Posts tagged media bias
Bloomberg spews venom and vapidity on CBS News
0Oops. I was so furious over this that when I heard Katie Couric, I thought Today show. And I fired off a missive to Bloomberg’s office with that error in it. A quick-tempered man…
Oh, well. Below is the letter with corrections. I suppose Bloomberg’s office will write me off as an idiot. Another testament to the necessity of proofing.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City of New York
253 Broadway
New York, NY 10007Mayor Bloomberg:
Your recent comments on the CBS Evening News implicating foes of Obamacare in the attempted bombing on Times Square were contemptible in the extreme. It is most regrettable that you have chosen to equate those who ascribe to the values of our Founders with Islamic militants. It seems to me that one of those two groups has a clear track record of terrorist acts. Who, I ask, is more likely to detonate a car bomb in New York?
Your gratuitous and unwarranted slander of patriotic Americans was as fatuous as it was specious. Congratulations.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Monti
Virginia Beach, VA
Bible tweets?
0David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don’t know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California’s stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there’s no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel’s cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn’t expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn’t an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
- If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It’s certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not… - Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster’s going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God’s prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don’t know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”
Schuster had more to say, which I will address in another post (it’s getting late). But the overarching point here is that the cherry picking Schuster is declaiming against actually isn’t cherry picking at all. It’s a very reasonable bow to the difference between 21st century America and ancient Israel. Even so, a little detective work reveals that these prohibitions Schuster et al find so silly and superfluous actually have both warrant and wisdom behind them. In any case, the occasional nature of these Levitical proscriptions does not give us license to dismiss or ignore the God-given, trans-cultural absolutes they depend on.
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
In defense of Cumberland (again)
0Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal first broke in 2004, I was horrified to learn that the reservists who had engaged in the tawdry, sadistic behavior captured in those now infamous photos were part of a unit that is stationed near my beloved hometown, Cumberland, MD.
As the rest of the world learned this, they began to wonder, “What is it about Cumberland that would breed such perverse, twisted, abusive soldiers?” Then, reporters from the rest of the world flocked to Cumberland to investigate, convinced that the barbarism of a handful of reservists would be clearly reflected in the community at large.
I wrote a blog post in May of that year as a rebuttal to such ridiculous, ill-formed generalizations. It’s an unfortunate truth of life that it only takes a few bad eggs to besmirch the reputation of many. As axiomatic as that is, I had hoped that intelligent journalists would find a way to paint a balanced picture of the city I was born and grew up in. I was wrong then, and the media continues to prove me wrong.
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a report on Joe Darby, the reservist who accidentally uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib and blew the whistle on them. Joe had been a resident of the Cumberland area; when the time came for him to return home from Iraq, the Army told him it was simply too dangerous to go back to Cumberland. A security assessment conducted by the Army showed that resentment toward Darby for his role in exposing the scandal was so intense that it represented a genuine threat to his life.
Understand, friends, that I do not doubt the Army’s conclusions about the danger posed to Darby and his family. Nor do I dispute Anderson Cooper’s right to report it. But I strenuously object to the scurrilous manner in which Cooper and CBS suggested that the entire city of Cumberland was united in monolithic, snarling hatred for Joe Darby and his actions.
The report’s inaccuracies:
- Anderson Cooper referred to Cumberland as “a military town” in the report, which is a gross mischaracterization. I currently live in Virginia Beach, which is home to the Oceana Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach is part of the broader Tidewater area, where the Navy has a significant presence with at least two bases. Navy battle groups are stationed here, and their vessels are repaired in local shipyards. This, friends, is a military town. From what I’ve read, Cumberland is home to a small reserve unit of around 250 soldiers and a tiny VFW post. That is not a military town. Besides, I grew up there. I lived there for over twenty years. Not once did I ever hear someone refer to Cumberland as “a military town.” But painting it that way may have served the intended rhetorical bent of Cooper’s piece. Cumberland was neatly transformed into an ideological foil — a fabricated example of “a military town” whose sympathies were with criminals rather than a courageous whistle-blower. This calumniates the very mindset of the armed forces, suggesting that Abu Ghraib was the natural outflow of our military’s character and surrounding culture. Such assertions are not without precedent. Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently stated that the American military has never been more murderous or wantonly destructive as it has been in Iraq. I have no doubt that many in the mainstream media are sympathetic to his view. I wonder where Mr. Cooper stands? Or is his apparent hit-piece on Cumberland indicative of some agreement with Hersh’s vitriolic and unfounded prejudice against the military?
- In any case, identifying Cumberland as a military town laid the groundwork for Cooper’s report to move from the particular to the general in an unwarranted fashion by extrapolating the views of some Cumberland residents to all of them. At about five and a half minutes into the report, Cooper describes Cumberland as “a military town that felt Darby had betrayed his fellow soldiers.” Cooper explicitly states here that the entire city was collectively and uniformly hostile to Darby. Not once during the 11-minute piece did Cooper interview a Cumberland resident who supported Darby or applauded his actions. This, I presume, was to suggest such people don’t exist in Cumberland, but they incontrovertibly do. Mere logic indicates that this would be the case, but a simple visit to the editorial page of the Cumberland Times-News or a Cumberland message board confirms it. I cannot fathom why Mr. Cooper, a supposedly accomplished journalist, failed to do this.
The bottom line, beloved readers, is that I wept to see my home town — a city that has struggled to overcome economic hardship and adversity for decades — portrayed in such a negative light in the national media. The fact that this was unnecessary and unfair adds insult to injury. It seems that Cooper and his ilk were unable to find a way to lionize Joe Darby without demonizing Cumberland. Something tells me they didn’t try very hard.
The drumbeat of media bias rolls on. Cumberland is just one of its latest victims.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Media bias redux
0Well, my recent posts on media bias continue to generate some heat (comments, actually — but I liked the sound of “heat”). Valued reader and childhood friend to The MonT-SteR, David, chimes in with the following:
Perspectives can vary so widely. I perceive that about half the nation is more than a little sympathetic to evangelical Christian ideology; it is prominent in Congress and on several network and cable television programs. It is all over college campuses and it is in missions around the world. Our President was elected and reelected in part because of his evangelical bent, and its appeal to the masses. He even has gotten government agencies to give borrowed Federal dollars to many evangelical groups in support of their religious and community initiatives. To describe the life of evangelical Christians in this country as even close to “persecution” is very foreign to me, if not a little hyperbolic.
David’s comments here highlight part of my love-hate relationship with writing, particularly about my understanding of what an authentically Christian worldview is. Everything has caveats and/or depends on a broader context to be fully understood or explained with complete clarity. Of course, as a blogger with a full-time job and a toddler, I don’t always have the time or ability to engage in the full rigors of theological inquiry each and every night. Believe it or not, this bothers me a great deal, because I feel that I run the risk of 1) not doing justice to the faith I so dearly hold, and/or 2) being misunderstood.
I make this disclaimer because David is obviously puzzled by my use of the word “persecution” in relation to Christian life in America. I need to make myself more thoroughly understood, because I readily cede his point. Those of us who profess Christ here in the U.S.A. really know NOTHING of true persecution. As David suggests, a large segment of the populace claims to be a part of Christendom, and (love `em or hate `em) their faith-based values do have an influence on the political scene of our country. Moreover, we are free to worship Jesus in this country anytime we choose without running the risk of being incarcerated or beheaded.
Nevertheless, it is inarguable that there are also plenty of Americans that really are unsympathetic or even hostile to Christianity and its adherents. I’ve interacted with some of them in my time, and the worst I’ve suffered is some shouting and name-calling (especially on those college campuses David mentioned). Rejection, certainly, but persecution? Perhaps not. There are, however, those who have suffered far worse for naming Jesus as Lord in this country; I don’t think it’s very defensible to assert that it never happens. And I think it’s pretty safe to say that it happens with increasing frequency in modern times and in certain sectors of our culture. Of course, it hardly reaches the level of the Holocaust or Stalin’s purgings, which are clear examples of persecution. So I can understand David’s befuddlement.
In any case, my purpose in bringing up the Bible verses that deal with persecution and rejection was primarily to grapple with what Chris Ridgeway appeared to be saying:
There will always be those who are unfriendly to Christianity in varying degrees. It’s predictable. Quit whining and find a more godly way to respond to it.
I was attempting to acknowledge that his underlying premise (if I understood it correctly) was grounded in Scripture. He was using that premise to question the wisdom or fruitfulness of fussing over media bias, especially of the sort I was pointing out. Although I agreed with his underlying logic, I don’t know that his conclusion necessarily follows. I could be wrong, though. 
David continues:
I think Senator Clinton’s comments were inappropriate and pandering, and ill-chosen.
Agreed.
It is a mistake to declare someone else within or
outside of God’s favor. Such as when Pat Robertson asserted that Ariel Sharon had earned his fatal health problems by angering God, as if the Reverend has magic insight into what an inscrutable and eternal force intends.
Here I feel like I’m pinned between the proverbial sword and the wall. On one hand, Dr. Robertson has done a great deal of good in this world. For example, he founded and continues to oversee Operation Blessing, which is one of the most active and innovative international Christian relief agencies in existence. He also launched Regent University, where I received a fine seminary education that I treasure deeply. I and many others have been blessed as a direct result of the work of Dr. Robertson’s hands. Having said that, I have to agree with you, David, about his comments vis-a-vis Ariel Sharon’s illness. Beyond offensive, they were hurtful. It’s a strange thing that someone as ardently pro-Israel as Dr. Robertson would utter something so injurious to Sharon’s family and the Israeli people.
I believe the media simply passed over the Senator’s comments in
large part because they are vague and confusing, which is the mark of a
successful politician.
Mm, here we part company. I don’t think Hillary’s comments were at all vague or confusing. It’s clear to me that she equated a conservative position on illegal immigration with criminalizing Christ Himself. That’s very pointed and direct language. It’s also outrageous.
Pat Robertson’s offensive comments were specific and extremely rude, and directed against an individual with a terminal condition; Hillary Clinton’s comments were directed against a policy and the general people who might support it. I think both comments
were wrong, and I think the media were justified in covering them differently.
Well, sure. I wasn’t expecting the media to treat them identically in every respect. Of the two, I think Dr. Robertson’s comments were more inexcusable. My point is that both comments were undeniably outrageous (not that they were equally outrageous). I still find it curious that Hillary’s own Bible-thumping pillory hardly caused a blip on the mainstream media’s radar screen. It’s not that the media covered Hillary’s comments differently; they hardly covered it at all! As I see it, there are only four possibilities that explain this phenomenon:
- The media didn’t know about what Hillary said, which is ridiculous.
- The media didn’t care about what Hillary said, which I also find hard to believe. This is, after all, Sen. Clinton we’re talking about.
- The media didn’t think it was newsworthy. Possible, but unlikely on balance for the reasons cited above.
- The media didn’t have a problem with what Hillary said, i.e., they tacitly agreed with it in some capacity.
I’m putting my money on #4.
Love ya, Dave. Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your thoughts. Come back often — I value your readership and your input. And please, be sure to do your laundry in the washing maching maching (it’s an inside joke, folks).
Next up: The MonT-SteR REPORT’s 100th BLOG POST!!!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
P.S. David and I were best friends as kids, and we had lots of fun together. In a word, we were very silly. We made each other laugh so hard with such frequency that our teachers wouldn’t let us sit together during class, and our parents feared for our lives at the dinner table (the excessive laughter also caused lots of choking on food).
When David’s family moved to Baltimore just before we entered the 6th grade, I was crushed. Happily, we continued our friendship well into high school and usually spent a week or so together each summer. One particular summer when I was visiting David in Baltimore, he bought a whoopee cushion. I, on the other hand, was suddenly obsessed with learning how to be a ventriloquist, and spent hours practicing with a Lester dummy that belonged to David’s sister. For two 13-year-olds, bad ventriloquism and a whoopee cushion were just the combination needed to create hours of prepubescent fun.
Luckily for the world, said prepubescent fun was captured on audio tape for posterity. And so I am able to present to you these precious audio clips, which are probably unlike anything you have ever heard:
Sorry, David. I couldn’t resist any longer.
Media bias questioned
0A fellow blogger by the name of Chris Ridgeway visited my blog over the weekend, and made some thoughtful comments regarding my post that was critical of statements recently made by Hillary Clinton and the ensuing media coverage (or the lack thereof).
Chris says the following:
[As] a Christian pastor-in-training (insert evangelical buzzwords for credibility here), I’ve got a question. I accept your facts: Jerry Fallwell speaks, and media laughs. Hillary Clinton invokes Jesus, and maybe there isn’t a backlash.I’m just not sure I am with your assumptions: which unexplicitly but generally seem to be 1) the media is liberal like Hillary Clinton would be considered liberal 2) the media gives favorable coverage to liberals because they belong to the same club.
Obviously, it would be silly for me to assert that every single member of the American media is sympathetic to liberal ideology and causes; clearly, that’s not the case. It’s equally untenable for me to say that all members of the media are in political lockstep with Sen. Clinton. However, research on the media covering the past several decades indicates that 1) the vast majority of the media is sympathetic to political liberalism, 2) by extension, they are unsympathetic (or hostile) to competing ideologies or political perspectives, viz. traditional, conservative, or even Christian thought, and 3) the majority leftist orientation of the media frequently colors the reporting they do.
For this reason, Chris, I’m not willing to grant that what I implicitly stated in my post was mere assumption or, as you later state in your response, only a “theory.” Yes, I intimated by my comments that the media leans to the left, but that’s only because it’s a fact that can be soundly demonstrated by research and statistics, as well as statements and admissions made by journalists themselves.
Chris continues:
“[Your view of the media is] the prevaling oppressed evangelical theory. But pardon me [for] taking a quick try at neutral bias: aren’t there any other factors that could affect media coverage?What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell’s (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary’s?
How about differences in presentation and tone?
How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?
These are good questions. Let me try to tackle them one at a time:
- What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell’s (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary’s?
If I understand your point here, I think it is well taken with respect to Rev. Falwell and Pat Robertson — they tend toward the open-mouth-insert-foot syndrome, and their public statements are sometimes lacking in civility or grace. But in a way, that very fact also serves to bolster the original point I was making. Hillary flamed those in favor of immigration reform as “contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures” and favoring laws that would ultimately criminalize Christ Himself. The implication is that if one favors getting tough on the illegal immigration problem we have in this country, then he or she is motivated by the same unwholesome ideals and and prejudices that ultimately incarcerated Jesus Christ. How else is one to take such comments? In terms of content or meaning, I don’t see how this differs significantly from many of the controversial things that Falwell or Robertson say (not counting calls for assassination of foreign leaders, of course). That’s why I felt the need to highlight the hypocrisy inherent in the pass the media gave to Hillary when she made these statements. If any Christian minister of national prominence called a press conference and accused anyone who supports laws restricting abortion protesters of being contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures and tantamount to criminalizing Christ Himself, how do you think the media would react? Favorably? How much would the separation of church and state get mentioned in the ensuing coverage? Did we hear anything like that vis-a-vis Hillary’s comments?
- How about differences in presentation and tone?
For the most part, I think I answered this above.
- How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this question, but I’ll do my best to respond. I assume that you intend “source” to refer to whoever is making public comments — in this case, Hillary Clinton and certain Christian ministers of national prominence. Your reference to pluralism seems to imply that, in a pluralistic society, higher levels of credibility will by default be conferred upon certain individuals based upon prevailing social proclivities. So, as I understand it, your question appears to raise the following issues: 1) how favorably or unfavorably Christian ministers are typically viewed through the pluralistic lens of society at large, 2) by extension, how specific Christian ministers (i.e., the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons of the world) are typically viewed by our pluralistic society, and 3) whether or not Christians should expect anything different. If I’ve understood your question correctly, answering it is a bit of a sticky wicket. One could write pages in response! In a nutshell, my thoughts are as follows:
- Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19)
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:13)
So, as you seem to intimate by your question, it is no surprise that a pluralistic world would be predisposed to regard orthodox Christianity and its proponents with disdain. According to the Scriptures, that’s a fact of life for a believer. However…
- The Scriptures also teach that the world is culpable before God for this same predisposition:
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. (John 1:10-11)
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)
He who receives [My followers] receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (Matthew 10:40)
Although we are told to expect that the world will persecute the Church just as it persecuted Jesus, clearly it is something that ought not happen. So, while a pluralistic society may naturally tend toward actively discrediting Christians, the Scriptures do not sanction such a phenomenon. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- It seems, therefore, that we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Messengers of the Gospel ought to be received and respected by society at large, but we are taught that, for the most part, we will not be. How do we respond?
- Forgiveness and forbearance are prescribed, of course. I think the contention implicit in your question is that many Christians (particularly those with large public ministries) do not respond appropriately — that the tone they tend to strike merely compounds the prevenient intolerance the world has for Christianity, thereby opening them even more to things like ill treatment in the media. I have to admit that in many instances, your point certainly applies.
- Nevertheless, the fact still remains that Hillary used religious rhetoric that was strident in its own right. The very point your question raises ought to apply to her comments as well. If the media were consistent, she too would have been held up to scorn and public ridicule for appealing to Christianity in such a manner to justify her political stance. That didn’t happen, leading me to conclude that the media has a template for what Christians ought to believe, or that they are okay with Christianity only as long as its practical outworking harmonizes with their own worldview. This constitutes clear and willful bias, and I think it’s both reasonable and fair to call attention to it — especially when said media purports to be unbiased and impartial in its reporting.
- Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
Chris sums up his thoughts:
I guess my point is this: as a devoted Christ follower – I’m willing to assume that there is some biased reporting out there. But sometimes I can’t help but feeling that we can’t get off the “we’re” oppressed block, and possibly forget that we’re making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity, the words of a US Senator vs. a TV preacher, the purity of our own motives when being frustrated on criticism, and the way humility typically wins over whining.
As for the “we’re Evangelicals and we’re oppressed” sentiment, modern circumstances often make it easy to lose sight of the fact that we serve a victorious Christ who has overcome the world. But I can honestly say that I wasn’t motivated by such feelings when I criticized the media’s handling of Sen. Clinton. My purpose was to highlight obvious duplicity and bias which belies the external veneer of impartiality that the media attempts to maintain. Why? Because I think biased reporting is a harmful and ultimately deceitful practice, and the media should put a stop to it. Should I let it get to me? Probably not as much as I do. But pointing it out is truth telling in my book, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Regarding the problem of “making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity,” I can’t help but think that you are lumping me together with people who believe God likes conservative Republicans better than liberal Democrats. That’s a silly and offensive notion, and I don’t ascribe to it. As a Christian who looks to the Bible as the chief and final authority not only on matters of faith and practice, but also ultimate truth, I will say that I find the political ideology of liberalism to be in conflict with Christianity far more often than it harmonizes with it. That’s not to say that political conservatism always harmonizes with it either. Clearly, it does not.
I see some finger pointing in my direction in your final sentence. Are you trying to characterize my post on Hillary and media bias as whining? If so, I don’t think that’s accurate or fair. If your overarching point is that Evangelicals often complain with ungodly tone and frequency about media bias, you might have a good argument to make. As for your point on responding to media bias with pure motives and humility, I wholeheartedly concur. The late Ed Cole used to say that believers need to learn how to contend for Christianity without being contentious — Paul calls it speaking the truth in love. I strive to do that, and I admit that I do not always succeed. If you or any of tMR’s readers wish to offer me some constructive criticism in this area, I’m open to hearing it.
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to visit my blog and share your thoughts. I hope you’ll come back often.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Thou hypocrite
0Any time Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson comment on politics from a religious perspective, there’s nothing but hooting and catcalls in the media for the following week.
So what happens when certain left-leaning politicians mix religion and politics?
You can hear the crickets chirping.
Case in point example: Hillary Clinton decrying newly proposed legislation that would crack down on illegal immigration. She says it’s not in keeping with her understanding of the spirit of the Scriptures. Furthermore, she argues, it would criminalize the likes of the good Samaritan and ultimately Jesus Himself. This, friends, is not harmless religious philosophizing. It’s vicious rhetoric that is designed to pigeonhole people who actually want to enforce our nation’s laws vis-a-vis immigration as racist, anti-compassion, anti-tolerance, and ultimately anti-Christ.
Note the complete and utter absence of a media firestorm. This highlights the absolute hypocrisy of many on the left. God-talk is okay as long as the invocation is in support of a libertine stance on contemporary issues. But it’s only the right that illegitimately hijacks Jesus as a political football for their closed-minded ideals.
Right.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
In Memoriam
0
Terri Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005
May she rest in peace, and may Almighty God have mercy upon us all.