past week, National Review Online posted a story about an alleged case of the misuse of eminent domain. Heather Wilhelm, the story's author, wrote the following:
For seven years, Reverend Roosevelt Gildon has preached the gospel at the Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, Oklahoma. His congregation, around 50 strong, is like a small family. The elderly members, and those without cars, often walk to Sunday services.
“Rosey,” as his friends call him, figured he’d go on preaching in the tidy steel structure for years to come. That was, until the government told him they were taking his church away.
. . . The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot.
. . . What’s most egregious about this application of eminent domain is that there’s already plenty of room for development, even if the pesky church sticks around.
This story was featured at Right Wing News under the title "Kelo Vs. Churches".
There is a problem with the NRO story - it makes a false claim. The city of Sand Springs isn't trying to use eminent domain to seize church property.
Here is the beginning of a story published by the Tulsa World:
SAND SPRINGS -- A church that lies in the path of Sand Springs' proposed Keystone Corridor redevelopment project is being cited nationally as an example of government flexing its power of eminent domain to take property for private commercial use.
But there's a problem with the National Review Online's assertions, city officials said: The city hasn't filed any condemnation action against Centennial Baptist Church, nor does it intend to.
"There's no eminent domain action going on against any properties there," City Manager Loy Calhoun said. "No actions, no intents -- nothing like that's been done in the area."
According to the city manager, "no specific businesses have been selected to build in the vacated area." Furthermore, National Review Online didn't contact the Sand Springs goverment prior to posting its story. Thus, the city wasn't given a chance to refute the eminent domain claim made in the story.
If you want more information about this story, then you can contact Tulsa World reporter Louise Red Corn at 1-918-581-8480 or at louise.redcorn@tulsaworld.com .
Folks, this story pertains to a larger plan involving all communities within Tulsa County, which is where I live.
Let me fill you in on a little detail about my little corner of the world.
Sand Springs is a bedroom community of Tulsa, the buckle of the Bible Belt. If the city of Sand Springs were to try to seize church property through eminent domain, the resulting uproar would be so great, that any elected public official involved would be voted out of office.
There is already a movement in Oklahoma to restrict the use of eminent domain. This issue will most likely be a hot topic during the 2006 session of the state legislature, which begins February 6th and ends May 26th.
Oklahoma lawmakers don't need a hoax to prompt them to protect the property rights of Oklahoma residents.
Posted by Dodo David at 03:04 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Funniest Year-End '05 Wrap-Up
Texas Songbird has a hilarious look back at 2005. Two thumbs way up on this rollicking post:
April arrived, and the world mourned when Pope John Paul II passed away. In an attempt to avoid a bloody succession, the Catholic cardinals were locked in a room to fight it out. After two days of blowing smoke, a new Benedict was raised to the papacy; the remaining Cardinals returned to Arizona for the off-season. And brides across the nation fainted in fear as Jennifer Wilbanks was abducted by Greyhound and spirited away from her husband-to-be. Or not to be, as the case may be.
Posted by pat at 12:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Dodo's Log ( Stardate 2006.01.02) - Blog Housekeeping
Starting now, I will be making a few changes to the way that I post my commentaries.
The first change should be obvious - I am referring to myself in the first-person instead of in the third-person.
The second change is that I will leave it to others to post immediate reactions to whatever happens in the news. There are already a gazillion bloggers who are willing to do so.
Third, in order to make this blog stand out from the crowd (and hopefully cause this blog to move up in the TTLB Ecosystem) I will strive to write more about original subjects.
Finally, whenever one of my commentaries is lengthy, I will only post the beginning of it. I will post a link to the complete version so that you can read it if you desire to do so.
Now, on to blogging . . . and Feliz Nuevo Año.
Posted by Dodo David at 08:33 PM | Comments (0)
Nice little cartoon at Lucianne.com
Posted by Aaron at 11:43 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
New Sites!
Check out two great sites that have popped up this week:
Open Source Media (formerly Pajama's Media)
[That Brad Friedman fellow is a looker!]
No End But Victory (inspired by Josh Trevino of Redstate.org)
Posted by Aaron at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Random Thoughts
It has been awhile since the Dodo has posted anything. So without further ado, here are some random thoughts on various topics.
#1 Plame-gate - Former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV started the Plame-gate controversy by lying to the public about his 2002 trip to Niger that he took on behalf of the CIA. Congressional Democrats complain about how members of the Bush Administration responded to Wilson’s lies, but who among congressional Democrats will openly admit that the Bush Administration had a right to defend itself against Wilson’s lies? In case you missed it, Zell Miller has written a commentary that places Plame-gate in its proper perspective.
#2 Iraq – Joseph Wilson IV isn’t the only person running around telling lies. According to a story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, ex-Marine Jimmy Massey has been telling lies about what members of the USMC did when they entered Iraq in March of 2003. Reporter Ron Harris writes about how members of the media responded to Massey’s lies:
News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth. He wasn't. Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.
It is bad enough that MSM members spread Massey’s lies without investigating their validity (the Joseph Wilson IV Effect). To make matters worse, the Tulsa World newspaper re-printed the Post-Dispatch story with a headline which implies that only the Post-Dispatch is calling Massey a liar. The original story headline says, “Is Jimmy Massey telling the truth about Iraq?” The headline in the Tulsa World says, “Ex-Marine’s atrocity claims false, paper says” (Tulsa World, Sunday, November 06, 2005, A7). No, the Post-Dispatch isn’t saying that Massey’s claims are false. Eye witnesses who were in Iraq are saying that Massey’s claims are false. The headline in the Tulsa World puts an unnecessary spin on the story.
#3 Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - Currently, U.S. Judge John E. Jones is presiding over a federal trial pertaining to the debate about Evolution and Intelligent Design. This particular debate is the result of misinformation about evolution theory. Contrary to what is being reported by the mainstream media and some scientists, evolution theory doesn’t require that all mutations be random. Nothing in evolution theory prevents a supernatural intelligence from directing mutations. However, there is no empirical way to prove that a mutation was directed by a supernatural intelligence. A belief in intelligent design doesn’t have to conflict with an acceptance of evolution theory, but such a conflict is profitable for newspapers, magazines and people who sell books about the conflict.
#4 Republican Pork – The Republican Party has no legitimate claim to moral superiority when it comes to the subject of excessive federal spending. Congressional Republicans are just as guilty as congressional Democrats of pork spending. President Bush has made matters worse by refusing to veto any spending bill. With Republicans being in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the White House, Republicans have the means to eliminate unnecessary federal spending, but some congressional Republicans prefer to promote pork projects as a way to provide themselves with job security. The Dodo’s own senior senator is one such congressional Republican. The Dodo will not be voting for him in any future election.
#5 Illegal Immigrant Workers - Associated Press reporter Justin Pritchard has written a story about a Mexican worker who illegally entered the USA in order to participate in the clean up of Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. The rest of Prichard’s story is about how some immigrant workers aren’t being paid for their labor. Pritchard doesn’t bother asking what is being done to prevent illegal immigrants from being hired in the first place. However, Prichard does manage to mention Vice-President Cheney in reference to a contractor that is supposed to pay sub-contractors for the work being done. Vice-President Cheney has nothing to do with the hiring and non-payment of illegal immigrants, but the AP reporter just had to mention the Vice-President anyway.
Posted by Dodo David at 06:04 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Anklebiting Pundits Cited at WorldNet Daily
Wow! Our frinds at ABP were quoted in a WorldNet Daily article. Congrats to H-Bomb and Bulldog Pundit!
Posted by Aaron at 02:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
My Blogging Philosophy
Some people blog about personal stuff, while others blog about what’s going on in the world. I’m in the latter category. Specifically, I focus on politics with a few other tidbits thrown in for variety. It’s an outlet for me that I don’t always have in my personal life, and I’m usually quite passionate in my beliefs. And, quite obviously, many of my opinions and beliefs are based on conservative values.
Almost always, I put my opinion forth. I do my best to back it up with evidence, but sometimes it’s just an opinion. Other times, I present an article and let the reader make up his own mind without my putting in my two cents. Sometimes I make a factual error and when it’s pointed out, I post a correction immediately.
Nowhere do I claim to be the final authority on anything. Obviously there are plenty of you out there who do not agree with my views, and you’re certainly not shy about saying so. That’s fine…it’s what the whole “blogosphere phenomenon” is supposed to be about. A two-way dialogue is important for all of us to be involved in. I may not come around to your way of thinking, but I respect your right to express your opinion.
What isn’t cool is when commenters use abusive, insulting language when they don’t agree with what I’ve said. That’s a surefire way for me to completely disregard what you say, even if it has a grain of truth or merit—especially when personal insults are used. If I bother to reply at all, I try to remain civil…in fact, I’ve had some commenters express surprise at my replies. I don’t believe in being rude. I think people who bandy about insults instead of thoughtful rebuttals do so because it’s much easier to do online than face-to-face. So if you “shout” at me, don’t be surprised if I ignore you. (On my own blog I reserve the right to delete or even ban what I deem to be over the top. On LLP, Aaron has the final say.)
That’s my blogging philosophy in a nutshell. Thanks for listening!
(Crossposted on Blogmeister USA)
Posted by Pam at 12:56 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Kitty Sure Gets Around
Not only does she blog her and at Kitty Litter, but she is down saving elderly men Louisianna. God bless her!
Posted by Aaron at 12:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MORE FEMA FOLLY (Satire)
FEMA has a reputation for giving money to people who haven't been affected by natural disasters.
It appears that FEMA is once again living up to its reputation.
The Dodo has learned that FEMA has given money to a famous businessperson who wasn't affected by Hurricane Katrina.
When asked why the money was given, a FEMA spokesperson said, "We had to give the money. The person's business was completely under water."
Who is this latest recipient of FEMA generosity?
Posted by Dodo David at 06:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
LLP? Hacks or People?
Some of our readers have stated in comments that they think we are hacks because our opinions are in line with Christianity, conservatism, republicanism and bushisms.
As the "boss" of the site (I don't normally consider myself such, but I pay for the webspace), I want to comment on this.
LLP has no policy like that of LaShawn Barber, Queen of the Bloggosphere. Comments are open in every post and comments are not deleted except for hackers attempting to advertise. That is not censorship in that this is a private site.
One of the horrible and outrageous things about this site is that contributors offer their own opinions citing facts. Understanding that liberals don't like people to have the right to make their opinions known other than liberal opinions, we understand the hostility towards the theme found in LLP's authors posts.
We are mostly conservatives. That is why we are members of this site. Lack of liberal thought does not make this site fascist--it makes it conservative. LLP does not block you from visiting liberal sites.
We are not deity; we did not write scripture. We base our renderings on intellect, opinion and emotion--we ask our readers to do the same.
So your comments beg a question:
Why can I (and other authors) write posts on this site based on our opinion without deference to your own?
BECAUSE I OWN THIS FUCKING SITE AND THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE HERE I'VE ASKED TO DO SO AND I WHOLLY SUPPORT THEM.
Understood? Good. Feel free to comment liberally (no pun intended); we love debate.
Posted by Aaron at 08:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Rehashing Hash
I promised one of our regular readers, TJ, that I would address his comments in a post. I still plan on doing so. He challenged statements on the following:
- Liberals want Iran to have Nukes
- Border Security
- Republican Social Security Plans
- Impact of repealing the Death (or Estate) Tax
- Increasing military pay (couched in the idea that Bush "cut veterans benefits")
More to come...
Posted by Aaron at 06:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Watcher's Council
I used to submit my own material quite often on my old blog, but got out of the practice. I am going to rev things back up this week; I am nominating Pam's post on the AMAZING interview with Camille Paglia. I finally sat down (well, sat on the Metro) and read the 19 page article. Pam gets points for the obscure find and for fisking such a content-rich piece.
So, here is the obligatory stuff from the Council:
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.
Posted by Aaron at 05:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
AN APOLOGY TO THIS BLOG'S READERS
I owe this blog's readers a huge apology.
In my post Dysfunction in the Sheehan Family? I erred big time.
What I wrote implied that Cindy Sheehan had had an incestuous relationship with her now-deceased son Casey.
I did not mean to imply such a thing, yet my words did just that.
I am sorry for what I wrote.
I do wonder if Cindy Sheehan had an attachment to her son Casey that went beyond the normal mother-son relationship.
Still, my wondering doesn't justify what I wrote.
To borrow an expression from Tom Brokaw, I don't have egg on my face; I have an entire omlette.
Again, I apologize to this blog's readers.
Yours Ashamed,
Dodo David
Posted by Dodo David at 08:24 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Queen LaShawn: III
Her majesty issues her latest edict: I control all that I survey!
In a move that one could say proves my point, LaShawn wants you to know that if you criticize her--she will banish you from her kingdom:
I call myself “queen” every now and then mostly because it irritates the haters. But sometimes I like to act like one, too. I wrote a post back in 2004 called Queen of My Domain. It was a message to people I allow to comment on my blog, but who trash me on discussion boards and other people’s blogs.
The policy is still in effect. Although I appreciate being respected in my “house,” I don’t want to be disrespected elsewhere, either, especially when untrue and unfair accusations are leveled. Since I am queen of this domain, if and when I find such “behind my back” comments, you won’t be allowed to comment here anymore. Why would I do that? Because I can. And because actions have consequences. Don’t blame me. I didn’t make that rule.
If you wonder why your comments aren’t getting through, there’s your answer.
She is really getting rather ridiculous. Look, I am not saying she did this post in response to mine. But if she did, it's really rather childish. If you put your opinions on the internet, expect people to criticize you. And if you can't take the criticism--THEN DON'T BLOG! It's that heat and kitchen thing.
Posted by Aaron at 01:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Something Lighter for Friday Afternoon
Our buddy Buckley F. Williams has the results of his blogging survey:
What type of blog do you consider your blog to be?
* Awesome. (3%)
* Wicked awesome. (5%)
* Why the f*&! doesn't Instapundit link me every day?!? (92%)
Hilarious stuff from one of the conservative blogs' funny men.
Posted by pat at 03:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
LaShawn's Latest Decree: Immigrants Better Be White!
Queen LaShawn latest proclaimation:
Frey, with his PC-speak, understates the “issue” to the point of comedy. A non-white, third-world influx of illegal aliens is bad for America any way you package it. Unlike European immigrants who came to the U.S. to assimilate into society, Mexicans have little interest in adopting the culture or the language.
Notice how the European "immigrants" are never labeled as "illegal" but the "Third Worlders" are "illegal aliens." I would like her to speak to all the Africans that live in Maryland and the DC area that came here legally and who speak English.
What a joke.
Posted by Aaron at 02:14 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Cindy Sheehan Hysteria
Don't ask me why I thougt to look at the posts at Huffington's Post today...but I did.
ALMOST EVERY POST IS ABOUT SHEEHAN!
How Does He Manage Those Giant B**ls?
What Little George should do about Cindy, tactially speaking.
Cindy Sheehan's Simple Request
An American Mother Loses Her Son
Cindy Exposes the Emperor's New Clothes
Cindy Sheehan Can't Stop Won't Stop
Someone compared her to the man who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square!
If this is not hysteria, I don't know what is. This is one widow out of hundreds.
Michael Moore is just doing this for footage in his next movie.
Posted by Aaron at 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Michelle Malkin: In the Crosshairs of the Left
Today, columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin gives us a sample of some of the truly vile things people e-mail her. Click here to see them...scroll down a bit; there are a lot of updates in the post. The language is extremely foul, so don't say I didn't warn you.
(One of them was sent from an employee at a law firm, and the law firm found out about it--and fired the person who sent it. Integrity is always refreshing. All the details are in the post.)
Our very own Aaron mentioned in an e-mail that he can't figure out why Malkin is the target of such blatant hatred from the left. While I agree it's despicable and unfortunate, I do have a theory.
Malkin is the daughter of Filipino immigrants. This automatically makes her a member of a protected class--in other words, as a person of color, she falls under the category of minorities who must be protected by the left against the big, bad conservatives who would otherwise oppress her.
The funny thing is, Malkin is a conservative who doesn't subscribe to the notion that she needs to be protected from anyone. Not only that, she isn't afraid to air her views about anything, from protecting our borders to racial preferences. She even wrote a book that defends the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II...a cardinal sin in the eyes of the left. The fact that she is a successful journalist in spite of her rejection of the ideals of the left makes it even more galling to them.
In other words, Malkin is a marked man (er...woman). Because she disdains the "safety net" the left so condescendingly holds out for minorities, whom they seem to think can't succeed at anything without help akin to a handicap in golf, she must be hanged and quartered. She has to be taught a lesson for her ingratitude for their magnanimousness. When lefties don't have facts to back up their opinions, they turn to personal insults as a way of asserting their superiority. (I have had this happen to me with a member of my own family.) Call it the "class bully syndrome," if you will.
This also explains why minority conservatives like Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales and others are vilified by the left. They had the temerity to leave the herd.
Fortunately, Malkin is strong enough to withstand the buffeting of the stormy seas of political commentary. If she wasn't, she'd have been gone a long time ago. As long as there are people willing to listen to her message, then the sophomoric attempts by the left to quash her will continue to be fruitless.
*Cross-posted at BlogMeister USA.*
Posted by Pam at 09:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
LaShawn Barber: I'm too Christian to Be Ignored!
NOTE: some readers have commented on the racial tone of the post--the BAP and the poking fun at her name. BAP should not be construed as raciall