Gay Patriot Header Image

Misadventures in Multicultural Studies Indoctrination

Jeff’s post the other day about the questionable workshop at Brown University came to mind recently when I saw a very far-left Facebook friend link to this article by a professor named Warren Blumenfeld who had just retired from a position as a professor of education at Iowa State University.  The article contains the professor’s reflections and gives voice to both his lamentations and his indignity about those students who took his class who were not won over to his worldview and who had the temerity to announce that fact in their final papers.

The course was entitled “Multicultural Foundations in Schools and Society,” and Blumenfeld describes it in the following terms:

I base the course on a number of key concepts and assumptions, including how issues of power, privilege, and domination within the United States center on inequitable social divisions regarding race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, sex, gender identity, sexual identity, religion, nationality, linguistic background, physical and mental ability/disability, and age. I address how issues around social identities impact generally on life outcomes, and specifically on educational outcomes. Virtually all students registered for this course, which is mandatory for students registered in the Teacher Education program, are pre-service teachers.

In other words, this is a required course in “multicultural studies” indoctrination.  If the course were voluntary, it would be a slightly different situation, but as a required course, it amounts to an example of the sort of thing that conservatives can easily point to as illustrating the left-wing biases of academia.

Professor Blumenfeld is particularly alarmed by the case of two female students who tell him quite boldly that the course has not changed their socially conservative Christian worldview:

On a final course paper, one student wrote that, while she enjoyed the course, and she felt that both myself and my graduate assistant — who had come out to the class earlier as lesbian — were very knowledgeable and good professors with great senses of humor, nonetheless, she felt obliged to inform us that we are still going to Hell for being so-called “practicing homosexuals.” Another student two years later wrote on her course paper that homosexuality and transgenderism are sins in the same category as stealing and murder. This student not only reiterated that I will travel to Hell if I continued to act on my same-sex desires, but she went further in amplifying the first student’s proclamations by self-righteously insisting that I will not receive an invitation to enter Heaven if I do not accept Jesus as my personal savior since I am a Jew, regardless of my sexual behavior. Anyone who doubts this, she concluded, “Only death will tell!”

Now while we might question the wisdom of both students in advertising the heresy represented by their beliefs so boldly in a graded assignment,  I think we might also be heartened by their courage in being true to their faith, even if we do not agree with all of the particulars of their worldview.

The professor, however, is shocked and appalled, and the rest of the essay is his attempt to reconcile–through reference to one leftist theory and tract after another–what he calls “our campus environment, one that emboldens some students to notify their professor and graduate assistant that their final destination will be the depths of Hell.”  Notice his word choice, there.  The problem is with the “campus environment” which “emboldens some students.”  It seems like a foreign idea to this professor to think that a university could be a place for the free and open exchange of ideas, especially those ideas that are unpopular.  I trust we will not find him quoting Voltaire or Jefferson anytime soon.

No, instead what we get is a description of and a reflection on a course that sounds like it could have been lifted straight from  the pages of Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, albeit with a more contemporary reading list.  While the professor uses the language of “reason,” “analysis,” and “evidence” to find fault with what the students wrote (and while I’m sure there is much to find fault with in their writings), it also seems evident from the way the course is described that the only type of analysis or reasoning that will be deemed acceptable is the sort that derives from leftist premises.  The idea of faith is an affront largely because, by its very nature, faith calls for accepting the irrational.

What’s even  more interesting to me–and alarming to Blumenfeld–is that he describes the way in which alternative groups have arisen “to promote their version of their faith and to help insulate students from the so-called ‘secular humanist indoctrination’ of public secular universities.”  To him this is the worst sort of apostasy which is wreaking the worst sort of havoc on our campuses, but to some of us, it is an encouraging sign that more people are starting to resist the left’s hegemony in academia.

Near the end of the essay, Blumenfeld returns to the stated aims of the course within the college of education:

While I genuinely respect individuals’ religious understandings, during my service at Iowa State University I have been saddened and deeply concerned that some of my students have used their religious teachings as defensive shields against inquiry, creating an aura of anti-intellectualism “protecting” them from information that may contradict or challenge their beliefs. While I find this particularly troubling when I perceive it in any person, in a pre-service and then in-service teacher whose job it is to impart a life-long love of learning, the consequences can be disastrous.

This is a complaint that anyone who has been a teacher can identify with, but it seems more than a little disingenuous after the course that has been described in the essay.

Unfortunately, courses such as the one described are hardly out of the ordinary. Consider the example of this story that has been circulating among various conservative websites and radio shows in the past two days:

Ryan Rotela, a junior at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, claims he was suspended over a class incident in which he refused to stomp on the word ‘Jesus.’

According to Rotela, Dr. Deandre Poole, professor of the Intercultural Communications course, asked students to write ‘Jesus’ in bold letters on a sheet of paper, place it on the floor, stand up, and stomp on it.

Rotela, a deeply religious Mormon who attends church weekly, was offended and refused to participate.

Once again we have a course with “multicultural” premises which specifically takes aim at student beliefs.

The campus left can almost always be counted on to overplay its hand, and multicultural indoctrination is alive and well on American campuses.  And yet, despite the left’s best efforts to control the conversation, dissent seems to be finding a way to survive.  Even when I do not agree with the dissenters, I am encouraged to see that they still feel free enough to express their views on campus.

Share

67 Comments

  1. The professor, however, is shocked and appalled, and the rest of the essay is his attempt to reconcile–through reference to one leftist theory and tract after another–what he calls “our campus environment, one that emboldens some students to notify their professor and graduate assistant that their final destination will be the depths of Hell.”

    Among the sad ironies here, are:

    - That the professor’s left-wing/multicultural philosophy itself contains strong elements of irrationality; and

    - That the purpose of his indoctrination course, and his essay, is to accomplish his philosophy’s moral equivalent of telling people they are going to Hell, if they don’t believe as he does.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - March 23, 2013

  2. I have been saddened and deeply concerned that some of my students have used their religious teachings as defensive shields against inquiry

    And I have been saddened and deeply concerned by the Left, which has used its philosophical teachings and pretense of inquiry as a defensive shield against fact-oriented, genuine inquiry.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2013 @ 2:51 pm - March 23, 2013

  3. Both excellent points! In the professor’s description of the course, I quoted, but did not comment on his wording “I base the course on a number of key concepts and assumptions.” That he admits that they are assumptions helps to illustrate your point about the irrationality of his own beliefs.

    Comment by Kurt — March 23, 2013 @ 2:52 pm - March 23, 2013

  4. One very basic “assumption” about adult education that such professors seem to be missing is that adult education is voluntary. Voluntary!

    Since they make this course “mandatory” they are going against the very principles of adult education (as stated by such propounders as Dewey and Friere). And he is surprised that some (or is it really most?) students don’t “buy” his viewpoint of the world?

    I think he should have learned about the various theories of education first before he tried to teach education.

    Comment by Charles — March 23, 2013 @ 4:58 pm - March 23, 2013

  5. Christians who interpret the Bible differently on the issue of “homosexuality” are getting no favors from secular left-wing bigots. Who only give those upon whom they turn their righteous indignation a credible prop to hide behind.

    I believe that those who mistreat gays will go to Hell if they don’t repent of it. When do those in my church get to start writing the laws?

    Oh, wait. Not only does the Religious Right want to ignore us, but so, too, does the secular Left.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 23, 2013 @ 5:23 pm - March 23, 2013

  6. Would Blumenfeld have a job were his course voluntary?

    Comment by Ignatius — March 23, 2013 @ 9:45 pm - March 23, 2013

  7. While I find this particularly troubling when I perceive it in any person, in a pre-service and then in-service teacher whose job it is to impart a life-long love of learning, the consequences can be disastrous.

    Translation: My course material is deeply important and I am deeply important. I cannot be replaced or substituted because the alternative would be disastrous.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 23, 2013 @ 10:04 pm - March 23, 2013

  8. It becomes more and more evident over time how genuinely uncomfortable even nice and sincere leftists are with contrary views. I find a little of that attitude on minority fringes of the religious right, but it is mainstream on the left. I find many many more conservatives who are at ease living with “I agree with you on A and B, I completely disagree on C.” With a few exceptions, it’s not really a big deal to them to assume that a perfectly rational, good person could think differently than they do.

    The left exudes at best a palpable uneasiness with, at worst rank hostility towards any opposing view. By and large, they are extremely uncomfortable with opposing views even existing. It needles at them. They don’t like it.

    I find the “going to hell” views of those two students stupidly wrong. But you’ll note that they were cheerily complimentary of the professor, and understood and accepted that he thought very differently from them. No biggie to them – they weren’t giving up what they thought, but he’s free to think whatever he wants.

    The professor, OTOH, seems bothered by the very existence of views like those of the two students. He is pondering how views like that might be eradicated. Those thoughts should not be. The students, for all their ridiculous talk of hell, don’t seem too concerned with eradicating his views from being heard. They seem content to have the disagreement out in the open, with no one made to STFU.

    Comment by FormerDeminTX — March 23, 2013 @ 11:09 pm - March 23, 2013

  9. All excellent points, FormerDeminTX. My experience has been similar to yours. Even the most judgmental Christian conservatives I’ve met usually make a point of saying that they “love the sinner but hate the sin.” People on the left, though, frequently say things like “I can’t tolerate people like that.”

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 12:44 am - March 24, 2013

  10. Jonah Goldberg
    Just because things can be put on the same list doesn’t mean they are necessarily similar. My attic contains within it thousands of comic books, an inflatable bed, some jigsaw puzzles, some family pictures and a “Frampton Comes Alive!” album. These things are, roughly speaking, in the same location, but they’re hardly of equal value, importance or function.

    I bring this up for the simple reason that we’re hearing a lot about how the GOP must deal with “abortion and gay marriage” as if they are almost the same issue.

    In fact, for a long time the shorthand for social issues was “God, guns and gays.” And a lot of analysts thought they would move all together. It turns out that various social issues stand or fall on their own.. . .Jonah Goldberg

    Comment by rusty — March 24, 2013 @ 5:06 am - March 24, 2013

  11. http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2013/03/conservatives_divided_on_gay_marriage

    Comment by rusty — March 24, 2013 @ 5:10 am - March 24, 2013

  12. Kind of silly of the professor. No matter what you say or do, someone, somewhere in this world believes that you are going to burn forever in the afterlife. It could be because you believe in the “wrong” god (or none at all), hold to the “wrong” religious text, interpret a religious text “incorrectly”, etc. We could paralyze ourselves and never get anywhere in life if we let that bother us.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — March 24, 2013 @ 8:43 am - March 24, 2013

  13. All excellent points, FormerDeminTX. My experience has been similar to yours. Even the most judgmental Christian conservatives I’ve met usually make a point of saying that they “love the sinner but hate the sin.” People on the left, though, frequently say things like “I can’t tolerate people like that.”

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 12:44 am – March 24, 2013

    In my experience they are merely two sides of the same coin, with both being just as self-righteous as the other. One is like this in the name of God while the other in the name of “diversity”, or other such nonsense.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — March 24, 2013 @ 8:46 am - March 24, 2013

  14. [...] Gay Patriot covers misadventures in multiculturalism [...]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — March 24, 2013 @ 9:29 am - March 24, 2013

  15. I never took a course like this in college; the closest I came to it was Sociology 101. The multiculturalism courses were not required at my college, although we did have a few.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — March 24, 2013 @ 9:37 am - March 24, 2013

  16. I’m glad at least two students refused to be indoctrinated, although I would not have been so bold to put it on a test. The Leftist professor refuses to see his own biases within the course he’s designed.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — March 24, 2013 @ 9:40 am - March 24, 2013

  17. There is a third type of student: One who hunkers down, keeps his/her mouth shut, does the required coursework, and moves on. It’s hell to know that silence is interpreted as tacit agreement and this is the power a professor and his student sycophants enjoy, particularly involving a required course. His audience is literally captive; based upon my college experiences, those who silently endure are likely a large percentage of his audience.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2013 @ 11:01 am - March 24, 2013

  18. The Onion doesn’t even need to come up with original material. They can just link to posts such as these. #OMG

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 24, 2013 @ 11:22 am - March 24, 2013

  19. JohnAGJ wrote: In my experience they are merely two sides of the same coin, with both being just as self-righteous as the other. One is like this in the name of God while the other in the name of “diversity”, or other such nonsense.

    You may be right about that. Now that I think about it some more, I had completely forgotten about the whole itinerant preacher phenomenon one encounters from time to time on campuses–the Brother Jed type. Those sorts are just as insufferable as any self-righteous campus lefty. I wasn’t coming away with an impression that these particular students were quite that extreme in their attitudes or behavior, though. In any case, even if they were, the whole thing could amount to an exercise in mutual name-calling by both sets of extremists.

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 11:50 am - March 24, 2013

  20. Ignatius wrote: There is a third type of student: One who hunkers down, keeps his/her mouth shut, does the required coursework, and moves on. It’s hell to know that silence is interpreted as tacit agreement and this is the power a professor and his student sycophants enjoy, particularly involving a required course. His audience is literally captive; based upon my college experiences, those who silently endure are likely a large percentage of his audience.

    That is definitely true. There are lots and lots of those kinds of students in these courses. And then there are also those who play along and enthusiastically parrot what they think the professor wants to hear to get a good grade.

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 11:52 am - March 24, 2013

  21. So, if you’re a Christian, and you condemn people to hell for doing and saying the wrong things according to a list of rules in a book, that’s OK and you shouldn’t be criticized for it.

    If you’re a professor, and you give someone a failing grade for doing and saying the wrong things based on a rubric laid out in a course curriculum…. OMG! How DARE YOU discriminate against Christians!!!!

    Love the double standard. You guys wallow in the same victimology that you so condemn liberals for doing.

    PS. I had to take one of those stupid “multicultural” courses in college – Chicano studies. I got a B or C I think. Yes I thought most of the material was rubbish, and disagreed when I safely could. But I also knew what was expected to pass the class, and not passing was not an option if I wanted to get out of college with a degree, So I did what was necessary There was a lot I wanted to say and argue in the class, but there are times when it’s best to get along to go along. I certainly didn’t tell the Latina instructor to go back to her own country or anything. There is no reason to write what those girls did, except to be defiant and rude. The two girl who the professor is writing about are immature little Christian cunts.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 1:16 pm - March 24, 2013

  22. I’m amused, Sonic.

    PS. I had to take one of those stupid “multicultural” courses in college – Chicano studies. I got a B or C I think. Yes I thought most of the material was rubbish, and disagreed when I safely could. But I also knew what was expected to pass the class, and not passing was not an option if I wanted to get out of college with a degree, So I did what was necessary There was a lot I wanted to say and argue in the class, but there are times when it’s best to get along to go along.

    Notice how you don’t question why you were required to take a course where the material was “rubbish”. Notice how you don’t question why you were put in a situation where you knew that speaking your mind would actually result in you being punished. Notice how you don’t question why an academic institution would require students to pay for a class that doesn’t cover relevant material, with the price of disobedience being no diploma.

    Oh no. You just call students who DO question it and ARE willing to speak out “cunts”.

    Sour grapes. You rationalize why other people are bad for speaking out when you didn’t.

    And serendipitously, because you hate Christians and want them to shut up if they disagree with you, you use this as an excuse to attack Christians — and on top of it, use an epithet that you and your fellow Obama liberals would scream meant someone else was a misogynist if they used.

    Love the double standard. You guys wallow in the same victimology that you so condemn liberals for doing.

    And yet, Sonic, you supported and endorsed the “victimology” when you were in Chicano studies class, and insisted that it was rude and immature to question it.

    What you’re stating is that victimology is something you say nothing about when pushed by liberals who are imaginary victims, and something you use as an epithet when conservatives and Christians actually ARE abused based on their religious beliefs.

    What this all boils down to is very simple: Christians have no right to ever complain or state their mind about anything in your world because you don’t like what they have to say.

    You are a bigot, Sonic. Deal with it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2013 @ 2:25 pm - March 24, 2013

  23. Sonicfrog–I think you’re right that the girls wrote those things to be defiant, but that’s also the point of my post. The course was a required course for their program, and if you read the article, it’s evident that those weren’t the only students who felt like the course was designed to attack their beliefs. The course sounds like an exercise in very politically-charged “consciousness-raising” which was intended to inculcate the students in a left-wing worldview. The post made clear that I didn’t agree with the students, but where the professor is chagrined and dismayed by their defiance, I see it as a positive sign that even in a required course of that sort, students such as those are actively resisting the attempt at indoctrination.

    Was the students’ strategy for responding a good, mature, or effective one? No, it was not, but that also demonstrates the nature of the course and the students who take the course: the students required to take such a course don’t necessarily have the intellectual sophistication to know how to respond to the material appropriately, and that’s part of what makes that kind of course so insidious. It sounds like it was designed to be part sociology, part anthropology, part philosophy, and part history. It would be rare to find students enrolled in the course with enough of a mastery of any of those fields to know how to respond appropriately to those elements of the course, and it seems to me that the course was designed that way to minimize or discourage dissent.

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 2:50 pm - March 24, 2013

  24. I’ve got a question that won’t be answered, but I’ll ask it anyway. A non-answer would certainly speak volumes in itself.

    Which Christians are we talking about here? Are those who read this blog truly unaware that not every Christian agrees with every other on matters such as biblical interpretation?

    I realize those who want to jerk our strings aren’t telling us to think about this, but really.

    To speak of “Christians” in a simplistic and all-encompassing manner — as if it may be mindlessly assumed we all have the same beliefs about every cultural, political or moral issue — is either woefully ignorant or a flat-out lie.

    That sort of fast-and-looseness with the truth may make it on blogs that are vehemently anti-gay, but come on now. Everybody who reads this blog on a regular basis ought to know better than that.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 24, 2013 @ 4:07 pm - March 24, 2013

  25. V… Thanks for the thoughtful, non-hysterical non-NDT-ish reply.

    The course was a required course for their program, and if you read the article, it’s evident that those weren’t the only students who felt like the course was designed to attack their beliefs.

    Really? The course was designed to attack their beliefs???? As if someone sat down and said “I know! We’ll design this course to attach the beliefs of students who are fundamentalists! We are going to attack them!”.

    I’m sorry, but that sounds a little on the paranoid side. OK. Some of the students may have conflicts with their religious teachings…. So? The topic might be anathema to some strong held beliefs students have… But oh well. That is a part of life. If this is an obstacle put in the way, then ride it out. Telling the instructor he is going to hell is not going to accomplish anything except guaranteeing the failure of you to achieve your goal.

    “I thought this was supposed to be a multicultural class! You and the geology student have disrespected my culture,” she declared accusingly. “My culture teaches me that God created the universe approximately 6,000 – 7,000 years ago. So, I ask you, how could Indians have lived here for thousands and thousands of years before God created the universe? Also, since Christians are called to bring God’s message to all the nations of the world and to spread the word of Jesus Christ, I take offense with the claim that Europeans forcibly converted anyone!””

    “My culture teaches me…” Fine. This person does not have to believe what this professor is saying.

    “I take offense …” Hand waiving! I’m a victim! Some of the very people who claim to base their lives on logic and not emotion are often the first to proclaim victimhood when the chance arises.

    The class in question is required in order for the student to graduate with some sort of degree in education or teaching credential. Here is California, some of the stuff they require you study in order to get your teaching credential here in California is, quite frankly, just about useless here in California. But you either learn it, and prove that you understand it, or you don’t get your credential and you don’t become a teacher. If you think some of it is quite frankly BS, oh well. If I had control over the things required to get a credential, much of which i consider a waste of time and educational investment, i would. But I don’t have that power, and i wanted my credential. So I rolled with it and succeeded in achieving my goal of getting my credential… Credentials. I have two.

    I very much speak from experience when I say the following. If these students want to be teachers, they are going to have to be able to handle having their beliefs challenged ever single day in the classroom. These students obviously can’t handle it and quite frankly, if this is the way they respond to having their beliefs, their “culture” as they say in their own words, “challenged”, then they have no place trying to teach, unless it is strictly in a faith based environment where their beliefs are beyond question and their faith is beyond reproach.

    PS. NDT. You do realize I wrote my first comment as bait, tailored just for you. Glad to see you’re as predictable and lame as always.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 5:08 pm - March 24, 2013

  26. When you read about mandatory left-wing indoctrination courses like this, you can’t help but feel happy that the Higher Ed. bubble is about to collapse.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2013 @ 5:18 pm - March 24, 2013

  27. Also, isn’t it kind of arrogant and intolerant for the left to insist on mandatory indoctrination classes that promote their way of thinking? What right does the social left have to proclaim that they are right about everything and everyone must be indoctrinated into their beliefs?

    I bet these loons would all get A+ in that class: http://youtu.be/C5mku6s7vOI

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2013 @ 5:27 pm - March 24, 2013

  28. Lori Heine–I’m not sure to whom your most recent question is addressed, but if you read my post and subsequent comments, it should be clear that I don’t consider socially conservative Christians of the sort represented by the students in the article to be representative of all Christians.

    At the same time, it’s not clear that the materials that the students had to read in the class made such a distinction, either, and that’s part of my objection to the class. The professor describes readings that had to do with Columbus and the poor treatment of native Americans at the hands of colonists. What most students wouldn’t know is that this is a selective vision of history, since the settlers and colonists were in no way uniform in their views about or treatment of the native peoples.

    As described in the article, the readings for the class made it seem that terrible treatment of the natives by the Spaniards was representative of the way the “Europeans” in general treated them. What most students wouldn’t know is that one rationale some of the English used for colonizing the Americas was that they were horrified by the reports of the things that the Spaniards were doing. Likewise, most students wouldn’t know about the different attitudes towards the natives among different types of settlers–and different religious sects.

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 5:28 pm - March 24, 2013

  29. When you read about mandatory left-wing indoctrination courses like this, you can’t help but feel happy that the Higher Ed. bubble is about to collapse

    College has always been pretty much left-wing. If the higher ed. bubble is going to collapse, it’s not because of left-wingedness. It’s because the school system from primary up to high school is trying to push every single kid to go to college. Yes, it’s a good thing to strive for. but way too many kids who are not scholar material are being pushed into a college environment for which they are either not ready, or, for what-ever reason, simply don’t belong. Some kids are not ready because they were lazy in high school. Some kids because, unfortunately, they did receive the best education from their school system, and others, maybe the majority, just don’t have the propensity to be the caliber of student that college requires. But because the system is pushing every kid to go to college, the colleges are having to cope with lower and lower achieving student bodies.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 5:55 pm - March 24, 2013

  30. What most students wouldn’t know is that one rationale some of the English used for colonizing the Americas was that they were horrified by the reports of the things that the Spaniards were doing.

    That was not common. Even Jefferson, who had an affinity for the native peoples, didn’t push to stop the newly minted US citizens from acquiring the land that belonged to the Indians.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 6:01 pm - March 24, 2013

  31. This is another example of if the left likes something, they seek to make it mandatory and force it on others. Some lefties have a fetish for talking to kids about sex; so, mandatory sex ed. Some lefties have a fetish for talking about their victimhood; so, mandatory Multicultural Indoctrination.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - March 24, 2013

  32. Blumfield: While I genuinely respect individuals’ religious understandings, during my service at Iowa State University I have been saddened and deeply concerned that some of my students have used their religious teachings as defensive shields against inquiry, creating an aura of anti-intellectualism “protecting” them from information that may contradict or challenge their beliefs.

    Defensive shields against inquiry? Really? I believe the left is far better at policing impolite opinion… Lawrence Summers, James Watson, anyone questioning AGW (or climate change, extreme weather – whatever the name is) – anyone who dares to question anything to do with race/sexual orientation/environment/gender differences… regardless of the science.

    Comment by KCRob — March 24, 2013 @ 7:02 pm - March 24, 2013

  33. #28 — Your observation is astute. Neither the statist Left nor the statist Right regard it as useful or convenient to acknowledge that there are Christians of more than one kind.

    That all Christians are social cons is a lie that benefits each side in their struggle for government power and tax-funded goodies.

    I was, for a short while, a member of a UCC (United Church of Christ) congregation. I left in utter disgust because they were basically nothing more than a reverse mirror-image of the conservative Christians they prided themselves as out-Christian-ing. I told them I wouldn’t tolerate ignorance, dishonesty and intellectual laziness on the Right, so I had no reason to put up with it on the Left, either.

    It doesn’t benefit gays to let it continue unchallenged. And as they tend (more often than politically-liberal gays) to be traditionally religious, it royally screws gay conservatives.

    Your post is not guilty of such rhetoric, but commenters frequently parrot it. It’s mindless, and — on a gay conservative blog — makes about as much sense as a circular firing squad.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 24, 2013 @ 7:42 pm - March 24, 2013

  34. KCRob, and don’t forget how the open-minded liberal elite at Harvard treated Lawrence Summers when he suggested that, maybe, they could discuss if, perhaps, women just weren’t as into math as men are.

    Fascinating story in Philadelphia if you caught it lately. A local mag/website published a story about how White People are afraid to speak honestly about race for fear of being attacked as racists. The author and his editor were both publicly attacked by the mayor for publishing such a “racist” story, and forced to attend a public meeting where 200 people screamed about how racist they were.

    I did not make that up.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2013 @ 7:43 pm - March 24, 2013

  35. KCRob…. Those are good examples. My little brother calls me a climate denier and anti-science because I don’t buy the alarmist bits of AGW that the IPCC and Real Climate is selling, even though i have much more scientific training than he does. There is no monopoly of trying to silence critics on either side of the political fence. It happens on both sides. In this case, though, the professor is correct. Shoe is firmly on the one foot.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 7:46 pm - March 24, 2013

  36. My little brother calls me… (yadda yadda)

    So, that streak of blithe foolishness – backed by name-calling at times (e.g., #21, 25) – runs in your family?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2013 @ 8:48 pm - March 24, 2013

  37. I very much speak from experience when I say the following. If these students want to be teachers, they are going to have to be able to handle having their beliefs challenged ever single day in the classroom.

    No, they won’t.

    Because, as we see, the educational system to which you belong and which you endorse and support openly states that teachers are not to be challenged and that those who do so should be flunked.

    Yes I thought most of the material was rubbish, and disagreed when I safely could. But I also knew what was expected to pass the class, and not passing was not an option if I wanted to get out of college with a degree, So I did what was necessary There was a lot I wanted to say and argue in the class, but there are times when it’s best to get along to go along.

    And they can simply do as you do, Sonic, and call anyone with whom you disagree a “cunt”.

    This rationalization became even more hilarious:

    These students obviously can’t handle it and quite frankly, if this is the way they respond to having their beliefs, their “culture” as they say in their own words, “challenged”, then they have no place trying to teach, unless it is strictly in a faith based environment where their beliefs are beyond question and their faith is beyond reproach.

    Like the public university you attended and the public classroom in which you teach, in which you endorse and support flunking students who don’t repeat what their teacher states and you call Christian students who object “cunts”.

    Again, Sonic, what these girls did is not the problem to you. It’s the fact that Christians dared to talk back and speak up rather than to take abuse from bigots with whom you agree.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2013 @ 9:05 pm - March 24, 2013

  38. Sonicfrog wrote: Really? The course was designed to attack their beliefs???? As if someone sat down and said “I know! We’ll design this course to attach the beliefs of students who are fundamentalists! We are going to attack them!”.

    I’m sorry, but that sounds a little on the paranoid side.

    You’re free to call me paranoid if you wish, but perhaps you haven’t spent as much of your life around leftist academics as I have. I’m talking about the sort of folks who spend years in graduate school reading Gramsci, Marcuse, and the Frankfurt School, and who see “required courses” as opportunities to undermine and critique the views of any students who come from conservative or otherwise traditional backgrounds. If you think I’m simply imagining such things, think again.

    Writing in the National Review in 2005, Victor Davis Hanson observed:

    Two factors explain the current growing hysteria over Iraq, and they transcend the complex nature of the war and even the depressing media reports from the battlefield. First is the strange doctrine of multiculturalism that has become one of our most dominant boutique ideologies of the last few decades, as the United States experienced unleveled prosperity, leisure — and guilt.

    All cultures are of equal merit; failure and poverty abroad are never due to indigenous pathology but rather Western colonialism, racism, Christianity, and gender bias. The Other is never to be judged by our own “biased” standards of jurisprudence and “constructed” bourgeois notions of humanity; those poorer, darker, non-Christian, and non-English-speaking are to be collectively grouped as victims, deserving condescension, moral latitude, and some sort of reparations or downright cash grants. [Hat Tip: Dr. Sanity]

    Courses in multiculturalism, in particular, are usually set up to focus on the evils of Western Culture, and of America and Christianity in particular.

    It may seem that the “Ten Commandments of Multiculturalism” posted here are somewhat facetious, but spend much time studying the actions, statements and beliefs of most academic leftists, and you will quickly recognize most of them:

    1. America is uniquely evil.
    2. America is never justified in defending itself.
    3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
    4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
    5. Making a profit is always immoral.
    6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
    7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
    8. Policies informed by Judæo-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
    9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
    10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.

    Comment by Kurt — March 24, 2013 @ 9:12 pm - March 24, 2013

  39. I remember past encounters that I’ve had with sf, where he defended left-wing propaganda, losing concern for facts as he passed under the spell of his own vanity. (Example: an encounter where he claimed that America “tortures”, despite the fact that the law contradicted his interpretation.)

    So, if sf is out here now calling particular women the C-word – after they were brave enough to speak up in a situation where he (by his own account) was not so brave – well, I’m not too surprised. OK, that’s enough from me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2013 @ 10:15 pm - March 24, 2013

  40. Again, Sonic, what these girls did is not the problem to you. It’s the fact that Christians dared to talk back and speak up rather than to take abuse from bigots with whom you agree.

    NDT… As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Kurt… On Hanson: That link does not show support for my premise, that the course was designed specifically to attack their beliefs. And yes, in my experience as both a student and a ember of the teaching ranks, I have known more than a few educators who are in private at least hostile to Christian views. They keep this to themselves. If it seeps into the class environment, they get into trouble.

    PS. NDT, as a teacher, I have no problem if a student disagrees with a point. If a student does not believe at all in AGW, fine. But if I’m teaching the course, and the student need to know why many in the scientific community think it’s true, the student needs to be able to demonstrate why they do. Now, if in the end, the student is still not convince, but knows the basics of the subject, they will pass with no problem. If they simply say, AGW is a fraud, and I’m stupid for even teaching it, they probably won’t pass the class. The Christian students have the choice to do the same. Learning things that are opposite to your beliefs does not mean you are required to change your beliefs. If the students in question would have just stated they disagreed… Fine. But pulling the whole “You’ve offended my culture” think is dumb. And saying the teacher is going to Hell…. That’s the action of a student that is being a….

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 10:32 pm - March 24, 2013

  41. NDT… Do you not even realize I included the “cunt” because i knew it would twist your knobs? Sometimes, it’s just too easy.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 10:44 pm - March 24, 2013

  42. I included the “c-nt” because i knew it would twist your knobs

    SF, once you reach the point when you are just spewing out insults to get a rise out of people, you’ve officially become a troll.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2013 @ 11:20 pm - March 24, 2013

  43. NDT’s been trolling for years, never seemed to bother you before.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 24, 2013 @ 11:36 pm - March 24, 2013

  44. Wrong again. I have never, ever seen NDT call women “c*nts” who, in fact, have been braver than him.

    Also, V has made clear on several occasions when he’s not on board with NDT. As have I, Dan, Bruce, Nick and John/AGJ at different times.

    Finally, even if those things were otherwise: tu quoque (or “You guys are bad, too! Two wrongs make a right!”) is a distractionary tool of the troll, not a real point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2013 @ 11:40 pm - March 24, 2013

  45. tu quoque (or “You guys are bad, too! Two wrongs make a right!”) is a distractionary tool of the troll, not a real point.

    True.

    As for NDT, he doesn’t just call Obama supporters child-abusers/enablers to get a rise out of them; he really sees them that way. His style of argument is harsh, but I see no evidence that it is insincere. That’s what separates him from the trolls.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 12:14 am - March 25, 2013

  46. Final thought. What kind of person calls accomplished women the C-word in public discussion, then climbs down with the lame excuse, “Haha I was only trying to get a rise out of person X”?

    Thought experiment: What if I were to bitterly call some black college graduates the N-word here, then say “Haha, I was only trying to get a rise out of sonicfrog”? How would that sit with y’all? What would it make me? (Hint: Nothing good.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 12:15 am - March 25, 2013

  47. Oh wait, sorry, V already gave an answer. (“Troll”… though other words could come to mind.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 12:32 am - March 25, 2013

  48. Thought experiment: What if I were to bitterly call some black college graduates the N-word here, then say “Haha, I was only trying to get a rise out of sonicfrog”? How would that sit with y’all? What would it make me? (Hint: Nothing good.)

    As for NDT, he doesn’t just call Obama supporters child-abusers/enablers to get a rise out of them; he really sees them that way. His style of argument is harsh, but I see no evidence that it is insincere.

    Wait… What? It’s been stated over and over again that NDT behaves how he does, throwing around ad-homs and acting like a jerk simply because he’s trying to get a rise out of libs by acting like them. Which is it, is he putting on a persona, or does he really believe????

    You guys are really amazing. you’ll justify anything as long it come from someone backing your POV. It’s why this site has unfortunately become a joke. Bruce and Dan deserve better. Or maybe not, since they but up with this nonsense.

    I can’t wait to see what happens if Bruce decides to run, and people start scrutinizing th4e contents of this blog. I do hope Bruce is prepared to discuss why he’s allowed his commentors to keep posting some of the stuff that gets through. If he wants to delete my comment, I have no problem with that. If someone finds my comment, I’ll be dismissed as a troll by the right. I’ve been called much worse. But people are going to dig into this site. And it’s going to come back and bite him in a big way.

    What kind of person calls accomplished women the C-word in public discussion….

    Someone being honest, which is what you defend for the Christian young women. It’s OK to condemn people to hell, but not it comment on your disgust with the callousness of that action. They went way way over the line. I went over the line too. Delete it if you chose. But do not I love the double standard.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 25, 2013 @ 1:16 am - March 25, 2013

  49. Oops… Should have read:

    It’s OK to condemn people to hell, but not if you comment on your disgust with the callousness of that action.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 25, 2013 @ 1:24 am - March 25, 2013

  50. Oh… And spare me the false indignation. Does the name Sandra Fluke and the term “slut” ring a bell? It might be fun to backtrack and see if those who are hand-wringing about my use of the “C” word cheered Rush on for that and have continued to refer to her in the same fashion.

    Ah…. If only I had the time.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 25, 2013 @ 1:54 am - March 25, 2013

  51. What kind of person calls accomplished women the C-word in public discussion….

    [sf] Someone being honest

    Nope. Wrong… again!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 1:57 am - March 25, 2013

  52. spare me the false indignation

    “Indignation” is defined as anger/annoyance. No indignation here, false or otherwise. Just a simple NOTICING of what kind of person you are, sf.

    Of which you have just provided more evidence, by trying to bring up:

    “slut”

    First, once more it’s just you hand-waving. As I’ve already pointed out, “tu quoque (or ‘You guys are bad, too! Two wrongs make a right!’) is a distractionary tool of the troll, not a real point.”

    But let’s allow it, because you also happen to be wrong on the matter (the false equivalence between the words). “Slut” is a term referring to a person’s (in SLANG usage, it does not even always have to be a woman’s) character or behavior. As such, it might even be accurate sometimes. Whereas “c*nt” is a term whose meaning (when applying it to a person, especially a woman) is to strip her of all humanity, by reducing her to nothing but a body part, thus denying that she is even capable of having character or meaningful behavior.

    To illustrate: Some people talk about “slut pride”, or write books with titles like “The Ethical Slut”. But nobody one talks about “c*nt pride” or writes books like “The Ethical C*nt”. Again, the word “c*nt” (as applied to a person) denies the very possibility of ethics, as it denies all of that person’s humanity beyond the indicated body part.

    Unbelievable, that you would need to have it explained what’s bad about calling a woman “c*nt”… but there it is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 2:30 am - March 25, 2013

  53. And it’s going to come back and bite him in a big way.

    No, sf. Because Bruce didn’t do anything here. You did. Bruce probably doesn’t even know what you’ve done. It’s going to come back and bite YOU, if YOU ever (say) run for office. And I have no intention of covering it up for you (by deleting your comment). But you might spare us your fake concern for Bruce.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 2:58 am - March 25, 2013

  54. Man, I was sure Levi’d be on this thread like stink on a monkey.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 25, 2013 @ 6:49 am - March 25, 2013

  55. “Slut” is a great example. The same feminists who complained about Rush Limbaugh are the ones who support “Slut Walks” as being empowering.

    The left are masters at faux outrage. Not to mention, what do you call a woman who spends $1,000 a year on birth control that normally costs $9 a month?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 7:27 am - March 25, 2013

  56. MSM,

    Apparently Levi’s lies, cowardice, and bile finally got him banned.

    As to my college expereince *sigh* 20 years ago…

    I stayed at the branch as long as possible because the main campus was so infected with left wing hysteria. the three Main Campus teachers who came to teach at the branch gave me this experience…

    a) A Plant Biology teacher who went into a rant about how great India was because they used less power than the US, despite having a bigger population. He got mad when I pointed out that by his numbers, if you looked at the power consumed vs polution ratio, the US was more environmentally friendly than India.

    b) A Chinese history teacher, from China, who kept telling us how Communism was the best thing that happened to China, and side stepping the millions of deaths when brought up.

    c) A sociology professor teaching about ‘family structures’ who regailed us with stories of prison inmates as examples of families, and Juvie advocates who told us that serial rapists are just ‘misunderstood’ and need a hug.

    I walked out of that class and went to the ombudsman. She wasn’t invited back.

    So indoctrination goes wayyyy back.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 25, 2013 @ 8:32 am - March 25, 2013

  57. Well, sf was here, to act Levi’s part.

    Yet another aspect has been sf’s convenient muddying of the waters. He claims the women “went way way over the line” by “condemn[ing] people to hell”. Yeah… except, they didn’t. They *warned* that they saw Hell coming for certain people. There is a difference. Telling someone “I see you rolling straight to a train wreck”, even if incorrectly, is NOT condemning them to it (not personally wishing or commanding the train wreck upon them). Bottom line: sf could stand to work on his reading comprehension, along with the rest.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 10:49 am - March 25, 2013

  58. I believe there is a misconception when it comes to God and Hell. I don’t believe Hell is a place God casts people into; I believe it is a place he is trying to save us from.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 11:21 am - March 25, 2013

  59. I believe it’s a place that people enter or leave, by changing their own thinking and actions. As the saying goes, “We are not condemned for our sins, but by them.” And even with that, you can escape by cleaning up your act, beginning (but not ending!) with your intentions/heart. Thus, you enter or leave Hell virtually at will[1]. God just wonders what you’re going to do next, and hopes/helps you do the right thing.

    But, I digress :-)

    ([1] Again: ‘will’ as made effective by real action. We do not leave Hell, or for that matter enter it, by idly wishing.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 11:31 am - March 25, 2013

  60. You guys are really amazing. you’ll justify anything as long it come from someone backing your POV. It’s why this site has unfortunately become a joke. Bruce and Dan deserve better. Or maybe not, since they but up with this nonsense.

    Nothing like watching a “libertarian” blame other people for his behavior.

    I can’t wait to see what happens if Bruce decides to run, and people start scrutinizing th4e contents of this blog. I do hope Bruce is prepared to discuss why he’s allowed his commentors to keep posting some of the stuff that gets through. If he wants to delete my comment, I have no problem with that. If someone finds my comment, I’ll be dismissed as a troll by the right. I’ve been called much worse. But people are going to dig into this site. And it’s going to come back and bite him in a big way.

    Well, duh.

    After all, Sonic, you and your fellow Obama supporters spent the past twelve months screaming that Romney was a murderer, that Romney was a tax cheat, Romney was cruel to animals, Romney was going to ban tampons, Romney was going to put gays in concentration camps, on and on and on ad infinitum.

    Do you think conservatives haven’t figured this out by now? You and your fellow Obama supporters want power, and you don’t care how many lies, smears, character assassinations, and outlandish attacks you have to make to get it. There is literally nothing, NOTHING, that you and your fellow Obama bigots will not do to destroy anyone who attacks you.

    But there’s very little conservatives can do about it. You are not going to debate the issues, because you will lose. You are not going to act rationally, because that destroys your argument. You are not going to behave in an ethical fashion because that might mean your opponent will win. Instead you will lie, smear, obfuscate, attack, and do everything in your power to destroy Bruce and his family personally.

    Nothing you say is truthful, Sonic. Nothing. You have demonstrated that you are an unethical bigot, a liar who will say and do anything to force conservatives and Christians to shut up and give you what you want. You have demonstrated nothing but contempt for the values you demand we follow and have made it clear that you see others’ restraint in action as a sign of weakness.

    In short, you are like Hamas putting missile launchers in hospitals and schools. And like Hamas, you scream and cry and rationalize your disgusting behavior in the hopes that conservatives will be stupid enough to allow you to kill us.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2013 @ 11:42 am - March 25, 2013

  61. That’s a good distinction you make between “warning” and “condemning” in #57, Jeff. I thought the same thing when I read SF’s comment, but didn’t get around to writing a response.

    Comment by Kurt — March 25, 2013 @ 12:03 pm - March 25, 2013

  62. “Slut” is a term referring to a person’s (in SLANG usage, it does not even always have to be a woman’s) character or behavior.

    Wait…. What?

    OK.. If it’s parsing meaning that you want, you got it!

    Cunt: Cunt (pron.: /ˈkʌnt/) is a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be vulgar.[1] The earliest citation of this usage in the 1972 Oxford English Dictionary, c 1230, refers to the London street known as Gropecunt Lane. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that “it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock.”[2]

    Cunt is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex. This usage is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century.[3] Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as “an unpleasant or stupid person” in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

    I find those women to be very unpleasant.

    Yet another aspect has been sf’s convenient muddying of the waters. He claims the women “went way way over the line” by “condemn[ing] people to hell”. Yeah… except, they didn’t. They *warned* that they saw Hell coming for certain people. There is a difference.

    Hair-split much? And i guess you missed the antisemitism contained in the comments of one of those “accomplished” women:

    This student not only reiterated that I will travel to Hell if I continued to act on my same-sex desires, but she went further in amplifying the first student’s proclamations by self-righteously insisting that I will not receive an invitation to enter Heaven if I do not accept Jesus as my personal savior since I am a Jew, regardless of my sexual behavior.

    Bueler…. Bueler…. Bueler…

    No, sf. Because Bruce didn’t do anything here. You did. Bruce probably doesn’t even know what you’ve done. It’s going to come back and bite YOU, if YOU ever (say) run for office. And I have no intention of covering it up for you (by deleting your comment).

    Please put you politics hat on and follow me. My comment will probably not hurt Bruce even if it were found by someone digging for dirt. This isn’t his thread. And since my politics and his don’t often line up, I would not be considered an ally, brother in arms as it were.

    I can pretty much say with some certainly that there are only a handful of comments authored by me that cross a line of decency (I’m sure there are a few more that can be questioned, and score-keeper NDT will be trying to find them as soon as I post this). Are there other comments that are as terse and politically unfriendly or worse, authored by other commentors over the last nine years Bruce has been running this blog????

    Yep.

    The problem Bruce might have is when those comments agree with a position he’s taken, but he didn’t take the time to warn the commentor that that behavior was not accepted here. And those comments are in the public domain, for all the world to find and exploit. Now I know that those are not Bruce’s words, and that is normally a sturdy defense. But this is politics, and unfortunately, the rule in politics are that there are no rules.

    Politics. Love the game… Hate the stench.

    But you might spare us your fake concern for Bruce.

    Screw you Jeff. You have no idea how I think of Bruce. In the seven plus years I’ve been a regular at GP, I think me and Bruce have only locked horns once. But even when we disagreed, he was never rude or condescending. Our politics converged more back then than they do now. I consider him a friend. It’s incredibly arrogant on your part to think you know anything about who I consider to be friends, and presume that I’m not concerned about potential fallout created by some of the comments that have appeared on Gay Patriot. You are a fool to think it and it shows incredibly poor judgement on your part.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 25, 2013 @ 12:30 pm - March 25, 2013

  63. sf: Actions talk… Bullsh*t walks.

    If your concern for Bruce were authentic, *then you would never have posted your ‘c*nt’ remark in the first place*, on his blog. You’ve admitted, in effect, that you were trolling. If you were authentically concerned for Bruce, you would not use his blog as a playground for your trolling.

    Or/and, you would have a better apology for all that, now. But, we see the case is otherwise. So yes, sf: Your concern for Bruce is, by your behavior, fake.

    Screw you Jeff.

    And so we see your true spirit, sf. I mean, we already did, but thank you for showing it that much more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 12:35 pm - March 25, 2013

  64. spam filter

    After all, Sonic, you and your fellow Obama supporters spent the past twelve months screaming that Romney was a murderer, that Romney was a tax cheat, Romney was cruel to animals, Romney was going to ban tampons, Romney was going to put gays in concentration camps, on and on and on ad infinitum.

    Yawn. Boring. Predictable. I wonder if you even know what your writing, or if you are just cutting and pasting form the other lame comments you’ve posted over the last year? And i would love to see you try and find quote of me saying anything like you just asserted.

    Nothing you say is truthful, Sonic. Nothing.

    I’m 5’5″.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 25, 2013 @ 12:37 pm - March 25, 2013

  65. Jeff did you not read the first part of that post, or are you just ignoring it?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 25, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - March 25, 2013

  66. NOTE TO ALL: I have decided to close this thread to further comments. Apologies to Kurt and all. It’s unfair, that you should have to suffer (be unable to comment / discuss further). However, sf clearly wishes to continue his defense of calling women “c*nts” here, which is morally like perpetrating it anew. In the interest of protecting this blog as well as women, it’s time to enforce a stop.

    sf’s voice is NOT being silenced. For one thing, he has a blog (or can start one, if he does not) where he may criticize me, NDT, or whomever he wants, to his heart’s content. For another thing, my action here is a “time out” on his defense of calling certain women ‘c*nts’; not a ban of his person or his future remarks.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 12:41 pm - March 25, 2013

  67. [...] Kurt at The Gay Patriot: [...]

    Pingback by Welcome To Indoctrination University…Where Liberals Are Always Right | Flopping Aces — March 27, 2013 @ 2:31 pm - March 27, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.