Right wing sleep disorder...

http://comics.com/rudy_park/2008-12-22/

by Richmond Shreve (30 articles, 70 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 157 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM

  (0+)

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky

While I absolutly abhore Limbaugh and his ilk, I still think it is a mistake to approach the problem of ignorance at this level in the structure.

The people that listen to the man aren't capable critical thinking at any rate;  a well structured and reasonalbe rebuttle may give the casual listener pause, but it certainly will not change the opinions of folks who dicide emotionally rather than rationally.

With such a doctrin of "fairness" will the authorities next insist on a Jewish and Muslim rebuttle on the Power Hour?

How many opposing viewpoints would establish the fairness of the views of an issue?

Are there but two sides to every story?

Who will the 'Thought Police " be? Who decides what is "fair".

"The idea that a reporter has to be 'fair and balanced' is ridiculous. The fact is, the truth usually is not fair and it's not balanced. Truth stands by itself. And the idea that something called fair and balanced is a substitute for truth and fact is mindless nonsense that has captured much of the national media."    — Lou Dobbs,

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:22:38 PM

  (1+)

no one is trying to silence Limbaugh or anyone else. Chomsky's quote is misplaced here. The Fairness doctrine isnt about silencing anyone, it is about the requirement of and inclusion of alternative voices.

Attempting to muddy the argument by claiming there is an issue about how many alternate voices and from where is to add an irrelevancy to the discussion. Once you realize that there is a cogent alternative view to what has normally been presented, it triggers in most people a realization that they need to engage their brains to try to figure out what the truth is instead of necessarily accepting anyone else's version of the truth. All that is required to make that happen are two people who disagree with each other on an issue. It is human nature.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:23:24 PM

  (0+)

"Attempting to muddy the argument by claiming there is an issue about how many alternate voices and from where is to add an irrelevancy to the discussion."-Leser

No it doesn't. It clarifies the mistaken premise of the proximate genesis of the discussion. Any burden on free speech by government must be considered carefully, not simply the ultimate burden of outright censorship.

The simplistic concept that issues are fairly divided into two camps is one of the enforcing agents of social engeneering. It is this false paradigm of "either or", rather than the free choice of an infinity of variables that divides a population into two easily manipulated massive blocks, that generates the emotional "Us v Them" identity that those indoctrinated into "team player" mode fall into unconsciously.

The neoliberal proposition of interferance with free speech dismisses the root cause of the core problem, which is virtual monoply of the airwaves by corporatist interests.

If the issue of the ownership of the public airwaves were to be addressed from an honest construction of the meaning of "pubic" in the legal sense [meaning the constitutionally legal sense] we would see diversity demanded simply by following constitutional restrictions on the use of governmental power to work in league with large business interests to manipulate legislation pertaining to a property of the Commons; which is in the legal sense what the airwaves are.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:59:19 PM

  (0+)

There is no burden on free speech whatsoever. Limbaugh, Hannity, Colbert, Maddow and all the rest of the punditry can continue to say anything they want to say. Framing it otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Requiring the addition of a dissenting voice is not the equivalent of a restriction on free speech. On the contrary, it is an enhancement of free speech. It is the very essence of free speech.

You follow this with some nonsense about how adding a dissenting voice is some sort of continuation of negative social engineering. Talk about overanalyzing and projecting.

Then you go ahead and make things worse by using the meaningless 'neoliberal' label.  This is a label created by people who think they are cool if they affix a 'neo' prefix to words. After all, we made the word 'neoconservative' right? That must mean it is cool to put the prefix before words. So, let me be coolest of all. I neothink it is neostupid and neolazy to neocreate or neouse neolabels with the neoprefix just neobecause it was neodone in the neorecent neopast.

There, I just used the neo label on 12 words. Since you only used it on one, that must mean I am cooler than you.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:11:15 PM

  (0+)

"Requiring the addition of a dissenting voice is not the equivalent of a restriction on free speech. On the contrary, it is an enhancement of free speech. It is the very essence of free speech."--Leser

I did not say it is a "restriction" of free speech Mr. Leser. I said it is a "burden".

A burden upon free speech is just as much an encumbrance and disparagement as a restriction. Such requirements as to fulfill that which is proposed will cause the original speaker to incur more costs, both financially and in preparation and arrangement to even begin to use their First Amendment rights, while at the same time an array of counter speech is readily available on its own in other venues.

It is misconstruction of the language of the First Amendment to interpret its restriction as meaning, "You cannot stop someone from speaking, but you can demand that they obtain their own nemesis and provide a second soapbox for this entity." This is clearly an unjust burden.

You object to the use of the term, "neoliberal", even though it has wide currency. And in objecting with such virulence as to spin a furrow as a sideshow from the central points.

Furthermore, your response is inadequate to dismiss the problem of the distinction between what is fair, and what is ballanced. A single counter argument may "ballance" two voices one against the other, but this doesn't instill the element of "fairness", if there are one more, or several other points of view on a subject.

This assumption of duality is unreasonalble for modern discourse when such a diverse assortment of views is a reality.

To hand wave this issue is disingenuous.

Again this argument comes to the point that I raised about dialectics.

You are assuming the false paradigm of a single thesis/antithesis, when in fact a thesis may reasonably face an array of antithesis.

The error here is to expect socio-political discourse to be a series of dualities to reconcile. Or to put more simply a series of, 'this is black, this is white' into a pattern of a chekerboard; whereas the actual terrain is multi-leveled and multicolored. Truth comes at every altitude and hue.

You cannot attempt to hide that you are coming from a "side", that is opposed to another "side". This is not about full spectrum free speech to you, but in delivering a specific counter ideological ballance. I do not care what you label that specific ideology, be it "Liberal" [sans neo] or "Progressive" or "Oongalamonkeystench".

You have in your head nothing but a pre-fab antithesis to offer.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:17:35 AM

  (0+)

The fairness doctrine is nothing more than another misdirected belief in the entitlement mentality.

Freedom of speech does not come with the right to demand that people listen. People listen to Rush Limbaugh because they WANT to.  This idea that you can somehow force your own views on them at their expense is total nonsense.

You want to express an opinion? I stand by your right to do so. There are many markets where diverse programming is available. Any market where it is demanded, it is present. Many California cities have talk radio stations that cover both sides of issues (either the same stations, or competing stations with competing views). 

But NOTHING anywhere in the constitution gives you the right to demand an audience, or force someone else pay for the medium.  The fairness doctrine is totally unconstitutional not only as a violation of free speech, but as a taking of property without due process.

by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:54:59 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you on this.

I have tried many approaches to get this idea through to Mr. Leser.

Perhaps your plain spoken approach will be more successful.

I somehow doubt it, but I can hope.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:26:47 PM

  (0+)

and continue to make misstatements about is that the fairness doctrine does not restrict free speech. Anyone can continue to say anything they want to say. That is the definition of free speech. Requiring the addition of an alternate view is not a restriction on free speech, it is the essense of it.

There is nothing new in anything either of you have written. They are the oft raised objections to the Fairness Doctrine that I have seen many times over the past 10-20 years.

Anyone who continues this false line of reasoning does not understand what a true restriction on freedom of speech or freedom of the press looks like.

The simplest demonstration of how ridiculous your objections is as follows:

In case 1, We have the Rush Limbaugh show and we require that after Limbaugh says what he wants to say, we have Dennis Kucinich on Limbaughs show for the last 10 minutes to give a rebuttal.

In case 2, you have the Rush Limbaugh show where he says the same things that he said in case one. Only this time, Dennis Kucinich is on his own 10 minute show right after Limbaugh's saying the same thing he would have said if he had been on Limbaugh's show.

You cannot assert that case 1 is a restriction on free speech and that somehow, case 2 is not. In both cases, Limbaugh is able to say the exact same things. In both cases, Kucinich is able to say the exact same things.

The logic used to assert that the Fairness Doctrine is a restriction of free speech fails miserably as soon as you consider real world examples.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:07:04 PM

  (0+)

"In case 1, We have the Rush Limbaugh show and we require that after Limbaugh says what he wants to say, we have Dennis Kucinich on Limbaughs show for the last 10 minutes to give a rebuttal."--Leser

1]> Burden imposed on Limbaugh or his station to provide one single response of one single view in opposition to Limbaughs view; dual spectrum free speech.

"In case 2, you have the Rush Limbaugh show where he says the same things that he said in case one. Only this time, Dennis Kucinich is on his own 10 minute show right after Limbaugh's saying the same thing he would have said if he had been on Limbaugh's show."--Leser

2]>No Burden. Kuscinich, as well as a penumbra of other views availabe on other shows; full spectrum free speech.

"You cannot assert that case 1 is a restriction on free speech and that somehow, case 2 is not. In both cases, Limbaugh is able to say the exact same things. In both cases, Kucinich is able to say the exact same things."--Leser

But I certainly can and will assert that one is a restriction, due to burden:

Case 1. Limbaugh bears the burden of supporting Kucinich free speech, financially and administratively--thus restricting is free speech by charging him financially for the privelege of speaking. Thus a right is transformed into privelege.

Furthermore, you refuse to address the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is: a full spectrum of free speech demands that any point of opposition to the speech of Limbaugh has the same weight and standing as any other. To assert that one single opposing view is sufficient remedy to counter Limbsugh's point of view is absurd on it's face. It pretends to a mere duality of positions on any given proposition.

I have pointed out the complete incongruence of this ridiculous assertion plainly enough.

That you continue to fail to acknowledge the critical flaw of your own logic is full enough evidence of your lack of skill in critical thinking. To fall back on supposed authourity of others who have erred in the same puddle of mud that you do is no escape.

Your position is absurd on it's face--regardless of the political weight it may carry. The Fairness Doctrin is a political mechanism of one side of a duopoly and not a valid protection of free speech.

I do not in any way imagine that you are going to accept this. But I feel it is trgic that a person of your obvious intelligence has been so programmed and conditioned that you are unable to make obvious distinctions in critical analysis.

I offer you my sencere regrets.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM

  (0+)

sorry, you still fail.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:36:43 AM

  (0+)

Perhaps reasoning with some is a lost cause so in that we failed. However, getting our point across to those willing to listen, we did not fail.

The fairness doctrine is unconsititutional.  It survived through the years due to courts dominated by the philosophies of judges like William Brennan that believed the courts have the right to pervert the constitution based on political winds. But it will never survive judges that accept the constitution as the written supreme law of the land.

Already explained my reasons for those positions and stand firmly by them, so I'll refrain from repeating myself futher.

by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM

  (0+)

..You're wrong.   :)

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:11:55 PM

  (0+)

I want to make it clear here; I despise Limbaugh. I think he is a rank propagansist and fascist hack.

My argument is in no way an endorsement of his views, but rather an endorsement of a clear construction of critical thinking, the rule of law and constitutional fidelity.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:29:34 AM

  (0+)

Limbaugh is an entertainer, a personality that espouses his own political viewpoints which happen to be conservative.  If he were an entertainer, a personality with liberal viewpoints, we wouldn't be having this discussion about the Fairness Doctrine. 

The fact is that the liberal commentators cannot gain a large enough audience to be economically viable in the market place so they want to use the government to shut Limbaugh up.  Limbaugh attacts a huge audience of people who freely tune in to get a perspective on events that does not exist in the liberal tainted media. 

Liberals should address why and how he has become successful and emulate those methods rather than practice the odious jackbooted techniques of using government rules to shut him up.  They could shut him up by presenting better entertainment, better ideas, an interesting alternative to what Limbaugh presents daily.  What happens though is that liberal talk shows wind up parroting, in an extremely negative manner, what people hear on the nightly news.

What Limbaugh has done is not illegal.  He is just an entertainer, a radio personality who is sometimes an obnoxious jerk who found something that people were looking for - an alternative to the East Coast elitists who, on a nightly basis, told them lies and presented nothing more than propaganda instead of news.  These media idiots still haven't seen the light and still continue to believe that they know better.  The stubborn fools are going out of business little by little.  Read Bernie Goldberg.

All Limbaugh did was educate listeners about what was going on while entertaining them and letting them make up their own minds everyday if he was being honest and straightforward about what he was talking about.  If he was perceived as being dishonest he wouldn't have lasted 2 months let alone 20 years with essentially the same show.

The radio has an ON button and an OFF button.  Just ask Air America about that.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:59:04 AM

  (0+)

"All Limbaugh did was [1]educate listeners about what was going on while entertaining them and [2]letting them make up their own minds everyday if he was being [3]honest and straightforward about what he was talking about.  If he was [4]perceived as being dishonest he wouldn't have lasted 2 months let alone 20 years with essentially the same show."--Madjayhawk

[1] Limbaugh was not "educating listeners", he was spewing propaganda.

[2] "Ditto Heads", is the definition of parroting mindless idiots who have had their minds made up by Limbaugh.

[3] Manipulative spin is hardly "honest", and certainly not "straight forward"

[4] "Perception" of honesty is not the same thing as honesty. That his listener's perceptions are and have been manipulated by the well known techniques of the propaganda playbook is beyond argument.

Anyone with the slightest critical skills can easily spot Limbaugh as a morally corrupt  hypocritical shill. A nation that had an educated population would marginalize a charlatan such as he, as they would recognize him for the clown he truly is.

Of course a truly educated population would never stand for the tripe that is offered on the mainstream media as news and information either, and would find the "entertainment" crass and jejune as well.

Limbaugh is no less "mainstream" that what is commonly referred to as such. He is merely the antithesis meat puppet, to the thesis meat puppets on so called "Liberal Mainstream Media"--the entire system is a hoax maintained and perpetrated by the central ruling force.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:57:25 AM

  (0+)

[1] Limbaugh was not "educating listeners", he was spewing propaganda.--- Of course he is.  All propaganda is not necessarily bad and can serve to educate and engage the listener in many different ways.  There are many sources of political propaganda in our society from the right and from the left.  What is sad is that so many people do not know propaganda when they see it or hear it. 

[2] "Ditto Heads", is the definition of parroting mindless idiots who have had their minds made up by Limbaugh.  --The term ditto heads was coined by liberals, frustrated by Limbaugh's success, to demean Limbaugh audience.  The word paints everyone in the audience with a broad brush that says if you listen to Limbaugh you are a stupid idiot.  Calling someone a stupid parroting mindless idiot is not the way to win friends and influence people.

[3] Manipulative spin is hardly "honest", and certainly not "straight forward"  -- people can only be manipulated if they allow themselves to be.  We are all manipulated every day.  Everyone wants to manipulate everyone else when it comes right down to it.  You have a choice as to whether you want to expose yourself to being manipulated and to whether you ultimately are manipulate.  On button.  Off button.  

[4] "Perception" of honesty is not the same thing as honesty. That his listener's perceptions are and have been manipulated by the well known techniques of the propaganda playbook is beyond argument.  --  you will probably buy a car or some other big ticket item from someone you just perceive to be honest without having a clue about his/her past record.  Thousands of voters vote for convicted felons or criminally indicted candidates in every election because they still perceive them to be honest.  It doesn't seem to matter if the person is really honest or not as long as he can convince others to perceive him that way. Obama has effectively created the perception that he is honest I think.  Whether he really is remains to be seen.  The media has really not addressed whether he is or not or has been in the past so we will have wait.  Limbaugh talks for a living and his words are what the audience judges him by.   If he uses words that cause people to distrust his judgement and what he says, the audience will move on so their perception of him as someone to be trust, ie being honest, has caused him to build up a huge audience that makes the left very nervous.  On the other hand the public perceives our national news media as being dishonest and biased and that fact shows up on their balance sheet.  Limbaugh's balance sheet looks pretty healthy in comparsion.

Anyone with the slightest critical skills can easily spot Limbaugh as a morally corrupt  hypocritical shill. A nation that had an educated population would marginalize a charlatan such as he, as they would recognize him for the clown he truly is.  ---  who ever said that the general public possesses any critical skills whatsoever.  Even educated subsets of the general public are not beyond being taken in.  Bill Clinton and his wife are a prime example.  Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh and doesn't know what he is all about after 5 minutes is a fool just as anyone who thinks what Obama says he is going to do will be what he actually does is one as well.

Of course a truly educated population would never stand for the tripe that is offered on the mainstream media as news and information either, and would find the "entertainment" crass and jejune as well. --- the truly eduated do not need people like Limbaugh and our vaunted media.  The problem is that there are few 'truly' educated people in this country and the ones that are 'truly' educated have their heads up their rearend.  

Limbaugh is no less "mainstream" that what is commonly referred to as such. He is merely the antithesis meat puppet, to the thesis meat puppets on so called "Liberal Mainstream Media"--the entire system is a hoax maintained and perpetrated by the central ruling force.  --- Central Ruling Force?  Where and when do they meet?  Do they have name tags and hold press conferences?  Do they look something like Klingons?  Can I join?

Merry Christmas!!!

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM

  (0+)

"Central Ruling Force?" Yes.

 "Where and when do they meet?"  My house.

"Do they have name tags and hold press conferences?" No we wear masks.

 "Do they look something like Klingons?" I don't know, they are always in their masks. 

"Can I join? " No your an idiot.  :)

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:07:10 PM

  (0+)

Limbaugh is an entertainer, a personality that espouses his own political viewpoints which happen to be conservative.  If he were an entertainer, a personality with liberal viewpoints, we wouldn't be having this discussion about the Fairness Doctrine. 

The fact is that the liberal commentators cannot gain a large enough audience to be economically viable in the market place so they want to use the government to shut Limbaugh up.  Limbaugh attacts a huge audience of people who freely tune in to get a perspective on events that does not exist in the liberal tainted media. 

Liberals should address why and how he has become successful and emulate those methods rather than practice the odious jackbooted techniques of using government rules to shut him up.  They could shut him up by presenting better entertainment, better ideas, an interesting alternative to what Limbaugh presents daily.  What happens though is that liberal talk shows wind up parroting, in an extremely negative manner, what people hear on the nightly news.

What Limbaugh has done is not illegal.  He is just an entertainer, a radio personality who is sometimes an obnoxious jerk who found something that people were looking for - an alternative to the East Coast elitists who, on a nightly basis, told them lies and presented nothing more than propaganda instead of news.  These media idiots still haven't seen the light and still continue to believe that they know better.  The stubborn fools are going out of business little by little.  Read Bernie Goldberg.

All Limbaugh did was educate listeners about what was going on while entertaining them and letting them make up their own minds everyday if he was being honest and straightforward about what he was talking about.  If he was perceived as being dishonest he wouldn't have lasted 2 months let alone 20 years with essentially the same show.

The radio has an ON button and an OFF button.  Just ask Air America about that.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:07:25 AM

  (0+)

You are dead on spot here as far as the entertainment and the proposed misuse of government power through the unconstitutional fairness doctrine.

The recent election has proven that the liberal message CAN be gotten across if the liberal elements would learn to present themselves intelligently instead of coming up with books like "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Stupid White Men". This is the kind of trash that hurts liberals and their message even with those that would otherwise believe it.

Ask a couple simple questions.  Why are people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter so popular (yes I know the pictures of her in tight skirts on just about all of her books has some effect but its not the only reason and it sure as heck would not work for Rush Limbaugh).  Its all packaging. They present their message in ways that people understand and are willing to listen.

And becuase the message is being heard and their opposition doesn't like it (and has thus far been incapable of matching it) they do what liberals often do. Run to the government and try to use force to get their own message out. And THAT hurts their message even more.

by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:41:52 PM

  (0+)

I do not know why Limbaugh is popular now.  In his early days his show was immensely entertaining.  Lots of satire, broadly applied.  I listened to him when I was in the car at that time.  Now his show is just a monologue that is, to me, boring.  His take on things occasionally is interesting but usually it is predictable and very repetitious.   It is a hard job to be on the air for 3 hours a day and be entertaining enough to attract and keep an audience.  Simply saying that Harry and Nancy are worthless fools over and over again is not going to get it. That is my personal view. 

Hannity is, in my opinion, a blowhard who adds nothing to any discussion.   I cannot stand to listen to him frankly.  It is all about him.   His opinions are shallow and bombastic.  I never listen to Savage or O'Reilly either. O'Reilly annoys me about 75% of the time.  For example when he has Rove on, he continually talks over Rove and offers usually inane opinions about some issue.  Karl Rove, whatever you think of him, is one of the most brillant political minds of the last 40 years.  He understands politics and what it takes to get elected and I enjoy listening to anyone who is very very good at what they do whether it is politics, tennis, ship building, etc..  Dick Morris used to be in the category and when he was advising Clinton he and Clinton were an unstoppable political team.  O'Reilly treats both Rove and Morris like lackeys.  I would rather hear their opinions and not O'Reilly's silly ones. 

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 8:59:24 PM

  (0+)

All of my answers are in jest.

Especially the last, I don't think you are an idiot. Okay?

Happy Trails one and all.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:22:48 PM

  (0+)

William, you are one of the best writers and thinkers on this site.   I enjoy reading your posts whether I am in your sights or not.  I do not take anything said by people I do not know personally.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:05:30 PM

  (0+)