The headlines should read: "McCain throws women a bone by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate."
I wasn't going to vote for McCain, anyway, but this cemented my decision. McCains's most consistent criticism of Obama is his lack of experience? McCain said he wouldn't pick someone for a running mate who wouldn't be a great president? He chooses Palin? Are you kidding me?
He would never have chosen a female, were it not for Hillary's campaign. Who does he think he's kidding?
Obama makes me proud to be an American. McCain just makes me sick.
I just bought a car magnet and made a donation.
36 comments:
Sherry,
I'm not a hardcore fan of either side but I have to say that McCain picked someone as V.P. who has more executive experience than the other side's Presidential candidate. The 7 millions dollars the Republicans have raised since the announcement of Palin being picked wasn't from women, it was from conservatives who were happy to have someone who had the same values. McCain needed a true conservative just like Obama needed an old, white guy to show he had more experience on his side. Politics is politics. It will always be a game. No use in trying to make one a good guy and the other a bad guy.
Lindsey
Sure, on paper, Palin has more "executive experience," but she was mayor of a podunk town in Alaska for most of that time. That hardly makes her more qualified.
That's beyond the point for me, though. I'm not saying Palin can't/won't be effective as a truly conservative leader of the United States. I don't think experience is the be-all-end-all. I was probably a better teacher my first year of teaching than I am, now.
I'm also willing to fully admit this is my gut, emotional reaction to McCain's choice. It just rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe, as a woman , I should be excited that he chose someone who seems to value her family so much. I'm not.
...and someone who values babies in the womb. I agree with Lindsey - Obama's pick of an old white guy (who has been in "Washington" for many years) is the same thing. For many reasons.
I like her from what I've heard so far. She seems more normal than any of them and she matches with the conservative ideals more than McCain.
Obama makes me very ill. The most "pro-choice" candidate there has ever been.
and to be noted, she wasn't just a mayor of a podunk town..she's the GOVERNOR of a state with 80% approval rating
Lindsey
Hi Sherry,
I'd like to join the conversation. I'm much more pleased with who McCain picked than who Obama chose. Hasn't Joe Biden consistently voted FOR the war in Iraq?? Seems strange to me that a guy who is so passionate about getting us out of Iraq (Obama) would choose a running mate who votes for it. The choice in VP actually pushed me more towards McCain.
Cooper, I realize that. She was a mayor/city council member for most of her "executive" years, and a governor for the last two years or so. I've heard really good things about her. My friends' parents spent some time in Alaska where they met many people who loved her. I never said I didn't like her.
It's McCain that I can't stand.
So..if I want to see the end of the war in Iraq, I should vote for McCain? I'm annoyed by both of their choices, to be honest.
The gender issue is more important to me than the "working class hero" issue (which seems to be Obama's focus with Biden). I'm not offended by Obama's choice the way I am by McCain's. How's that for sexist?
Palin seems genuine, and it sounds like she's had [noteworthy] success in Alaska. Great. I still question McCain's motives.
"Look, I have a conservative woman on my side" is more offensive to me than "look, I have experience on my side."
By the way, I don't think it's detrimental to have a VP who doesn't shadow the president's views on every issue, as long as the issues are such that we wouldn't be opposed to having the VP serving as president, if necessary.
Again, although I don't know enough about Palin to rally behind her, I need you to understand that I'm not attacking her. I'm questioning McCain's motives for choosing her.
Too bad...it used to be second place got the VP position. Palin seems alright where it counts. McCain isn't though. Nor is Obama. And both of them are pandering to voters for their VP picks, but would you expect anything less from politicians? Makes voting from overseas easy this year...just stay at home.
Truly, this is (on both accounts) one of the most concrete examples of pandering I've ever seen.
2 quick points:
1) There are many other reasons for McCain to pick Palin than her being a woman. First, she fits McCain's self-styled "maverick" image of bucking her own party's status quo, as she did when she took on corrupt members of Alaska's GOP. Second, she's not a Washington insider.
2) McCain's pick doesn't lack judgement. Yes, Palin is only 2 years into her governor's term, but she has had accomplishments in office and has executive experience. Obama has never done anything noteworthy or bucked his party's orthodoxy as an Illinois legislator, nor as as a US Senator. All he has done is give grandiloquent speeches and written books about about hope, change, audacity, himself, and hope. And he's at the top of the ticket, not the bottom.
OK -- that's all I have to say.
Scott,
When I first heard about McCain's choice, I read an article about Palin "taking on corruption" in Alaska, and I was impressed. When I mentioned her noteworthy successes in a previous comment, I was referring to just that.
I'm still not convinced of McCain's motives. He doesn't have to convince me, though. I can't read his mind, and I'm not the audience he's trying to win over. My mind has already been made.
"Govenor of a state with less than a million people" would make a great slogan for executive experience, right?
How about "I was elected by the same people that voted for Ted Stevens!"?
If McCain thinks executive experience is so important, why would he want somebody this inexperienced one heartbeat from the Presidency?
Joe Biden is the Senator of a state of less than a million people, too. (At least according to the 2006 census...couldn't find the most recent one!)
Lindsey
"If McCain thinks executive experience is so important, why would he want somebody this inexperienced one heartbeat from the Presidency?"
If executive experience is important AT ALL, why would Obama/democrats want somebody with less executive experience (than either candidate on the other ticket) IN the Presidency?
Did you guys hear the Palin family's announcement of the pregnancy of their teenage daughter (this morning)? Between Sarah giving birth to a boy with Down syndrome and her daughter's pregnancy, they sure have practical proof that they're pro-life.
I recently heard from a friend that they wouldn't vote for Obama because his beliefs are contrary to their own morals. I assumed that they were reffering to his pro-choice sentiments (which are actually a far cry from "pro-abortion"). I wanted to remind them that McCain has voted against overthrowing Roe v Wade in the past as well and only recently changed his mind.
Then in the same email, they also added that they would never vote for a candidate who wanted to take us out of the war. That just made me confused. As far as I can tell, Obama's values are more aligned with Christ's than most candidates. At least if you believe Christ cares about social justice, poverty, peace, etc.
Another friend pointed out that we've had the biggest pro-life evangelical in the white house for 8 years without a decline in the abortion rate. In my opinion, if you're going to be a one issue voter, pick a different one.
On a side note: I've heard it argued that we went to Iraq for social justice reasons. That may be true to some extent but, to paraphrase Donald Miller, if we went to Iraq for strictly social justice reasons, they should have been #332 on the list of the places to go.
I will say that I respect McCain's vow to close Guantánamo Bay. Especially in light of the fact that the torture techniques used on him during his service are now (along with others more severe) considered by our country to be merely "advanced interrogation techniques".
Pieter, Agreed.
As far as I can tell, we're all pretty moderate around here, but I thought I would pass on one mom's take on extreme partisan politics. I like her.
I don't know about that...John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have both claimed that abortion rates have increased 25% during the Bush administration. Those claims were actually completely false. Abortion rates have been dropping steadily since the 80's, with Planned Parenthood having some of the lowest abortion rates in history this past year. I'm not giving the credit to Bush, just wanted to clarify that it's been dropping for some time. Obama was the only senator to vote NO on a bill that would require a doctor to administer care to the infant if it survived an abortion. You tell me how that is aligned with social justice or human rights in any way.
Lets face it, neither candidate is running because they want to be Jesus to the people or point people to Jesus. They both have their faults and both have their strengths, but neither one should be categorized as "more aligned with Christ's values".
To answer your question, Sherry, I saw the announcement earlier today about Palin's daughter. From what I read, it seemed like McCain's camp knew about the pregnancy before Palin was chosen as running mate. I wonder how that will pan out for the Republican party when it comes time in November. I just hope her daughter isn't attacked during the campaign. I don't think she will be, but I hope anyway.
Lindsey
Lindsey, That was my immediate reaction, too. I am worried for her.
I don't consider myself a Christian, but I identified myself as a Christian for most of my life. I would hope that a Christian would vote for the candidate who most aligns himself/herself with Christ's values. That, of course, requires making a judgment, and I think it's a fair one.
Hey Pete,
I rarely venture out into the blogosphere anymore, but wanted to comment here on a couple of your thoughts and assertions.
First, I think I know what you mean by Obama not being “pro-abortion.” Nearly everyone has enough moral sense to note that abortion is not an unqualified good. However, it appears that his voting record has been 100% in favor of abortions of every kind. This includes partial-birth abortion and even infanticide when a pre-mature baby is born as a result of a botched abortion. Now, at campaign time he is talking about reducing abortions, but he never took any action (including a mere vote) in the Illinois legislature or the US Senate to see abortions reduced. He is also unwilling to define when someone becomes a human being, deserving of the protection of the American Government. When a man will not stand up for millions of babies being put to death all over the country, his claim to care about social justice rings hollow.
Second, you state that “McCain has voted against overthrowing Roe v Wade in the past,” and that he just recently changed his mind. That is not true. Nancy Keegan, president of NARAL, the most pro-choice group in America, has said about McCain, "When you peel the onion back, the record shows that this is a guy who's been very anti-choice since he entered the U.S. House of Representatives back in 1983." Check out this NPR article for more evidence: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18632802. I have not seen any evidence of a vote in favor of abortion rights in his long career as a legislator. If there is one, I’d like to see it.
Now about your assertion that having the biggest pro-life evangelical in the white house for 8 years has not led to a decline in the abortion rate. Your friend has his facts wrong on this I think. Check out this March 08 article from US News and World Report: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080117/us-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-in-decades.htm. The number of abortions fell to the lowest number since 1980 this year, and the number of abortion providers has fallen since 2000. I, along with Lindsey, do not credit this to President Bush. There are other factors, such as the multiplying crisis pregnancy centers staffed almost entirely by evangelical Christians, and the increased use of the morning after pill.
You say, “if you’re going to be a one issue voter, pick a different issue.” The slaughter of 40 million babies in America over the past 35 years is the transcendent moral issue of our time. I simply cannot abandon those whose lives are being cut short in the womb. I do care about the poor and about peace. But I do not see clear teachings in the Bible on the government’s role in bringing these things about at this point in history. The Bible does not speak clearly enough to baptize the Democratic or Republican platform as adhering to the principles of Jesus. However, I do see clear teaching that God is at work in a mother’s womb, putting together babies who bear His image for His glory. Abortion stamps out those helpless lives and is clearly a moral evil. I think that a government isn’t very good at redistributing wealth in a just way, or creating massive bureaucracies to save hurricane victims or give them health-care. But I do think the government can pass and enforce laws that defend the most helpless among us: the unborn.
(I write a ton right now in an academic setting where I am hammered to never write “I think” or “in my opinion.” So please read all of this as my thoughts and opinions. I am not claiming 100% certainly or rightness, and am open to questioning or correction. I am just not used to smattering such qualifications into my writings)
I don't think he actually voted against repealing Roe v. Wade, but I think this is what Pete is referring to: "During his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on Roe v. Wade, 'I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned."
Source
I could be wrong Mark, but I think Obama is against Federal control over the abortion issue which is reflective in his voting history.
You say you don't see clear teachings in the Bible on the government's role in bringing about peace or change in regards to poverty. Do you see clear teachings on the issue of the government's role in the abortion debate? I have a hard time with the idea that we should be viewing the government's role in our lives through a Biblical lens, though it's inevitable to some extent because of our individual upbringings. So just for arguments sake I would like to point out that (in my opinion) the two major "political" issues that Christ seemed to care the most about were poverty and peace. Those two issues happen to be ones that our government can and should strive to change.
I'm not trying to downplay the abortion issue in any way shape or form. I do feel that to downplay poverty and peace is equally wrong. Abortion may be the trancendent moral issue of our time, but poverty and peace have been trancendent moral issues throughout Biblical history. As you're well aware, you can't put your finger down in the new testament without seeing a command to take care of the poor.
Should I vote for McCain solely because he asserts that he pro-life even though he seems no different on the other issues discussed here than our current administration?
I value this discussion Mark. Hope I don't sound angry or anything. It's late and I had a 12 hour working labor day. That coupled with the fact that you're my intellectual superior may prove this whole post to be worthless. ;-)
Mark said:
"But I do not see clear teachings in the Bible on the government’s role in bringing these things about at this point in history."
Jesus said in Matthew 25: 31 - 46 (ESV):
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Please note that he is judging the 'nations', not individuals here. So, here's the criteria Jesus gives:
-Are we feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty?
-Are we welcoming the stranger?
-Are we clothing the naked?
-Are we visiting the sick?
-Are we coming to those in prison?
Domestically, I think we probably do okay with the feeding and clothing part. But the facts are that we are the only industrial nation without universal health care, that there are many politicians out there flat out opposed to 'welcoming the stranger', and that we are so callous about the prisons in this country that prisoner rape is just a punchline. So, we really aren't doing all that well overall in this issues that Jesus listed.
By the way, abortion is not a new issue. Like poverty and war, it has existed since before the Bible was written. Unlike poverty and war, it is not regularly mentioned in the Bible, and is not a consistent theme in Christ's teachings. In point of fact, it is never mentioned in the Bible. Jesus did not include it in the list of things, mentioned above, by which he would judge the nations.
I think that Christians are correct to be concerned about this issue, but not at the cost of other, more Biblically supported issues.
Because of Roe v. Wade, the direct power of the president is pretty limited when it comes to abortions, no matter what stance he takes. For the record, when Barrack talks about reducing abortions, he's not talking about making it harder for them to talk place. He's talking about making unwanted pregnancies less common.
I haven't done any research into this subject (it's tangential to the kinds of things I work on), but I suspect that there are several reasons why abortions have gone down. Mark said:
"There are other factors, such as the multiplying crisis pregnancy centers staffed almost entirely by evangelical Christians, and the increased use of the morning after pill."
I suspect that some other big factors are improved sex education, easier access to contraceptives, and the reduction of social stigma attached to unwed mothers.
If the five reasons given by Mark and me are correct, one of them can be mostly attributed to conservative Christians, but four of them have been bitterly resisted by conservatives.
Now, I should have a paragraph neatly summarizing and concluding my arguments, but I just saw that it's after midnight, and this comment is too long, anyway, so I'm done. Either you get my point already, or you don't.
Peace.
Thanks for the excellent and thoughtful responses, Sherry, Pete, and Tyson. Both Pete and Tyson bring up my statement about the government’s role in bringing about peace and taking care of the poor and hungry. I am not saying that Jesus, along with the Prophets and Apostles are not clear that we should be about serving the poor and hungry. What I am not clear on is what exactly the government’s role should be. I, along with many other Christians take very seriously Jesus’ commands to care for the hungry, the oppressed, the poor, etc. For example, dozens of families have adopted dozens of children and been foster parents to nearly as many, at church I have attended. Also, I have many friends that have taken weeks off of work unpaid to go and help feed people and rebuild the homes of those affected by Hurricane Katrina, tornados in the mid-west, and those affected by the Tsunami in 2005. Also, there is an army of relief organizations and ministries to the poor, that I would submit do a better job than UNICEF or FEMA will ever do, are funded mostly by Christians. Evangelicals are also at the forefront of serving in prisons to make the conditions of prisoners better and their future’s brighter. They also do a great deal to care for prisoner families. I don’t think it is a question of me and many (though maybe not most) other Evangelicals not caring about the poor. I take very seriously Jesus’ teaching on the judgment of the sheep and the goats. Though I think when Jesus says “all nations,” He is saying that this will be a universal judgment of all individuals and their actions, not that individuals in nations will be judged based on what their government did or did not do. I am much more concerned about the way Stephanie and I spend our money, time, and hospitality than about the way I spend my one vote (and as you can tell from my long posts, I am concerned about my vote).
So I think we agree that these issues you bring up are serious issues. But I don’t see clear teaching in the Bible on the exact role of government on these things, and I am not sure the Democratic Party approach is the best way to alleviate these problems. Many Christians, like myself, care deeply about these things but do not think that large, government agencies do an effective job of addressing these issues—and I see the Bible directly commanding the church, not the government, to be active in these problems. So I hope it is evident how someone like me can both care about social justice and act to bring it about, yet not feel bound to support bigger government to bring it about. With that being said, if there was only one strongly pro-life candidate, and he wanted higher taxes and larger government programs, I would vote for him. My understanding on the role of government is a historically and logically informed political philosophy that I hold tentatively, but my views on abortion are a biblical conviction that I cannot compromise on.
Now about abortion not being mentioned much in the Bible. There is clear teaching that all people are made by God and in the image of God, and that He is active in the womb creating these image bearers for His glory (Psalm 139). It is also clear that the unjust taking of human life is the most serious of social sins. This would mean that unjust war and indiscriminate killing by a nation’s military is an equivalent evil. However, Romans 13 appears to say God does give the sword to the government for some purposes—I don’t think geo-political pacifism can be justified from the Bible. Iraq and Afghanistan may be improper use of the sword, and may be completely unjust. I am not sure, and it takes great wisdom to discern these issues—Obama himself supports the Afghanistan war. While I am not sure it is just to take life in these wars, I am certain it is unjust to take completely innocent life from the womb.
By the way, a similar argument to what you say about abortion in the Bible was used by many people in the 1800s to justify, or at least minimize the evil of slavery. Also, many people talked about how we needed to change the economic conditions so as to make slavery less common. Sound familiar? Many societies in history have failed to protect vulnerable people they define as less than human—whether it be girls in India, African-Americans in America, Jews and the disabled in Germany, or Down-Syndrome and other unwanted, unborn babies in America. I hope and pray that in 100 years people will look back on our time with the same moral clarity on abortion that we now look upon slavery and the Holocaust.
(This was supposed to go on the end of my last post:)
Pete, I also value this discussion. I do not think you are mad, and am not mad myself. I think it is good and helpful for people with opposing views to actually talk to each other. It increases understanding and will hopefully reduce unfair caricatures of each other. By the way, I recognize that you and Sherry and Tyson also oppose abortion, and that our conversation is a largely a matter of weighing priorities and understandings of the role of government.
Mark -
I'm sort of a lapsed libertarian (actually, I'm still registered Libertarian), and I don't confuse "a nation" with "a government". However, I do believe that the government plays an important part in all the issues Jesus mentioned.
I do think that voting does not replace a person's direct responsibility in these issues, so I salute you for your involvement in good works. But I also see that God does state, throughout the Old Testament, that government does have special responsibilities to the poor and weak in society.
As far as the slavery comment goes, formal slavery didn't end in the United States until it was economically unfeasible (the South won almost every battle in the Civil War, but their inefficient economy couldn't handle the strain of winning as well as the North could handle the strain of losing, so the South lost the war). Slavery still exists in parts of the world where it is considered economical. Changing the demand for it is as important as trying to abolish it.
It's worth pointing out that many of the abolitionist societies were populated by advocates of Christian nonviolence (which came to be known as Christian anarchism after Tolstoy wrote "The Kingdom of God is Within You".) John Brown and other advocates of violence were the minority in the abolitionist movement. The goal was to change people's minds about slavery as much or more than it was about making it illegal. The emancipation of the slaves took the steam out of the abolitionist movement, unfortunately, because African-Americans were not truly free in the South until very recently. Changing the law wasn't enough, since minds weren't changed.
So while I agree that abortion is a problem, I also think that eliminating the perceived need for it will do more for reducing this practice than banning it will. It will also make it easier to change those laws in the future.
There are two principle approaches to social issues: the humanistic and the socialistic. (I'm using these terms technically, so please don't think I calling anybody a "socialist" in the ordinary sense here. Or a "humanist".) The socialistic approach says that you change society to fix problems. The humanistic approach says that you change people to fix problems.
Making abortion illegal is a socialistic approach, changing people so that they no longer desire this is a humanistic approach. While it doesn't have to be one or the other, I tend to favor humanistic approaches to problems. If we could ban abortion tomorrow, I would support that. But it wouldn't be enough, since people would just do it illegally. And given our current political environment, that will not happen no matter who gets elected President.
Final note: historically, the Church pretty much always read "nations" to mean "nations", not people, in Matthew 25. It was only with the Free Church movement, in the last 150 years or so, that people started reading this as applying to individuals. (The Free Church movement is one of the big influences on modern evangelicalism, so it's not surprising that people still read God's involvement with communities as really applying to individuals.) However, a plain reading of the Bible makes it clear, over and over again, that God deals both with individuals and with groups. Evangelicalism usually claims a fairly literal reading of the Bible, but it requires some creative reading to make things all about the individual.
I think that God judges groups of people, both cities and nations, separately from individuals on many occasions. This can be found in many sections of scripture. In Genesis 18 and 19 Sodom and Gomorrah are judged as towns, not individually. God agrees with Abraham in 18:23 - 33 that if even ten righteous men can be found there he will spare the city. Not just the righteous, but the whole city. Since fewer than ten are available, God evacuates the righteous (Lot and his household) prior to the destruction. The point is that God was willing to make judgment based on the group - if they had enough good guys, he would spare the whole city (good and evil).
Ezekiel 16:49 clearly states why Sodom was destroyed:
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
Then God destroyed the whole city. If the sin of Sodom was ignoring the poor, then there must have been poor around, and the judgment ended up affecting them, too. God judged Sodom as an entity, not just as a bunch of separate judgments of individuals.
In Isaiah chapters 13 - 23 are a series of prophecies and judgments against different nations. Obadiah is a prophecy against Edom. In Luke 10:13 - 15 Jesus warns different towns of the consequences of their errors. It would be hard to make sense of any of these passages if you looked at them as applying to individuals and not communities.
Protestantism and general American culture heavily emphasize the individual, and I think that much of this is a correction to the rampant anti-individualism of prior ages. However, rampant individualism is just as much of a problem. A balanced view of the individual and the group seems to me to be the Biblically defensible approach.
Tyson,
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful post. Like I said earlier, these discussions certainly increase understanding. It sounds like we are on close to the same page on some things. I agree with you that changing minds is vital, but I also think that the government is clearly supposed to defend human life.
I find your interpretation of abolition intriguing, as well as the way you seek to strike a balance between corporate and individual judgment in the Bible. While I do not agree in every particular with your thoughts, I am going to have to let them stand unquestioned. I find this discussion stimulating and helpful, but don't have any more time to devote to it.
Thanks again for the thoughtful and respectful conversation.
Well, there's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Um, Jessica, did you just post anonymously exactly 20 minutes after your last comment? ;)
This is not Jessica. This is someone else.
I know Jessica, and she is too smart to do something so stupid.
Ha ha ha. Good night, you little freak.
I had big plans for my evening. Instead, I was online all night. 20 minutes seems so miniscule in comparison.
Tomorrow is a new day.
"Well, there's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back."
Ha HA! My sinister plan worked! I got your 20 minutes! w00t!
Well said all. I love you guys.
Jessica, i'll see you new years eve.
Banning books and firing librarians? Now I have reason to dislike her ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/03wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Post a Comment