A blog about Personal Journals.
|
The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette The Weedpatch Gazette June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
The Bullies Continue to Bully
Reading in the Californian today about the theft of that elderly couple’s van and wheelchair normal people are left wondering how anyone could be so low down and mean? Such a thing clearly points out how cowardly bullies continue to prey on the elderly. But for those who post regularly to the Californian blog you have to wonder as well why the same bullies continue posting derogatory comments on what are supposed to be personal blogs, then when you delete they continue reposting. That van and wheelchair were the personal property of that elderly couple. And we are naturally incensed that anyone could be so low as to steal these things. It comes down to civilized behavior, and the bullies invariably expose themselves for what they are. We hope good Samaritans will come to the aid of that elderly couple. And many of us hope the webmaster will come to the aid of those of us who would like to maintain our blogs without being bullied by the comments “re-posters.” If enough of us speak out, perhaps this cancer on these blogs will be cured. To repeat a point already made by the webmaster, these blogs belong to the individuals, they should maintain and delete as they choose and they should not be harried by the bullies. 75 comments from 16 users
posted by
jasonsperber
on Dec 27, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Sam, you write that "many of us hope the webmaster will come to the aide [sic] of those of us who would like to maintain our blogs without being bullied by the comments 're-posters.' If enough of us speak out, perhaps this cancer on these blogs will be cured." I am encouraged by the very fact that this kind of dialogue over community, respect, and how to disagree and debate without resorting to inappropriate tactics or tone is happening, and that many regular users from across the political spectrum have taken it upon themselves to be good neighbors and police both themselves and their virtual neighborhood. So it's a start. Re: "coming to your aid," what did you have in mind? posted by
samheath
on Dec 27, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Simply that none of us be bullied. If anyone chooses to delete comments, they should not be threatened by continued re-posting until the bully wins.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Dec 27, 2006 at 11:42 AM
You do realize that you are just making things worse, don't you.
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 11:51 AM
I agree with Sam on this subject. If I post a blog and you come along and make a comment that I deem inappropriate, not applicable or just downright rubs me wrong, I'll delete it. It's like painting over Graffiti. If you come back and repost that comment, it'll make me mad. Since it's MY BLOG, I can choose to not want your comment there. Reposting and reposting again is exactly the bully mentality. If you're so concerned about being heard, then start you own blog and be heard. If your comment is deleted, DON'T REPOST IT IN THE SAME BLOG! It's not acceptable behavior. Understand that you've been told NO. NO means NO. If you're an adult, you should be able to take NO for an answer. posted by
jasonsperber
on Dec 27, 2006 at 11:54 AM
H4F demonstrated a model for us recently in which we move discussion from an unfriendly forum to another and continue it there. I know that's not as satisfying for some as directly challenging someone you don't agree with, but if that person has proven to be immovable and inimicable to debate, is it really worth it? I know some will say yes, that the point needs to be made, that respect and dialogue are by necessity multidirectional, or even that "we didn't start it, so all's fair, etc., etc." And I don't even necessarily disagree with that. But really, what needs to be asked and answered is, what are you trying to accomplish? If it's actually getting your information across in order to counter that offered by another user, and said user is preventing your information from being seen on his site, well... I hope that, in the long run, it's deemed more important to get the counter-information out there than it is to piss one guy off to make a point--because that same point can be made, perhaps as if not more effectively, by getting that information out in an open forum of your design, in juxtaposition to that from which it was deleted.
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 11:56 AM
That's right Pete, I won't paint over the Graffiti because it might make the little B@#&!*ds that did it mad and they'll come back and do worse next time..................... What kind of thinking is that? That's NUTS! Paint over the Graffiti, catch the punks who did it and pinch off their little pin heads! posted by
tonyh
on Dec 27, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Whatever happened to just walking on past, without stopping or commenting?...................................... ..... When you enounter a streetcorner Preacher in a big city, do you feel compelled to stand and argue with him, or do you just go on your merry way? Whatever happened to the old saying "To Each, His Own"?
posted by
Katatak
on Dec 27, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Sam, I suspect there are some errant children desperately seeking attention. While accepting this as normal to the human predicament, it takes little more than a moment to censor their scribblings. I censor juvenile rantings from my blog now and then, sometimes causing a malcontent to lose control. Obviously, the malcontent feels inadequate for some reason such as loss of attention at home or in the office. Perhaps, someone's wife or boss doesn't appreciate his genius? I am kind of with Freud on this one. Because your writings are skillfully crafted, I have used one of your blogs for a class. Students were given a scant 3 minutes to scan the blog and then go into a discussion forum. As anticipated, the class fulminated. Next, the class was then directed to reread your blog line by line for fifteen minutes. The following discussion forum was critical analysis and this led to an altogether different line of reasoning with outstanding results. To a man and woman, the students were compelled to reject their initial scan impressions as wholly erroneous. Some were really shocked how wrong their impressions were. I pointed out how skillfully used hot button words and phrases can flood a reader's system with adrenaline- resulting in very real emotional disturbances. Similar emotional agitation is apparent in some of the posts you mention. Write on.
& nbsp; posted by
samheath
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Thank you Katatak, that was well put. For example, I have deleted the same comment by the person flashing his badge to no avail. You get the impression he really believes he is a cop, and a bullying one at that.
posted by
AudreyB
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Sam Most long time bloggers become the targets of bullies at one time or another. I've been called nasty names quite a few times. It made me very upset in the beginning. After awhile I developed a thicker hide and realized that the attacks said less about me and more about the name caller. It's important to differentiate between being bullied and being disagreed with. They can make you feel the same way. Personally, I don't post on blogs of people who delete postings. There's no reason to edit since comments that are obscene or threatening will be handled by the Webmaster. Editing will make other posters think you don't want dialogue, just a pulpit. posted by
samheath
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:10 PM
True enough Audrey, but the right to determine this is still that of the person doing the writing. posted by
AudreyB
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:25 PM
You have that right, but is it smart? People will stop reading or responding to your blogs if you are heavy handed with them.
posted by
steveeswenson
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:27 PM
Okay, here's my take on this.First, Sam, there is no such thing as a "personal blog" on the Californian website. The format is set up to invite comments from others. Some won't agree with you. That happens to all of us who post blogs. The debate can be kind of fun. Secondly, we agree we don't want bullies. But we have to define bullies. I'd define them has people who make personal attacks or offensive comments. We can help police that. But we can't police opposing views. The general tenor of most people who blog is to reject censorship. Makes them angry. They express that when they get censored. We have removed people who have cursed and name called. But we're not likely to censor opinions. I suggest doing what I do. I offer my opinions. If people disagree, I go on with my life thinking they are wrong and don't worry about it. If they offer valid points, I either address them or change my comments. posted by
samheath
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:32 PM
Thank you Steve, but you surely know "personal" is not used in that sense. I have web sites that are exactly that; Personal. But if those of us who blog to the Californian are not permitted to delete comments by others without continued threats of re-posting then that is bullying by any definition. Not simple disagreeing with a point of view.
posted by
Katatak
on Dec 27, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Audrey, I am with Sam on this one. He has the responsibility, as well every right, to delete the malicious minions of mediocrity while encouraging thoughtful comments by serious people, such as yourself. Actually, he is far more liberal than I am when it comes to handling the uneducated and unstable.
posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 27, 2006 at 04:20 PM
I guess it depends on what you want out of your blog Sam. If your only goal is to listen to yourself speak, and only allow those that agree with you to post, then by all means delete. But you are going to have a lot less people reading your stuff, which is always eloquently written. I disagree with you on many subjects, and I agree with quite a few. You are not going to get anyone to agree with everything you post. A blog by it's nature is a place where people share opposing views as well as similar views, otherwise it is not a blog, it is a soapbox for personal propaganda. Besides deleting perceived bullies, you also tend to not respond to opposing viewpoints. You post thought provoking material, don't diminish that talent by refusing to back up your opinions. May I ask what exactly Hardliner said that was so bullying? posted by
samheath
on Dec 27, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Thank you, but as I have pointed out it is the continued re-posting of comments and the threats of re-posting until I give up deleting with which I take great exception. Then too, anyone can pass me by without either reading or commenting. But that is so obvious one has to consider why certain individuals feel they can attack me for making the decision of deleting even without cause. They have and exercise the same option.
posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 27, 2006 at 04:51 PM
Was the reposting due to deletion, or the deletion due to rehashed posts? Did they just not get a response and therefore kept asking, or are you more referring to comments like Random's "ACLU mentioned, disregard"? Which although I find funny, I can imagine gets old for you. posted by
samheath
on Dec 27, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Sometimes the repetition as already mentioned, but in the end it remains as others and I have already said as well. Each writer should have the liberty to delete as they will.
posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 27, 2006 at 05:04 PM
It's your party Sam.
posted by
Katatak
on Dec 27, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Antiextremism, I find nothing in Sam's writings to warrant his being excoriated as either homicidal or genocidal, yet one poster in an emotional blast says, "I don't want to see that homicidal genocidal man gain any power over other's opinions" [posted by mattloch on Dec 27, 2006 at 03:27PM]. I continue to find nothing in Sam's blog to support anyone believing he is evil, or more to the point of that believer's fearful delusion, Satanic. In fact, I find the opposite to be true: Sam's humanity, as his writings reflect to a critical reader, are in direct opposition to violent human traits. So, if Sam has a delusional poster who is convinced he is a homicidal and genocidal Satan he ought delete such posts. Personally, I would delete such postings out of pity. That is the reasonable response of a reasonable and educated man.
posted by
anonymous
on Dec 27, 2006 at 07:29 PM
posted by
Katatak
on Dec 27, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Anonymous, How does your citation square with Sam's consistent argument the Iraq war has been a disaster for this country? On the surface it could be a mere contradiction, but if you are intellectually honest and look at the whole you will find a finely skewered paradox. As Sam keeps emphasizing, it is this lack, ironic laziness, of education that blinds so many. posted by
samheath
on Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45 AM
Alas, I fear it is all too true Katatak. Paradoxes abound in a seemingly lunatic world where so many things make little sense, and for those of us given to philosophical and theological speculation there is little rest from such paradoxes. And the leadership of America acts as though it is so divorced from reality it is difficult to forecast a happy ending to the mounting horrors confronting America and the world. Education should be the key to elevating people out of poverty and parochialism, but the failure of education both here and abroad, especially in third world nations cannot make for a civilized outcome to the mounting problems the world is facing.
posted by
freethinker
on Dec 28, 2006 at 07:41 AM
posted by
samheath
on Dec 28, 2006 at 07:53 AM
And as both Socrates and Jesus proved and Emerson affirmed: "A lover of ideas is uncongenial and unintelligible to society."
posted by
Katatak
on Dec 28, 2006 at 08:35 AM
Sam, Much of what you write is painful, yet not without glimmers of light. My work, the true stories I must listen to, with refugees from the genocide in Darfur would quickly disabuse those who attack your writings, and warnings. In the miscreants favor though, I possess some optimism that if they knew how to do better, they would do better. I am an eternal optimist in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. posted by
samheath
on Dec 28, 2006 at 08:42 AM
True enough. I have often drawn the inference from my own childhood and the years I taught in Watts and other places for examples of what you point out. The third world suffering and injustice can be found right here in America as anyone reading about and watching the news is aware. I've tried to work out my own pain in the books I have written, but some of my daily writing reflects much of this as well. No more than the alcoholic chooses to become one does anyone choose to be a "lover of ideas."
posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 28, 2006 at 11:15 AM
I don't know Katatak. Is it alright to attack people then hit the delete button because your'e called on the carpet?
For instance, take this quote from Sam....... Mexicans and Muslims don't assimilate, they colonize! They have no real interest in becoming real Americans. As the husband of a Mexican who came, legally, to this country at age 9, and who holds down two jobs including teaching mildly retarded Americans, I might take exception to that statement. But instead of deleting it, I might try to convince him that it is a racist remark that has been thrust upon many segments of American society from Blacks, to the Irish, to the Chinese, to the Japanese, and now the 'enemy immigrant soup d'jour', Mexicans and Middle Easterners.
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 28, 2006 at 11:54 AM
antiextremism, There are certainly exceptions to everything. Statistical outliers almost always exist. You shouldn't take offense at that statement, nor call it racist. Speaking in generalities normally describes the actions of the majority group. Understand that your Husband is one of many (although a group minority) exceptional cases. It is fact that the vast majority of Mexican Immigrants are here illegally. These people do, actually colonize, rather than assimilate. That's perhaps the only thing that both sides can seem to agree on. Sam's statement, generally speaking, is true. posted by
jasonsperber
on Dec 28, 2006 at 03:06 PM
nearly 70% of about 7 million illegal immigrants (total, all nations of origin) from Mexico = 4,900,000 (from CNN report on 2003 official government figures on illegal immigration released by former INS, based on 2000 U.S. Census and INS' own statistics) total number of naturalized U.S. citizens and non-naturalized legal U.S. residents born in Mexico = 9,177,485 (from U.S. Census Bureau's "Foreign-Born Profile" for Country of Birth: Mexico, from 2000 U.S. Census) posted by
TomW
on Dec 28, 2006 at 03:09 PM
This would be in opposition to Anglo-Saxon cultures, who have literally no history of colonization.
posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 28, 2006 at 03:45 PM
My Husband????? Damnit, I'm gay and didn't know it! Somebody tell my kids I'm going to run for office now. I don't disagree that there are foreigners here from every stripe who could care less about becoming 'Americanized', but doesn't that statement fly in the face of the middle eastern born market owner who works 72 hours a week. And do you think you get all that nice fresh produce in your salad because Mexicans are just here to colonize? They are here to make a buck and send it back home. Shall we now just say that all our caucasion ancestors were just here in order to have slaves? Personally I am for regulating immigration closely. Not to 'save' my interpretation of what is American as much as save our buildings. And I am also against illegal immigration. But when you make that statement, it is RACIST. It's like saying my wife is okay....for a Mexican. It's just way too broad of a statement. posted by
Katatak
on Dec 28, 2006 at 05:02 PM
antiextremism, Against the howls of the so-called law enforcement community, Sam has proposed we should legalize drugs. Overnight, legalizing drugs would evaporate the central organizing principle of gangs: money. Just one ethnic gang in Los Angeles has over 100,000 members. What was true of Prohibition is equally true today- except our immoral blindness against accepting that this 40-plus year drug war is catastrophic- a cure worse than the illness. And now, our latest governor demands 78,000 more prison beds to house more blacks and Mexicans. 78,000? That's a number greater than the populations of 95% of the towns and cities in California. You can pretty up viciousness with movie star governors but it remains viciousness just as Sam says. Legalizing drugs would empty our prisons, destroy the violent drug cartels, and literally save the lives of thousands of minority children who are shot to death each year because of drug turf wars while at the same time saving our hospitals, at taxpayer expense, the job of treating the tens of thousands of minority children who are wounded in these same turf wars. Sam's proposal would have profound and immensely beneficial impact on both the black and Hispanic communities while having negligible effect for whites. How does this square with a racist accusation? What I am suggesting to you is dig a little deeper into the apparent contradictions and you might find something calculatedly different. As Sam has been consistently saying, to do the same failed thing over and over again is the very definition of madness.
posted by
samheath
on Dec 28, 2006 at 05:20 PM
We applaud courage and build monuments to the courageous after they die. But to stand up against those causing the misery while alive, especially to follow the money to the source of misery and speak out against them is to invite punishment.
posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 28, 2006 at 05:57 PM
On that point I agree to a certain extent Katatak. Don't get me wrong, anybody that sells meth or angel dust to kids needs to be in prison. Putting people in prison for selling pot is logically pretty dumb when you consider it is less hazardous than drinking beer. But, Sam's statement stands on it's own. It is by any logical definition a racist statement. It does not necessarily mean Sam is a blatant racist, but he has made no attempt to 'qualify' that blanket comment. And if he stands by it, that is his perogative. But he certainly can't expect for there to be roses thrown in his direction by every blogger after making the statement. Kern County is, after all, about 50% hispanic, and I'm not including the illegals. posted by
tonyh
on Dec 28, 2006 at 06:28 PM
antiextremism, Please accept my appologies for my mix-up. I should have said "your Wife". Based on what you've written, it doesn't sould like your Wife is Mexican. It sounds to me like she's American, who cares of what descent........
posted by
tonyh
on Dec 28, 2006 at 06:33 PM
Jason, How accurate can those Census numbers be, since they don't distinguish between Caucasion and Latino? Also, trim back the figures to those who have entered the country within the last ten years or so. There are many permanent resident aliens who've been here for twenty years or more.They're not afraid to be counted, but the illegal ones do their best to duck the Census. posted by
anglo1
on Dec 28, 2006 at 07:06 PM
Those numbers are the lowest I have seen in ages. I have seen 8-30 million illegals in various publications. Numbers USA put illegals at 8-11 million in 2001. I'm putting my money on closer to 15 million. Probably low.
posted by
anglo1
on Dec 28, 2006 at 07:09 PM
I forgot my point, I agree with Sam this threat is under reported and is a huge threat to the U.S.
posted by
jasonsperber
on Dec 28, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Tony, you wrote, "It is fact that the vast majority of Mexican Immigrants are here illegally." All I did was find some numbers in order to challenge you to back up your assertion. If you don't like or agree with the numbers I found, where are the ones that you're basing your "fact" on from and how are they gathered, and how are they qualitatively better or more true? That was my point in posting the numbers--it's easy enough for anyone to simply assert something as a well-known fact.As for your second question, what do you mean by "they don't distinguish between Caucasion and Latino"? Could it be that you were confounded by the self-reported answers to the race and ethnicity questions reported by naturalized citizens and legal residents of Mexican birth? Is that what you were referring to? If so, maybe it's our categories of race, ethnicity and nationality that need to be questioned instead. Not everyone in the world reckons those terms or questions the same way. Race is socially constructed. Asking someone raised in another country and culture to answer those questions according to U.S. understandings of those questions and then not liking the answers... Let me put it this way. "Mexican" is not a race. "Latino" is not a race. "Hispanic" is not a race. Actually, nothing we routinely refer to as "race" is really "race," but that's another discussion for another time. And finally, as for illegal immigrants not being counted in the Census, yes, that's a factor, but as was noted, the INS figures were also factoring in their own in-house stats, gathered separately and in their own specialized way. And of course numbers based on the 2000 Census would necessarily not take into account anything that's happened since the collection of those numbers. Again, it's about supporting your assertions, as this entire little "dialogue" has underscored. It's fine to have opinions, to believe things, to assert them. But those who disagree with you can feel just as strongly about their "facts," their "truths." To be able to back up beliefs with information, that's not a bad thing. posted by
dusty1215
on Dec 28, 2006 at 09:38 PM
According to this study here is a breakdown of immigrants:Among Hispanics, growth attributable to immigration represents 66% of the 2006 population. The highest growth rate was among Asian and Pacific Islander, where 85% of the 2006 population was attributable to immigration. Among whites and blacks the share of the 2006 population attributable to immigration was much smaller (5% and 10% respectively) posted by
samheath
on Dec 29, 2006 at 04:50 AM
“Press one for English.” Ballots in Spanish! No security for our borders! Benefits for illegal aliens extorted from American citizens! This is racism, and it is racism perpetrated against legitimate American citizens for the sake of money! The ACLU and its cronies support globalization and the wealthy benefit from the slave labor from Mexico without being held to account. America is demonized while Mexico gets a free pass. Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan are demonized while their detractors cannot prove their accusations. And anyone who dares point out heritage, culture, language, and secure borders define all nations, that America is in grave peril for ignoring these things is tarred with the brush “racist.” And I say you have no right to be in America illegally! That does not make me a racist except to those who are attempting to cover their own racist agenda against America and Americans! But this is so obvious, only those that use the Hitlerian propaganda like that of the ACLU and La Raza would attempt to refute it. posted by
Katatak
on Dec 29, 2006 at 07:28 AM
antiextremism, By legalizing drugs as Sam suggests, you won't have anyone brewing meth and selling on street corners while murdering competitors. There wouldn't be any money to make. It took about 12 years for America to realize Prohibition was turning the nation's cities into killing fields. If you doubt my words, drive into Boyle Heights, Crenshaw District, or Watts and take a walk. See for yourself the widespread destruction this national drug war has "accomplished". As Sam keeps saying, willingly ignorant morality is no morality at all, it is tyranny. posted by
samheath
on Dec 29, 2006 at 07:37 AM
The 999 "patrons of virtue" to one person of real virtue continues as in Henry's time. And following the money continues to lead to the patrons of virtue, not the one person of virtue.
posted by
NancyII
on Dec 29, 2006 at 07:46 AM
Sigh...here we go again. It's obvious no one will ever answer the question I've posted over and over. What would you do to get addicts into treatment if drugs are legalized. No one has ever addressed it. Just out of curiousity I asked a group of people who are working toward recovery if they would have come into treatment on their own..without being given the choice of TX or incarceration. They laughed at the idea and said almost as one.."No." They all stated that making durgs legal would be a huge mistake. Isn't it odd that the people you would think would benefit from decriminalizing drugs and drug use were the ones telling ME the idea is insane? posted by
samheath
on Dec 29, 2006 at 07:54 AM
Dear Nancy, go into the middle of Watts and live there for a while to get a better perspective of the problem. It wasn't simple during prohibition and it isn't simple now. But stopping the flow of drugs at the border ought to be the concern of our elected leadership instead of the flood of slave labor and marketing of human beings as well as drugs.
posted by
Katatak
on Dec 29, 2006 at 09:29 AM
Nancy, Your reasoning leads to this conclusion: The nation needs to restore Prohibition against alcohol. posted by
NancyII
on Dec 29, 2006 at 09:52 AM
Dear Sam, please don't be condescending with me... I spend EVERY day of my working time with recovering addicts. I'll repeat..there were gangs and gang wars long before drugs became as rampant as they are today. Legalizing drugs will NOT stop the gangs or the gang warfare. Drugs are not the only thing gangs fight over. I'll repeat this over and over just as the pro legalizing drug folks do. Your arguments are not new..they've been on this blog for as long as I've been here so maybe I should just copy one long post here every time someone new comes along to argue it. My point..again..is that the genie is already out of the bottle on alcohol and it's darned hard to ever get a genie back in the bottle. We don't have to let the genie out of the bottle with drugs. We don't have to add to the problems we already face due to alcoholism, drunk driving deaths and issues we already have. I don't have the answer as far as alcohol is concerned because alcohol is a SOCIAL drug. You won't see people sitting around in a bar snorting coke, crank, or sticking a needle in their arm. You do see it with alcohol. The majority of families don't get together for a backyard barbeque and do drugs but they'll have a couple of cases of beer. One of the major problems with alchohol IS that it's social and it's advertised. Speaking of advertising..if you folks get your way and other drugs are legalized, will we be seeing crank or coke or even pot advertised on the superbowl? Legalizing drugs will cause a wave of devastation that no one will be able to control because there will be no reason NOT to use. Just as there is no reason not to drink yourself into oblivion now. Please..don't use the old "alcohol/prohibition" angle on me...try to be original. You'll never see me say I think ANY mood altering chemical is a good thing or that any should be legal. All I'm trying to get across is that while you say the money will dry up for the gangs (which I doubt), I say you're going to create a society of addicts who need treatment but have no reason to get it. The majority of people in treatment right now are there because they are court ordered to be there...take that away and what do you have? You can't make a decision that will affect hundreds of thousands of people without having a plan for the repercussions of that decision. Do you have a plan to get people into treatment? If so..none of you have shared that yet. posted by
Katatak
on Dec 29, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Nancy, Your long paragraphs boil down to this: Make alcohol illegal. Our readers recommend: |
