 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« If You Love The First Amendment... | Main | Blogback Mountain » May 16, 2006Ripley's Believe It Or NotAmazing but true: Think back to September 12, 2001. Imagine that an omniscient seer had told you then that four-and-a-half years later, the U.K. and Spain would have experienced al Qaeda attacks in their own countries; France's appeasement-oriented government would have been rocked by Islamic riots in Paris and other cities, Denmark would have had its citizens and embassies targeted for Islamic terror attacks on account of political cartoons portraying Muhammed; Russia would have endured a deadly hostage siege by Islamic terrorists at a school full of children; and in all that time, the United States would not have experienced a single additional terror attack on its own soil. Imagine the seer had told you further that the United States would, in the same period of time, wage and win two wars in the middle east, overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and midwifing the formation of a parliamentary democracy there, then driving Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and bringing that destitute country to the verge of its first parliamentary government, elected by nation-wide vote and backed by a western-trained police force and a non-Baathist army, while Saddam himself sat in the dock awaiting the verdict of his trial for crimes against humanity. Imagine he had told you that American combat deaths in these two wars over three years time would not have exceeded 5,000. Imagine that he also told you the American economy would have fully recovered from the 9/11 attack in this timeframe, returning to employment, interest, inflation, and growth rates rivalling if not exceeding those of the Clinton years, despite wartime budget deficits and huge increases in gasoline prices caused by the inevitable uncertainties in the middle east, while the socialist economies of Europe stagnated or shrank. Then imagine that he told you George W. Bush's approval rating just six months after his reelection would stand at 29 percent.George W. Bush isn't at 29 percent because he's lost support among moderates and liberals - he's at 29 percent because he has been too willing to cave in to moderates and liberals. The recipe for restoring his popularity to above 50 percent is simple: Bush must screw the Left every chance he gets. Example: Immigration Example: Spending Example: Oil Example: War on Terror Example: Everything Else Posted in Campaign Season
Comments
Well, in retrospect, I guess I'd fire the seer who said that two wars had been won. BTW - it really, really sickens me when people somehow see terrorist attacks in two allied countries (Spain and the UK) as victory in the US. I'll try to remember how we're all winning the war on terror when I go through King's Cross tomorrow morning. Posted by: Vol Abroad at May 16, 2006 6:09 PMYou can't "figure out what the Left wants." The Left is large and varied group. Pinpointing their beliefs as a whole would be futile. And by the way, just because you assign a belief system to your political opponents does not mean it is true. You often tell us what liberals want and believe. But you are not a liberal, so how can you possibly know what "liberals" think, feel or believe? Perhaps you could tell us those things about an individual or a small group, but all liberals? Naw, huh-uh. Posted by: brittney at May 16, 2006 6:58 PMBecause they've been telling us for decades, brittney. Posted by: Sandy P at May 16, 2006 8:19 PMI agree screw the liberals. It will be fun to watch them whine. Posted by: tracelan at May 16, 2006 8:45 PMBrilliant recomendations! Gosh, one would think you want to win rather than please the MSM. I detect a backbone there, which is something I haven't seen since Reagan. Posted by: jim at May 16, 2006 8:55 PMTwo wars have been won. Afghanistan and Iraq. New governments formed, and progress continues to be made on rebuilding the infrastructure that Saddam and the Taliban screwed up so very badly. Yes, there are terrorists in that country blowing things up... That (unfortunately) happens in a LOT of countries. Look at England, Malyasia, etc. I don't think anyone is saying that attacks in France and England are any sort of "victory" for the US; in fact, I don't see how that conclusion could be reached. I think the point was that despite other countries being attacked, the US (knock on wood) has not. And that's directly, like it or not, because of President George Bush. Posted by: Dean at May 16, 2006 9:17 PMyou are 100% correct. also: we need simple undeniable arguments that we are winning in Iraq and that the economy is GREAT! and that the deficits are shrinking. these are tough to get out when the MSM is dominated by folks who are left-of-center and who think bush is nixon, iraq is vietnam, and they are all woodward or bernstein. IOW: the MSM is living in the past, in denial. a more competent PR operation fromthe WH is absolutely necessary. i pray that tony snow and josh bolten improve things. Posted by: reliapundit at May 16, 2006 9:20 PMAmerica, most powerful nation on earth, conquered and destroyed by Mexicans and same sex freaks. and if he made sure the large number of people leaking national security secrets to the press were actually punished for it. Posted by: David at May 16, 2006 9:35 PMVol - He can claim that two wars have been won because there is no credible argument to the contrary. What has *not* yet been won is the peace. That is a stickier and much more ambiguous proposition. The primary problem we face in the West is the existance of a huge number of folks like yourself who are willing to step into that ambiguity and declaim "We Lost" at the merest difficulty or provocation. I only wish that you would look at all the Big Government wars - the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Tobacco" and admit defeat with the same degree of haste. Posted by: WildMonk at May 16, 2006 9:36 PMExcellent post and perfect point. Bush can never satisfy the left and in his efforts to placate them he has lost the support of conservatives, such as myself. In trying to satisfy those who never will support him, he has lost the support of his base. I think I'm being repeatedly redundant but you said it quite well. Posted by: DADvocate at May 16, 2006 9:37 PMSpot On!! Posted by: GregM at May 16, 2006 9:38 PMit really, really sickens me when people somehow see terrorist attacks in two allied countries (Spain and the UK) as victory in the US. With deep empathy for England and Spain, you must have a very serious linguistic problem to find anything referring to victory in the allusion those events. This was a laundry list of historical events with a contrast of no terror events in the US vs. terror events elsewhere. Posted by: gm at May 16, 2006 9:43 PMVol, When did anyone say attacks in the UK and Spain were a victory for us? I read and re-read the article and can't find it. I did see this: Where's our victory in that? Posted by: Vince at May 16, 2006 9:43 PMExample Immigration: Example Oil: I agree with you 100%. But it will never happen. Even if W pushes it moderate Republicans (Hi Lincoln!) in Congress will help torpedo it. Posted by: RueHaxo at May 16, 2006 9:43 PMHey, have you found a job yet? Posted by: anon at May 16, 2006 10:27 PMIt's not enough to figure out what one side or the other wants. The first question should be, "what's best for the Nation?" While I agree the Left stands for nihilism and defeat, and should never again be handed the reins of national power, I think Bush could also gain by articulating a vision for America, not just a better platform for his party. Posted by: Bob1 at May 16, 2006 10:30 PMI like it, Bill. Good to still hear you goin' on. Maybe we should send this link to da Whitehouse.Gov??? What say? Just in case Vol Abroad isn't kidding: Terrorist strikes in other countries aren't "victories"; they are evidence that terrorists still try to strike where they can, and that the U.S. has defended itself amazingly well since 9/11. That defense including the destruction of many thousands of terrorists and of two regimes which indisputably abetted terrorist activities. Posted by: Hello I'm Johnny Cash at May 16, 2006 10:55 PMI agree with many of your points in the Example / Solution portion. I KNOW there are a lot of people who do - I talk with them every week. As we watched "The Immigration Speech", we shook our heads and said "What is he thinking?" and "I wish I could just grab him by the shoulders, shake the heck out of him and scream WAKE UP!". And *that's* the problem, isn't it? We The People have no way to get these elected officials and unelected bureaucrats to listen to us. You've listed some great points. But they exist as pixels on a screen and bits on a drive. Do you have a way to print them, deliver them to the White House or RNC and get them to acknowledge that they are ideas? That's the real issue, isn't it? I want to form my own Media Organ and Political Party to address these issues. But I'm a little short on cash and power, ya know? Thanks. Posted by: _Jon at May 16, 2006 10:59 PMGood suggestions. But I think it is unworkable. The main problem is that the intellectual space in US has been completely overtaken by the leftists and the liberals. The good conservatives and the capitalists have been kicked out of the mainstream media and now they can only disgorge their frustration in the shadowy realm of blog-pages that seldom get read by the huge horde of voters. Only way to rescue America and the world is that the conservatives much reclaim the intellectual space. Over the decades they had been too busy making money, creating giant industrial empires, doing fruitful labor, and so the field of writing, and the general creative arts was left wide open to the liberals and the lefits. The leftists have already taken over Hollywood. They have taken over Time, NY times, New Yorker, etc. These institutions are much more important than the fate of Bush presidency. What are the conservatives going to do to free Hollywood and the mainstream media from the leftist control? All we can do is disgorge our bile on the blog pages. This is just not going to work. I think the future is bleak. And the horrible nightmare of Hillary as next US president may as well come true! Posted by: Indian Capitalist at May 16, 2006 11:02 PMBill, I've been thinking the same thing for weeks - the President needs to pick a fight with the Democrats on anything and everything and he needs to do it now. He doesn't have to win. He just needs to make an honest, clear, and forceful effort. And he will win some if not all of those battles, because people will support him. To Vol Abroad: Bill didn't mean that the attacks in the UK and Spain were a US victory and you know it. He meant that with all the attacks in Europe, it is a victory that the United States has not suffered an attack on our soil. No one is celebrating any attack on such honorable and valued allies as the UK and Spain. To Brittney: You can figure out what the liberals want and do the opposite. Being a "large and varied group" does not mean that there is no aggregate guiding political philosophy. Posted by: Jared A. at May 17, 2006 12:11 AMLiberals tend to behave in a way that hastens their own removal from the gene pool. Maybe nature programs some members of a species to act as vehicles for the disposal of genetic waste matter, and hence self-destructive actions like suicide bombing, partial-birth abortion, gay marriage, opposing the WoT and Patriot Act, etc. all now make sense when viewed within that context. Read here about anti-Americanism, and how America is NOT hated in many countries. Posted by: Twok at May 17, 2006 2:11 AMYou are absolutely right, Bill -- Bush needs to stop being "nice" to Bush-hating Dems. Also to Bush-hating NGOs like Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. Bush should declare that the slo-mo Darfur is a failure of the UN, AND a failure of Amnesty, who won't even call it genocide. And a failure of the NYT and other MSM, who spend far more front page articles on abuse at Abu Ghraib than murder, rape, and death in Darfur. Something like less than 100 prisoners in US custody have died warrants more MSM & Amnesty attention than 100 000, or 200 000, or what, 400 000 deaths. Bush should state every protest against the war in Iraq, was also essentially against using the military to stop genocide in Darfur. Such protesters should be ashamed of themselves -- but since most of them supported Clinton in 1996, after his "no genocide" policy in Rwanda, it's unlikely they'll have any shame. They're just waiting for a chance to apologize for not "doing something." Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at May 17, 2006 4:25 AMRight on target, Mr. Bill...as evidenced by the lead to a 5/9/06 Gallup poll: President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to 31%, a new low point for his administration, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll. Bush fares better among his political base than did other recent presidents at the low points of their administrations. However, Bush's rating from his opposing party (Democrats) represents a record low for any of the past five presidents. However, I will also opine that Dubya is less concerned about his numbers than any Prez in recent history, maybe even Ronnie. The squishy types just can't grasp the fact that in a kill-or-be-killed situation -- A WAR -- popularity matters little...winning matters most. Dubya will go down as the Vincent Van Gogh of American presidents. Reviled and/or misunderstood during his time, and then later a steady increase in respect, appreciation, and even love. A true Profile In Courage. Posted by: zregime at May 17, 2006 5:01 AMFirst, you must understand that Bush is to the left of the left. Then understand that nothing can be done about it. He is the most liberal leftist of our generation. Posted by: John Southern at May 17, 2006 6:46 AMActually the domestic policies of President Bush are an indication of Big Governmentism, be it slightly conservative or liberal, which sees the Federal Government as a respository for all power and something that can actually do *good*. You can add to your list a Department of Homeland Security which was to oversee and coordinate a bunch of disparate functions that, in theory, could protect the Nation better if they just had one more layer of bureaucracy over them. Ditto on the Intelligence Community, and having a Director of National Intelligence which is an *additional* layer of bureaucracy that got added onto things. And now an Immigration policy that basically is a full-employment act for overseas forgery and identity theft rings coupled with an announcement that anyone with some sort of *documentation* can have a safe path to Citizenship to soon open the floodgates of illegal aliens that no Administration policy can contend with. We are in the Zero Party State in which Democrats no longer comprehend democracy and Republicans do not stand for the Republic. Both parties have taken the idea of slicing and dicing the American electorate so as to get bare majorities, and then cement that in the House with a cap on the number of members which has not budged since the mid-20th Century and was enacted in 1912. Neither has any incentive to address the People and Nation as a whole, but instead to create 'identity politics' so that Groups can get rights and interfactional squabbling shall persist to divide the Nation while offering *nothing* to let us share commanality of the Nation. Each party denounces Big Government intrusion, be it civil rights violation or corruptive taxation or any damn thing, and yet positively *slaver* at the chance to hold the reigns of power so as to make it do *good*. They both have forgotten that they are to Govern the Nation, not Rule it. When I became disabled I applied my remaining energies to capturing my few ideas on how the Nation could operate *better* at Dumb Looks Still Free and realized that no one in the last century or so has really tried to understand the Constitution as a working system. It is more than a series of checks and balances upon Government. It is revolutionary in that the people grant certain rights to the Government to Govern, and *nothing else*. Big Governmentism of the FDR era was a response to Communism and Fascism and by the end of that war had made the Federal Government into something totally other than what it was designed for. In some ways it was necessary for the Cold War and a robust response to blocs of Nation States. That era is over. Today we find ourselves with this many-headed, many-limbed *thing* that is the Federal Government, very little of which actually is mandated under the Constitution and most of which does no *good* no matter how good the intentions were that enacted its parts. We the People passed the buck of responsibility upwards, not understanding that those are Our responsibilities as individuals, and that the rights that empower Us to deal with those responsibilities go *with* them. It is a heavy burden to be a Citizen of this Republic, because the Citizen is the one ultimately responsible within it. When a finger is pointed at any *ill* in Government, three more point back in accusation to the source of that ill and one to the ground to remind you that you will leave that ill to the next generation to try and deal with if you do not take your burden and *address it*. So, in this era of No Political Parties and people abdicating responsibilities, I did the oxymoronic thing and set up my Party of One. Conceived as being a distributed, non-heirarchical Party where each individual is their own party and will work with those that have commonality of ideas while not deriding others doing so until they can be fully proposed to We the People. At concept it is a Citizens Networked Party and has no leaders, no treasury, no authority to dictate to its members, but the right to shut out those that can *only* naysay and cannot *build* the Republic. For good ideas need be examined and see if they can *fit* the Republic while some will needs be discarded as just not suitable to the Constitution or how We the People are to use Our responsibilities and the rights We have to enact solutions for them. It is fine to disagree, but not fine to be disagreeable. This will go nowhere as Civility as part of Civilization is an art that we no longer practice. We have been told that the Government is the source of *all* solutions and told not to worry ourselves about diminishing Our responsibilities and the rights that go with them. I have taken up too much space and time, my apologies! I thank you for this forum, but my state of being allows little opportunity for interaction. And I no longer think clearly, concisely or briefly. Posted by: ajacksonian at May 17, 2006 6:53 AM(1) Mindlessly opposing everything the other party says is the Democrat platform. Why should Bush sink to their level? (2) You are dreaming when you say: "slash spending". Yes, if the Republicans had cut spending, they'd be way ahead in the polls (and the country'd be much better off). BUT, that's just not who they are. And, much as I admire Bush for the War on Terror, its happened on his watch-- history is going to remember him as the Party Leader who Presided while the Republican Party abandoned all its principles in favor of wanton greed. Posted by: anonymous at May 17, 2006 7:43 AMBrittney, way more conservatives than you'd want to admit are former liberals. I'm a former lifelong (30+ years) lefty feminist liberal. You can't tell any of us we don't know liberals like we know than every square inch of our glorious naked bodies, because we surely do. (I'm not speaking for Bill or anyone else here.) Few libs are former conservatives, but arguably most conservatives (and all neocons) were libs. Liberals are amazingly easy to understand, especially in these times. Whatever Bush is for, they are against. They will have to find another reason to live, after 2008. Posted by: Peg C. at May 17, 2006 7:55 AMThe attacks in the UK and Spain, as well as the riots in France, were victories for the US Don't forget cleaning up voter rolls. Cato had this to say about Bill Clinton's "motor voter" BS. - http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js031401.html Posted by: J Bowen at May 17, 2006 9:03 AMYou are right, Bush cannot expand government fast enough to appease his party, but he as two more years, and I am sure he can get federal spending up to 30% of the economy by that time. I think that is good enough for the Republicans to suppot Bush, they are the party formed by old Abe to expand government. Tha is why Republicans are Republicans. Liberals want open borders, amnesty, and quickie citizenship for all the illegals who are here, and millions more who cross the border tomorrow, next week and next year. What a bunch of baloney. Why don't you just admit that Bush and his big bidness Republicans are the ones who want illegals to keep down labor costs? You make yourself look so ignorant trying to blame this one on the "libruls". Posted by: Pug at May 17, 2006 10:23 AMPeg, I'm not sure that your case is all that typical. I've found that most people either keep the same political beliefs that they grew up with, or switch around young adulthood. This at least holds true where I grew up in North Dakota, and also my current residence in a mid-sized midwestern liberal college town (where some conservative people exist, and most of them have always been conservative). Also, it's a little condescending of you to assume that every liberal person believes exactly the same as you did and has the exact same motivations. You can't apply every belief and assumption you have to everyone else. You just can't do it sucessfully. Anyway, back to the topic, "Screwing the left" will make the base happy, but iritate most centrists. Bush has to stand for something, not merely against something. Jaxebast Posted by: Jaxebad at May 17, 2006 10:44 AMWow. I think you are the greatest political thinker that the GOP could hope to have. I fervently wish that they will follow your advice. completely. I am, of course, a liberal democrat. "George W. Bush isn't at 29 percent because he's lost support among moderates and liberals - he's at 29 percent because he has been too willing to cave in to moderates and liberals." THere is a grain of truth in that. Were it not for pissing off parts of his base, Bush's approval would be up around 33-35%. Thats the GOP base. "The recipe for restoring his popularity to above 50 percent is simple: Bush must screw the Left every chance he gets." Close. It should read "The recipe for restoring his poluarity to above 30%..." Anyway, the problem with your analysis, and it really is pretty obvious, is that clearly you believe in nothing other than political power for its own sake. And therefore you cannot imagine that anyone else is motivated by anything else. Its a nice list that you come up with - to piss off your opponents. The grownups, in both parties, are actually driven by other, and I would say, better motivations. You have a credibility problem here. Your version of the facts smacks more of dogma than an honest appraisal. I guess that appeals to folks who want pat answers and need to know what is right in a world that is really too complex to blame it all on the other guy (In your case liberals). Perhaps that wins votes. A conservative victory is one where policies result in postive change for citizens not simply a Republican in the White House. Liberal bating may feel comfortable, but it rings of whistling past the graveyard with Bush at 29%. It is time to own up to the fact that Republicans have become a party of fiscal irresponsibility. This is underlined by Dick Cheney's remark last year, citing the Regean era, that debt, "doesn't matter." I would argue that debt always matters. Current spending is the antithesis of longstanding conservative ideals. Get spending in order if you want to win votes. I am also for opening up the Artic. However, optimistic projections estimate Artic oil could provide up to 15% of America's oil. Pollution and dependence on Arab oil are problems. This will not disappear with the addition of Artic oil. The painful truth is that we need to shift to technologies where energy used in this country is generated in this country. If Brazil can move to flex fuel...why can't we? I would suggest this is because because, big oil will buy Republican and Democratic votes in congress keeping us dependent until the bitter end. Bush needs to get ahead of this problem. At this point he is at the rear of the drive for change. Enough name calling. Let's look at we can do better. That is real vision and the votes will follow that. Johnny Posted by: John Wyman at May 17, 2006 1:32 PMRonald Reagan proved you can attract moderate Democrat voters by standing on conservative principle on a few big issues. The "Reagan Democrats" who voted for him by the millions and gave him two of huge landslide victories didn't agree with him on every issue, but were with him on a few big issues of that era. Immigration is one of the biggest issues of this era, and Bush could regain support among the "Reagan Democrats" by standing firmly for closing the border with troops and then a wall, and firmly against any form of guest-worker program or amnesty-lite. He also needs to dial up the intensity of the war on terror, and slam the brakes on spending on non-defense programs. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 17, 2006 2:32 PMI think Bush has two main problems: The lack of PR expertise for getting his messages out, and the Republicans in Congress. In his efforts to make Washington kinder and gentler, he has avoided vetoing bills, and has not insisted on party discipline. He, in short, is acting too much like a Christian, trying to apply principles of Jesus teachings for personal life to a political system which based on adversariality. Posted by: AST at May 17, 2006 3:11 PMBill, I've been thinking the same thing for weeks - the President needs to pick a fight with the Democrats on anything and everything and he needs to do it now. He doesn't have to win. I would disagree with that last sentence. He does have to win. He keeps picking fights with the Dems, fighting them half-***ed, and losing (though, to be fair, the Repubs in the legislature bear some of the blame here). Look at the debacle that was the attempt to privatize social security. Nothing projects fecklessness like getting trounced in a fight you started, especially when the fight's against a smaller opponent. Posted by: Achillea at May 18, 2006 11:32 AMThe "root problem" for the Bush administration is that the president himself is a moderate. So no matter how much the Left hates him because he's a Republican, he's still more centric in his politics than most conservatives. I would love to see evidence that proves me wrong, however. Up until now, Bush hasn't struck me as a very good conservative in most areas. Posted by: RG at May 18, 2006 12:19 PMOh, Bill and some other posters too - The political philosophy expressed here is just unhealthy and hateful. If your political views are "screw Them (the not-yous) at every turn" then it's just reactionary and mindless. Terror cells depend on such hysteria. And for the record Reagan and Bush have grown governmental intrusion to historic levels, placed the nation in enormous debt, and play the crony game when it comes to appointing policy makers in so many governmental departments, from FEMA to the CIA. And if our actions overseas have so effectively defeated terrorism, then why is there still so much sweaty, stinky Fear left? Posted by: Joe P. at May 18, 2006 9:47 PMI'm with Peg ... I was a Reagan Democrat, voting to re-elect him in 1984. Then I voted Dem, straight down the line. Until 2004. Perhaps I could be termed a 9/11 Republican or conservative. I guess if I had to pin myself down, I would call myself a social liberal, and a foreign policy and economic conservative. Everything else in the middle. So my ideal world vision isn't workable, so what? Anyway, I have long thought that the main failure of the Bush admin is turning the other cheek. When has he ever come out swinging to defend himself against the allegations and accusations made by Dems and the left? The aftermath of Katrina is a prime example. He did everything right ... the failures came from state and local government in NOLA, from which all the other clusters originated. Yet 100% of the blamestorming and finger-pointing was straight at him. What was the response from the White House? Oy! I was screaming at the TV ... "You friggin WIMP! Stand up for yourself just once, for the love of peanut butter!" Cheney had the right idea on the Senate floor ... GFY. More of that, please. Oh, and 29%? Feh ... like no one else has ebbed that low? (Snitched from Powerline) *Johnson: 35% President Bush is a moderate? Tell me, what moderate person appoints John Ashcroft as Attorney General, Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and John Bolton to the UN? What moderate person excludes audience members based on their voting patterns? What moderate seeks to ammend the constitution just to win votes from haters in his party? On immigration, true, he isn't as hardline as many in the party. But most other aspects. And LissaKay, what class you have. Advocating cursing in public. Classy. Why do you automatically assume that the PEOPLE who live along "the coasts" should automatically and easily sacrifice their myriad interests (fisheries, tourism, recreation, regional ecological health, etc., etc.) to satisfy what you perceive to be your interests? Most political conflicts have nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with competing interests. The people who would raise the most objection to your proposals aren't "lefties" -- they are business people, retirees, middle class property owners, fishermen, farmers, etc., etc., etc. The biggest reason why Bush, and conservatism in general, is losing support is because the habit of seeing everything as a matter of ideology -- and all conflict as one between good and evil and right and wrong -- rather than, as they most often are, natural conflicts between people with different economic interests, historial and regional perspectives, etc., makes reaching agreements and actually solving problems close to impossible. It's really fun, obviously, to set up straw men to hate -- because so many of you conservatives spend so much time doing it. But you're never going to get any more benefit out of taking various kinds of whacks at those who you perceive to be your enemies than you already have. And if you find those results disappointing, perhaps its time to start looking in the mirror at your real enemy. Posted by: esmense at May 19, 2006 12:13 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
