Anti-government radical Andrew Joseph Stack III crashes small plane into IRS building

The Tea Party Movement is making lots of waves nationally and I applaud that.  Every group interest in this country has a right to a voice and a right to try to influence the American political process.  I defended those rights in uniform for 21 years from deserts to snow-covered hilltops on four different continents.  Fox News claims to be the defender of the Tea Party (they actually just manipulate them for ratings) but while everyone else is content to dismiss all of the primal emotions that motivate Tea Party members, Fox News pointedly capitalizes on those base emotions for dramatic effect to make compelling TV.  At the same time that they foment dark emotions on the one hand, they tell the rest of us that we should not judge the entire group by the actions of the radicals who respond to their emotional message.

Consider that even today, you cannot have a discussion about Dr. Martin Luther King without someone bringing up the allegations of communist ties that he was saddled with during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960′s.  Even though those allegations were completely debunked at every turn, they persist.  Many people say that Dr. King should have condemned the Black Panther and Nation of Islam Movements in a more vociferous manner to prove he did not support it.  They claim that by not being in the forefront of opposition to these other groups, he gave tacit approval for them.

For anyone in the Tea Party Movement who finds logic in this allegation I have four words for you.

YOU’RE NOT WELCOME HERE!

These four words are all you have to say to people who show up to your rallies with assault rifles, racists signs, and who advocate overthrow of the U.S. government.  By allowing them to participate in your events, are you not giving tacit approval as well?

How often have John Boehner, Eric Cantor, or Sarah Palin been asked if they think radicals are welcome to join the voices of the right only to have them refuse to say that there is any fringe element that is unwelcome in their opinions.  Here is Bill O’Reilly trying to pin down Sarah Palin about the birthers:

[vodpod id=Video.3064362&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fembed%2Fcfg2%3Fid%3D201002160044]

In the previous clip, Sarah Palin goes to great lengths to avoid setting a standard of the kind of negativism that should not be condoned within their movement.  Why are the rest of us so critical of the Tea Party Movement? Because most of us have seen at lease SOME of the images in this racist and very inflammatory video:

Janeane Garofalo confronts Tea Party members below and their circular logic.  She clearly feels the same exasperation that I feel when trying to get people to look at these issues in clearly logical terms.  Anger for anger’s sake is nonconstructive.  The pattern over the last 30 years has been the same.  Spending and deficits decrease under Democrats.  Deficits have exploded under every single Republican administration.  (Don’t take my word for it, look it up.)  Yet no one wants to take their country back under Republicans.  Why is that?

Let’s  be honest, we all thought in the back of our minds that Andrew Joseph Stack III, who crashed his small plane into the IRS building depicted in the picture above, was motivated by all of the anti-government anger being promoted by Fox News, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party. I’m sure it was the first thing most people thought about when the 9 militia whackos were arrested by the FBI yesterday.

How long until we stop denying that anti-government whack jobs are responding to anti-government rhetoric?   No one is more unpatriotic than a person who does not respect our democracy.  Even if you believe that President Obama is a Marxist, Communist, or Socialist the one thing you cannot dispute is that he was elected by our electoral process as laid out by the Constitution.  Even if he is the anti-Christ (as 29% of Republicans so pathetically believe) then he is the duly elected anti-Christ of the United States and we are all obligated by law to afford him the same respect we gave our other Presidents.  Failure to do this is not only hypocritical but also unpatriotic, not just by my opinion but by the law of the land.

Comments

You can try to cover it up with smoke screens like objections to high taxes, big government, or elitism but little by little, people within this camp are coming around to what really bugs them. Consider, the United States has had Democrats as President before. The United States has had liberals as President before. But it has never had an African American as President before. I am sure they try to suppress it; but it is there—every time they look at him. So when they all get together at conventions like CPAC, they are more open than they would normally be in mixed company because they are among “like-minded” people there.

That is what leads them to say things like what Jason Matera said in this Media Matters clip (below). I have pointed out hypocrisy, after hypocrisy, after hypocrisy over conservative support of Glenn Beck, the czar nonsense, and a host of other things but you be the judge:

Despite these kinds of blatant attacks, you still find black people in denial, who are willing to ally themselves with radicals like these. Given my background as a conservative and having put my life on the line time and again for what I thought were conservative principles, I wonder why my road has taken me to such a radically different place. I welcome your comments.

Tweet this story on

Most of you have seen these clips.  I include them just in case you missed them.

These are the most interesting unedited sections:

]]> http://wuzhatnin.com/2010/02/19/speaking-of-hypocrisy/feed/ 3 http://wuzhatnin.com/2010/02/17/enablers-of-hypocrisy/ http://wuzhatnin.com/2010/02/17/enablers-of-hypocrisy/#comments Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:22:44 +0000 John http://wuzhatnin.com/?p=1118 Rachel Maddow set herself apart from the majority of journalists by bringing Rep. Aaron Schock to task for his blatant hypocrisy.  She exposed him on NBC’s Meet the Press for attempting to reap benefits from a bill he voted against.  I have been saying for quite some time here on this site that conservatives have stopped serving their constituents and turned against the values they have claimed to represent for years.  Republican hypocrisy led to my conversion from Republican to a progressive-caucusing Independent, which I explained in my confessional piece “Journey of a True Conservative.”  The most egregious hypocrisies have been committed since Barack Obama took office just over 1 year ago.  Those who follow politics in America have noted that Republicans have gotten their suggestions incorporated into every piece of legislation that has crossed Capitol Hill since they lost the majority in 2006 but they have supported the bills—which they helped write—with virtually no votes.

Rachel Maddow, Our Jedi-Master of the Week

You have to admit as strategies go, this is a pretty good one.  You water-down a bill as much as possible.  You filibuster and delay as much as possible.  If and when the time finally comes to vote, you vote no even though your changes to the bill were accepted.  At best, the bill is defeated and at worst, the version that passes has been so watered-down that it is just a shadow of its former self.  In such a system, even a defeat can turn into a victory.  Even worse, is that the so-called Blue Dog Democrats have sided with Republicans to weaken or defeat bills even as Republican talking heads were telling the media that they opposed the bills because Republican ideas were being excluded.  This message has resonated with two groups of Americans: first, those who do not follow politics and therefore believe whatever they are told and second, those who welcome Republican positions by default because they oppose the progressive agenda regardless.  Additionally, the conservative TV and talk radio personalities who spout conservative talking points attack Democrats and progressive Independents constantly. At the same time, they give increasingly disingenuous conservatives a pass as they make blatantly false statements on TV.

Few would argue that the 24/7 news cycle has had a positive effect on the quality of journalism.  No one can expect a journalist to be perfect.  The first 40-50 years of TV journalism were imperfect to be sure.  The U.S. government tried to control the news where ever possible.  Failing that, it tried to manipulate or at the very least to influence what the American people believed via the news.  The 3 major networks had their jobs cut out for them upholding their journalistic fiduciary and for the most part, acquitted themselves well.  In fact, they did their jobs so well that the trust and respect journalists earned within the United States seems to have automatically spilled over into the 24/7 news cycle.  Fox News, CNN and other relative newcomers on the news scene were instantly given the same stature as authoritative news sources as the “big 3″ themselves.  This is not to say that they were not worthy of the trust they were given but it is important to understand why many U.S. news consumers have displayed the tendency to simply GIVE that trust without it having to be earned.

The American viewer has not caught up with the reality that reporting that is driven predominantly by profit and ratings in the 24/7 cycle needs a bit more scrutiny before it is to be believed.  The large sums of money paid to personalities at a network like Fox News tend to override some journalists’ focus on integrity.  Others find the task of striking a balance nearly impossible.  An example would be Bill O’Reilly having to cave when someone he brought frequently onto his show to offer an opposing opinion and analysis ran afoul of the conservative auto-censor and got canned by Rupert Murdoch.  The conservative auto-censor is the apparatus that kicks into gear automatically to stifle any discourse that is not in perfect harmony with its beliefs.  Did O’Reilly protest the censorship?  No.  He understood the principle of picking one’s battles and would not sacrifice any political capital for a relative nobody.  He also understood that the primary purpose of Fox News is not journalism.

The primary function of an organization is important when considering the implications of my assertions about the 24/7 news cycle.  CNN for example has worked diligently to build its reputation since the early 90′s.  They fell from number one among cable news and searched desperately for ways to compete with Fox News.  In the end, they understood that there was no viable way to compete for a number one ratings spot without following Fox’s emotional, mud-slinging example and eventually decided to remain true to their core focus, which is news.  This is a stark contrast to Fox News, which any objective analyst can recognize as a political operation.  Even if you believe Fox News CEO Roger Ailes when he said that Fox News is not into politics but into ratings, it takes a hopeful optimist to interpret this statement favorably with regard to Fox’s relationship with news.

3 minutes into the clip

This brings us back to enablers.  The only way that Republicans can deceive the public is with the participation of several groups.

1.  As mentioned, the Blue Dog Democrats—also known as Conservadems—have helped the Republicans immensely by enabling them to successfully derail the Obama agenda.  The Conservadems have turned out to be essentially red herrings to those constituents who voted for them to enact progressive measures in their home states.  It is questionable whether or not they would have gotten the votes that they did if the people in their districts had known that THEY would be the ones blocking health-care reform, repeal of DADT, the establishment of a new consumer protection agency, and banking legislation reform just to name a few.  Many of these Conservadems and Democrat-caucusing Independents such as Joe Lieberman have gone back on long-standing positions on progressive issues because they find themselves beholden to special interests.  Like the Republicans, Conservative Democrats depend on their ability to convince voters that they are acting in the public interest.  How can they reverse themselves on key positions in order to satisfy obligations to special interests without suffering political damage, unless they have a medium with which to communicate a plausible rationale?

2.  Journalists have become the medium by which politicians communicate “plausible” rationales that cross the spectrum of believability.  Nowhere is this more obvious than by a look at this past summer’s town-hall debates and a look at the ‘health-care-reform-is-a-plot-to-kill-your-grandmother’ debacle.  Republicans were allowed to perpetuate the lies and falsehoods about health-care not only by Fox News but also by CNN and the network news stations because it made for compelling TV.   It was not until George Stephanopoulos had his ill-fated run-in with Rudolph Giuliani that more emphasis was placed on the responsibilities of news organizations and journalists to ensure that information disseminated through their outlet is factually correct.  Stephanopoulos allowed Giuliani to assert that there had been no domestic attacks during the Bush administration.  This was not only a blatant lie but was especially inflammatory coming from the guy who was acting Mayor of New York City during the 9/11 attacks, which of course occurred during Bush’s first term.  In this case, Giuliani was just another conservative mouth piece who was hitting all of the usual conservative talking points as a matter of routine.  The idea is that if you keep saying something over and over, that sooner or later people will come to believe it, no matter how demonstrably false it may be.  Using this principle, Republicans have been able to successfully mischaracterize President Obama’s initiatives from the start.  Since the Giuliani incident, a few journalists—particularly those with their own shows—have been a bit more insistent on keeping guests focused on the topic being discussed rather than allowing them to run off on tangents or use the airtime to proselytize, make speeches, and work-in as many conservative talking points as possible.  By failing to keep talking heads of both parties in check, the journalist becomes the enabler in diverting the public’s attention away from national business.  In the previous example, Stephanopoulos could have said as many other journalists have, that it is the responsibility of the viewer to judge the voracity of the information presented by a guest.  Instead, he showed great integrity by admitting that not challenging Giuliani had been a mistake and vowing to do his best to ensure that it would never happen again.

The third enabler is…You. The susceptibility of the average American to political and electoral manipulation by special interests via members of Congress is a modern tragedy.  Corporations give increasing sums of cash to political campaigns and reward politicians using payments in barter as well.  In exchange for these payments, many Congressmen will adopt or oppose anything they can get away with.  That last sentence is key.  They will do it when they think they can get away with it.  John McCain stirred up a hornets nest a couple of months ago by siding with telcos (telecommunications companies) and against consumers over the net neutrality debate.  They decided that a way to get people to accept restriction of the Internet is by using the spin that it was to combat child pornography.  I mean, who isn’t against child pornography?  The first warning sign that this was a disingenuous effort on behalf of special interest was using an unlikely candidate such as John McCain who just 1 year ago admitted he had never used email or the Internet before.  Suddenly for reasons he cannot explain, he feels strongly about the Internet being used by criminals?  I don’t think so.  If you checked the blogosphere the next day, you would have found plenty of people who accepted McCain’s disingenuous stance.

Powerful telcos would be unable to influence American law if politicians did not take their money.  Of equal importance, telcos would not spend the money in the first place if they knew that the public would not accept such nonsensical fluff from politicians.  The obvious defense is to vet sources of information very carefully and to hold those individuals responsible who violate the public trust.  Since I started writing about politics, the most frustrating thing I have encountered is the defensiveness of conservatives.  Conservative people have been so thoroughly convinced that the “liberal media” is not to be trusted that their preformed ideas are completely impervious to factual rebuttal.  If I show a person clear scientific evidence to refute an idea that they believe they typically say, “Oh that’s just a liberal lie.” or “You don’t know what you are talking about.” or “You can’t believe anything you hear on the liberal media.”  They will go to any lengths to defend their beliefs.  Go to a political chat room on any day and you will see left-of-center ideals being expressed, with the person who expressed them coming under vicious personal attacks from the conservatives.  Rarely will you hear a well-reasoned rebuttal based in logic being offered from the Right.

Fox News and conservatives have also learned that the best way to keep liberals at bay is to drop the word God from time to time and to assert that they are simply defending Christian values.  The overwhelming majority of practicing Christians in the U.S. are so happy to hear someone mainstream talk like they do, even if it’s just a quick talking point, that they would not oppose such individuals to save their lives—literally.  Even more telling, is that they ignore other inherently American ideals by practicing religious discrimination (though that one is often ignored by the Right).

The hypocrisy that typifies today’s Republican party and conservative-leaning Democrats and Independents is the single biggest reason that the U.S. Senate is almost entirely dysfunctional.  What would happen if we could disable the enablers?

• Politicians would be unable to behave irresponsibly if their pole numbers suggested that their constituents would not tolerate it.
• Pole numbers would reflect the public distaste of a dysfunctional government if it was factually undeniable when either party was simply practicing obstructionism.
• Practicing gratuitous obstructionism would be impossible if conservatives found themselves unable to lie without being exposed on the spot.

A political environment such as described above would not disenfranchise so many American viewers and thus may increase viewership of TV that is educational and informative.  And last but certainly not least, such an environment would be catastrophically hostile to Dick Cheney.  Hallelujah!

We must recognize that no systemic process can solve all of these issues.  People will always be people.  Journalists will always have to compete to make names for themselves.  Politicians don’t become politicians without massive egos.  At the end of the day, you and I cannot answer for other people, politicians, or journalists but we can answer for ourselves.  As long as you do the right thing in as much as is humanly possible and do not accept feeble excuses from those in positions of trust who do not even try, those who fail to uphold their fiduciaries will be forced to give a reckoning when good people stand together.  If the future is to be better that what we have today, this is what must happen.  For now however, one can only dream.

[vodpod id=Video.3050512&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Side note:  Notice Harold Ford not so stealthily positioning himself for a congressional bid in November. He is as subtle as a tank driving through a library.  He even went so far as to defend big banks including their bonuses because as he said 680,000 people in New York work in banks.  Clearly, politicians bowing to special interests is a two-way street.  It is rare to hear a politician admit his influence is for sale before an election but that is essentially my take on what he said.  This is likely an attempt to get campaign contributions from Wall Street banks or at the very least, to placate them.  Perhaps he doesn’t see why all that TARP money should go to bank executives alone.  I hate to be so harsh but this is NOT a political climate in which ANYONE should be defending banks, NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE! Darn it, I used to like that guy.

Comments

[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/21ZBfT"]Now that I’ve got your attention, who the hell is he anyway? He is the cretin who—speaking out against former Fox News Analyst Marc Lamont Hill—came out with this gem:

Hill is one of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities…

Sorry, there are times when you know a road is not worth following because given where you are starting from, it could not possibly lead to a place you want to go. So the context of that statement is not important. What IS important is that shallow, narrow-minded racists like Horowitz have always taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment of blacks of all walks of life in terms of their abilities or lack thereof, and what they think those individuals are capable of. When I read that statement, it reminded me of a line John Lithgow’s character uttered in the movie “The Tuskegee Airmen” when he referred to black intellectuals as, “a bunch of college-educated niggers.” Horowitz uses the term “black intellectual” as if he’s speaking about the Chupacabras. But then, what else would you expect in an article entitled: “Fox’s Affirmative Action Baby Whines?”

Affirmative Action Baby??? You’ve got to be kidding me man. What century are you from???

Bill O’Reilly was debating with Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D about whether or not Barack Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. O’Reilly was surprisingly pragmatic in saying it was good for America for various reasons. Hill disagreed saying that he is a traditionalist in that he assumes, “a Nobel Peace Prize winner should bring about peace.” He then added that he was “shocked and disappointed” that someone prosecuting two wars could win the prize.

This opinion is not unique to Hill. It was expressed by many in the days following the award by the Nobel Committee. It stems more from a lack of understanding of what the award symbolizes than anything else. This lack of understanding can trace its roots to European pragmatism and how the European decision making process confuses people who subscribe to American puritanism and its ‘damn the consequences’ decision making processes. (see the article “Obama brings honor to America” for a Rachel Maddow video clip that addresses this contrast)

To illustrate this concept, consider the argument over whether to distribute clean needles to heroine addicts. American politicians and religious icons point out that to distribute needles amounts to an endorsement of illegal drug use. Then in the full glory of their righteous indignation they block all attempts to implement such a plan, filibuster any further dialogue on the subject, and then viciously attack those who suggested it in the first place. The consequence is an HIV epidemic among drug users, which then infects partners of drug users or people transfused with blood donated by druggies trying to score cash for their next fix. Who cares how many people die? As long as we feel good about our decision and the dying happens to other people.

On the other hand, look at the European political paradigm. Someone points out that people are getting AIDS through no fault of their own and one possible source is heroine users. Experts in the fields of medicine, law enforcement, and social sciences all agree that handing out needles will mitigate the problem at least somewhat and will definitely save lives. That is all you need to prove in Europe. Saving lives is the primary concern so the pragmatic action is taken. Clean needles are handed out with everyone agreeing to deal with the moral implications as a secondary concern.

In order to understand why Norwegians do not feel that their perceptions of karmic justice have been grossly violated by giving awards to people who are “merely” trying as opposed to achieving, one must accept that effort has value.  That working toward peace is worthy of merit because without the effort, the war profiteers win by default.

Hill either does not understand or does not agree with those principles. I cannot judge what he understands or does not understand or knows or does not know. Neither can Mr. Horowitz. By doing so, he demonstrates a profound level of ignorance. If he objects to the elevation of a man with a lowly doctorate in “education,”—as Horowitz points out—then perhaps he can explain what qualifies Bill O’Reilly to not only offer commentary on this issue but every issue on his own TV show? What qualifies anyone—for that matter—to offer an opinion? Isn’t that what freedom of speech is for?

If such qualifications should be prerequisite to offering such opinions on television, then why does Mr Horowitz have a picture of Glenn Beck on his webpage? You know, Glenn Beck the divisive college dropout. In fact, if you search Mr. Horowitz’ website for citations of Glenn Beck, there are—well I stopped counting at 100 but you get the picture. Why does Horowitz find Beck so compelling if an accomplished African American like Hill is unworthy of even the small pittance of prestige that the term “Fox News Analyst” would afford him? I hope Dr. Hill will achieve real notoriety by becoming an analyst for a real news source and not the partisan pessimism that masquerades as news on that channel.

What pessimism you ask? Where to begin…Here is an example of what can be expected by people whose minds are in the psychological gutter. Horowitz says,

My objection to Hill’s appearance as a rap professor pontificating about geopolitical issues is it fed the soft racism of low expectations and that it was in fact an insult to all those black academics who would actually have had something intelligent to say about the Iran crisis.

Interestingly, Horowitz neglected to offer any suggestions of the kind of “black academics” he would prefer hearing from. Perhaps he can’t think of any who don’t remind him of rap when they try to sound “intelligent.” Worse, this is a personal attack with absolutely no substance. He questioned Dr. Hill’s credentials but does not elaborate on which aspects of Hill’s opinions that he disagrees with. What academic attacks another without detailing why he feels the other is in error? I should perhaps thank him for so benevolently championing us poor, defenseless African Americans who fall victim to those “low expectations.” Better that he attack African American scholars directly rather than allow them to fall victim to “soft racism.” Naturally, there is nothing in our history that would lead him to believe we can overcome racism without his help. He is selflessly attacking Dr. Hill as a preemptive measure to save us the burden of having to watch someone else do it.

Let’s not stop there. The hits just continue. Try this little gem on for size,

Marc Lamont Hill, out of all the black intellectuals available, to talk about cultural issues (let alone international affairs.) Hill is one of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities — Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West are two obvious others — who are poisoning the minds of  black youth with the idea that politically correct murderers like Assata Shakur are heroes, and patriotic Americans are devils incarnate.

Marc Lamont Hill

Oh so now he wants to offer an opinion on who would be a proper role model for young African Americans??? He keeps talking about the community of “black intellectuals” but the only blacks he can think of are those he wants to disparage? Horowitz says that these personal attacks may cause him to be cast as a “McCarthyite.” I think that would actually be an elevation given that there is not a single substantive criticism in his entire article.

Wait, I can think of a black intellectual that Horowitz might find to be a sterling example for African American youth. He said, “I have studied the American left longer and know more about it than Professor Hill does about hip-hop culture or, for that matter, about me.” Again this hip-hop theme keeps coming back in his posts and is clearly something he despises. Maybe he is thinking of the mix-master M.C. of hip-hop bling-bling Michael Steele. The man who is taking the message of the Republican party to the streets and asking our youth, “What up?” After all, there is nothing African American youth like more than being patronized by middle-aged bling-slingers. Then again, Horror-wits (since we are being superficial) probably finds Steele too rap-like as well, nicht wahr?

In yet another article, Horror-wits offered another enlightened opinion,

“Hill is in fact a knee jerk leftist, a defender of ACORN and a man whose attitudes toward race are a throwback to the sixties. I wonder if O’Reilly understands that putting on such a lightweight feeds the racism of low expectations.”

As Horror-wits demonstrates, short-sightedness needs not be fed. “The racism of low expectations” is self-nurturing and self-replicating. Further, it would be a mistake to think that the hollow platitudes he offers recognizing black intellectuals that he cannot name and speaking repeatedly of “low expectations” cast any doubt as to why the idea of Dr. Hill as intellectual offends Horror-wits in such a personal way. Incidentally, I also defend ACORN. They have no credible opposition. Just bitter hypocrites who don’t like the part of democracy that allows low-income people to organize, vote, and try to build a better future for themselves.

I can go on and on. I have seen enough material with just a cursory glance at Mr. Horor-witz’s body of work to fill the encyclopedia of demagoguery. I will however, give props to Mr. Bill O’Reilly. I watched his show back when I considered myself a conservative. I stopped watching when I quit Fox after they hired Mark Fuhrman as an analyst. I have to give respect that O’Reilly did not abandon Hill solely by word of the vermin who oppose the idea of this Ph.D as an intellectual. O’Reilly clearly recognized this for the bigoted background noise that one might expect given the networks target demographic. Nevertheless, it seems Rupert Murdoch chose to appease the bigots by firing Hill.

Lastly, I will say that I have reviewed some of Dr Hill’s writings. I cannot say that I was that familiar with him before today, probably because I tend to give Fox News a wide berth these days. Fox does after all recruit anyone and anything that appears even slightly anti-black. I already mentioned the offensive hiring of the genocidal dreamer, Mark Fuhrman. Then, Fox could not wait to get its hands on Don Imus. Personally, I don’t think Imus is a racist but he said some insensitive things at the wrong time, in the wrong place. He said those things because that was his act, simple as that. Fox is hiring him because they know that people who feel a certain way will flock to watch him because they think he is a racist, whether he is or not. Alternatively, I believe that Fox hires an African American here and there solely for plausible deniability. I realize that a job is a job, but there are places to work where you don’t have to sell your integrity to provide cover for a radical agenda.

In any case, from what I have seen thus far I would disagree with Dr. Hill on many issues if we had a discussion, starting with the Nobel Prize award. I would not do him the disrespect of disparaging him and his credentials for superficial reasons. The ability to disagree respectfully is the foundation of productive discourse. I guess after this article I can forget productive discourse with Mr. Horror-wits as well. Of course when all is said and done, he is after all—a pinhead.
Comments
[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/21ZBfT"]