vote lemmings vote!

was just asked “if this is debunked why is there still a lawsuit pending?”
and “a birth certificate verified in 2001 is not a legitimate birth certificate…” concerning obama’s right to run for office.

people are stupid. *sigh*

one does not need to be “right” to sue.
in an age when dirty politics is the rule, rather than the exception, the 35 bucks to file a lawsuit is cheap bad publicity for the other guy. i assure you that the alphabet agencies have already verified this, as bush wants mccain in office, and those same said agencies answer to him.

personally, i think that people seem to forget that you cannot, and should not, believe anything you read on the internet, and anything can be spun into anything else.

i.e.

“jimmy carter was the secret head of the ku klux klan; bill clinton is the biological son of jimmy carter.”

is 100% true and i can prove it.

(tyler v. carter, 1993 wl 454256 (s.d.n.y.)

obama “was supported by ted kennedy, who is catholic, and the catholic church is led by a pope who was in the hitler youth, so that can mean only one thing: obama loves hitler!”

(pretzel logic for the win)

as mcain was born in panama, are we tossing him out too?

considering the track record of this country concerning voting, and the track record of diebold and their voting machine security, this really isn’t anything like a real issue, and considering the last 8 years, it’s unlikely that who we vote into office will actually end up there anyway.

*however* it’s my duty as an american to vote, and i’m going to.

thing is, i also think it’s a load of crap. this isn’t about obama and mccain to me anyway. they’ll both do a decent job, they both care about what happens to this nation of ours.

mccain is a true hero. the man has guts. (mccain’s campaign manager is up to his eyeballs in the fannie mae and freddie mac mess however, and lying to letterman was really stupid)

obama is *very* intelligent, his wife is as well, and what we need at the helm of this nation is a very very smart man with guts.

someone smarter than me.

someone smarter than joe sixpack.

someone who can speak properly.

i’ll settle for someone who isn’t going to embarrass us to the world.

doing fine so far. both candidates will do.

*however* if something happens to the president, the vice president is at the helm.

read that again.

if something happens to obama, biden can handle it.

something happens to mccain, (mcain is over 70, and has had cancer at least 4 times.) that puts palin in the hot seat.

sets this country up for a scenario i’d rather not think about, with her at the helm.

palin’s interview with katie couric was embarrassing. you should youtube it if you haven’t seen it. it’ll make you realize you would make a better vice president than she would.

facts and such to support my stance:

she actually thought a yahoo e mail account was secure (and broke the law there, as it’s not authorized for government communications)


statement: “she took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on ebay. and made a profit!” – mccain, at a campaign stop in wisconsin
truth: no one bought the jet online. it was eventually sold through an aircraft broker – at a loss to taxpayers of nearly $600,000.

statement: “i told the congress ‘thanks, but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere” – palin convention speech
truth: she supported the infamous pork project in her 2006 run for governor, even after congress had killed the bridge; derided its opponents as “spinmeisters.” reversed her stance a year later – but kept the money, doling out the $223 million in federal funds to other pork projects throughout the state.

statement: “we…championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by congress.” -palin convention speech
truth: as mayor, employed a lobbyist who also worked for jack abramoff to secure $27 million in pork spending for wasilla – more than $4,000 per resident. in her two years as governor, requested $453 million in earmarks. alaska ranks first in the nation for pork, raking in seven times the national average.

statement: “i found…someone who stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money.” -mccain, introducing palin
truth: signature accomplishment as mayor: building a $15 million hockey arena that plunged the city into debt. broke ground on the project without finalizing the city’s purchase of the land; the resulting fiasco cost wasilla $1.3 million – roughly $200 per resident.

statement: “our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of america’s energy problems – as if we didn’t know that already.” -palin, convention speech
truth: “i beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem.” – palin, july 2008

statement: “we began a nearly $40 billion natural-gas pipeline to help lead america to energy independence.” -palin, convention speech
truth: with federal approval years away, not a single section of the pipeline has been laid. state could end up paying the pipeline’s contractor $500 million – even if it never breaks ground on the project.

statement: “she’s from a small town with small-town values.” -fred thompson, convention speech
truth: wasilla and the surrounding valley recently named the meth capital of alaska, with 42 meth labs busted in a single year.

statement: palin has “taken on the political establishment in the largest state of the union.” -fred thompson, convention speech
truth: served until 2005 as director of fund raising group associated with indicted senator ted stevens.

statement: “she fought oil companies.” -mccain, introducing palin
truth: collected $13,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas lobbyists, including exxon, bp, shell and chevron. bp was a sponsor of her inaugural bill.

statement: “she’s been to kuwait. she’s been over there. she has been with her troops. the national guard that she commands, who have been over there and had the experience.” -mccain, highlighting palin’s national security credentials
truth: never had a passport before 2007, when she made a brief photo-op trip to visit troops in germany and kuwait. has never been to iraq, and until yesterday, had never met a single foreign head of state.

statement: “i have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending.” -palin, convention speech
truth: as governor, sought travel reimbursement for 312 nights she spent in her own home.

now, to me, all of that stuff is important. much more important than her underaged, unwed daughter being pregnant. but her stance on choice was made very very clear as well.

in november 2006, then gubernatorial candidate sarah palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.

granting exceptions only if the mother’s life was in danger, palin said that when it came to her daughter, “i would choose life.”

at the time, her daughter was 14 years old. moreover, alaska’s rape rate was an abysmal 2.2 times above the national average and 25 percent of all rapes resulted in unwanted pregnancies.

just not feelin she’s a good choice.

in fact, i think that the choice of her as the first female vice president of the united states is an insult to intelligent women everywhere.

do your own research. then vote. your life, and the quality of it, does depend on it.
-stone

Technology and the Government

Before anyone in government is allowed to promote a technological ‘solution’ to a problem they should be forced to share their knowledge of modern technology.

They should publicly perform the following tasks:

1. Set the time on a video and make a successful recording – using only the provided manual for reference. Focus groups suggest that, (like liberal Home Secretaries), swearing in front of the electorate cannot be associated with New Labour;

2: A timed round. In no more than 30 seconds, find an entry in the address book of a Motorola mobile phone – using only one hand, no manual and no swearing;

3. Configure a secure wireless network under Windows XP from a standing start before the machine has been hacked into oblivion. No calls to Microsoft, no techies on speed-dial (if you could find them on the Motorola that is) and absolutely no swearing;

and;

4. Transfer a piece of music from the iTunes music store on to their shiny new Windows Media Player simultaneously stating government policy on how DRM is a good thing for customers. (Obviously, despite the extreme provocation, no swearing will be permitted).

Then, AND ONLY THEN, should they be allowed to be in a position to judge whether their shiny new heap of wires and silicon comes with a side order of snake oil.

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

you have got to be kidding me…

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

“The use of the word ‘annoy’ is particularly problematic,” says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “What’s annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else.”
It’s illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here’s the relevant language.

“Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking.” It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There’s an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an “interactive computer service” to cause someone “substantial emotional harm.”

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone’s probably going to be annoyed. That’s enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won’t file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

“Who decides what’s annoying? That’s the ultimate question,” Fein said. He added: “If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?”

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material “with intent to annoy.” But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn’t have to worry.

“I’m certainly not going to close the site down,” Fein said on Friday. “I would fight it on First Amendment grounds.”

He’s right. Our esteemed politicians can’t seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he’d realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he’d repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans’ personal freedoms. Now we’ll see if the president rises to the occasion.
— end of line —

The Riots of the Faithful …

So Newsweek prints an uncorroborated allegation about American interrogators flushing Qurans down the toilet in order to get fanatical Muslim prisoners to talk, and there’s rioting and death all over the Muslim world.

There are several lessons to be learned from this incident, some trivial,
some quite important.

1. The courts have given the news media carte blanche, in the name of the First Amendment — but the media are no better than government at exercising unchecked power. When it’s known that no one can punish you, a certain kind of person stops caring whether he hurts anybody. And such people tend to rise within any organization that doesn’t work hard to have a conscience.

Personally, I think there should be legal consequences for editors and publishers and reporters so abysmally selfish and stupid that they would run with a story that they knew would provoke outrage in Muslim lands, without first making sure it was true.

I’m not talking about prior restraint, which would be unconstitutional. I’m talking about consequences after the fact.

In this case, formal libel and slander laws wouldn’t have much effect, because who has standing to sue? (Though we need to restore a reasonable standard of libel and slander, even for public figures; being famous shouldn’t mean that other people have no obligation to tell the truth about you.)

I’m talking about informal consequence, like Newsweek‘s correspondents being frozen out of news stories. Being banned from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department for at least a year. But if any administration did such a thing, all of the media would unite to crucify them.

So all that’s left would be a clean personnel sweep of everyone involved in publishing a false story that leads to needless deaths. But it’ll never happen. Maybe some token person, after a lengthy “internal investigation” (i.e., coverup; after all, we know just how thorough em>Newsweek’s
investigations are), will be … fired? Naw. Reassigned.

So all that’s left is for the public to punish the offenders by ceasing to buy their publication.

But that won’t work because fifteen minutes after the story, the American people have forgotten it.

So Newsweek kills people with a false story that is actually a lie (unlike anything President Bush ever said about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction), and nothing happens to the perpetrators.

2. Too many people in the “American” media have lost any concept of loyalty to their country — if they even consider it their country, rather than just their residence.

Yeah, that’s right, I’m playing the “patriotism” card. But not the way you think.

Our country is at war. And it’s a war in which victory absolutely depends on the Muslim world perceiving it as a war between the U.S and its allies on one side, and fanatical murderous terrorists on the other.

If it is ever perceived as a war against Islam, then we have lost. The world has lost.

So during such a difficult time, even people who think the Iraq War or even the whole war on terror is a horrible mistake still have an obligation of loyalty to the nation that offers them protection, prosperity, and freedom.

I mean, what kind of idiot breaks a hole in the hull of his boat during a storm, just because he doesn’t like the guy at the tiller and thinks the storm could have been avoided?

Even if the allegations about Quran desecration were completely and absolutely verified, why in the world would you publish the information during wartime? It’s not that the Media themselves regard the Quran as sacred. It’s just paper to them. And surely they would have to agree that if such actions might somehow gain the cooperation of a potential source of useful information (though that seems extremely unlikely to me), it would be infinitely preferable to physical torture.

But they dwell so blindly within the cocoon of their sheltered world, where it’s just awful for somebody to offend “multicultural” people (though just fine to be openly vicious to American Christians or Israeli Jews), that it doesn’t occur to them that they could just keep their mouths shut and avoid damaging America and putting Americans all over the world in danger.

They might even realize that by not reporting this story, true or not, they would save Muslim lives. If patriotism couldn’t rein them in, then surely simple humaneness should … one might suppose.

After all, who benefits from the publication of such a story at this time?

Only one group: People who want to bring down or weaken President Bush and everything he stands for, no matter the cost.

The press isn’t running for office. To say that the media culture is unpatriotic isn’t a political ploy, it’s an obvious observation. Oh, if my words actually mattered to them, they’d howl and scream about my illegitimate attack. But in private, they are perfectly happy to mock patriotism in all its forms. They’re only patriotic when somebody says they aren’t.

They are loyal to a community — but it’s not America.

It’s Smartland. The nation of the newsmedia people. That’s where they live. Not in America. These newspeople generally don’t even know anybody, apart from “sources,” who serves America in the military. Smartland consists of a very different crowd.

I know that crowd. I’ve heard them jeer at all the values that most Americans still care about, laughing at religious people, at the middle class, at suburbanites, at the poor ignorant saps who don’t think correct thoughts all the time. You know — the citizens of Heartland. Those poor sentimental fools who stood in line to see The Passion and who like Adam Sandler movies and who get tears in their eyes when they see the American flag and whose hearts break a little when it burns.

And yet the irony is that the reason the radical Islamists hate the West so much is primarily because of the unchecked and uncheckable excesses of the Smartish. From Hollywood to newspeople to the soft-subject professors in our universities, the culture that makes people like Osama bin Laden want to blow us up or crush us into dust is the culture of the R-rated movie, the anti-religion intellectual, the glorified abortionist, the babies-without-marriage crowd, and the what-me-worry media elite.

Osama isn’t much worried about Christianity. Why should he? If a Muslim converts to Christianity in a Muslim country, he’ll just be killed. Christianity, despite our apparent numbers, has been reduced to nothing more dangerous to Islam than a swarm of gnats.

It’s a lot harder to keep dirty movies and atheistic Western ideas out of Muslim lands. That’s the established church of the West these days — liberty without responsibility, filth praised as “edgy” and virtue despised as “bourgeouis.”

If the Islamists ever ruled the world — and only a fool thinks that history offers some guarantee against it — then America’s unpatriotic elite will realize …

No they won’t. Whom do I think I’m kidding? They’ll still blame it on Bush or the Christian right or the oil companies, because the central tenet of their belief is that their side can do no wrong.

Wow. That sounds just like “my country, right or wrong.” Only instead of a country with borders, they have Smartland, the nation of people who know far better how to order the world than those ignorant unwashed masses of voters that keep electing morons who can’t pronounce “nuclear.”

They’re fanatical Smartland patriots. So fanatical they don’t hesitate long enough to get their facts right before running a story that seriously weakens America’s position in a deadly war that has already blown up the two tallest buildings in the capital city of Smartland. Because they haven’t recognized yet that Smartland only exists as a parasite, sucking the blood out of the Heartland that they have such contempt for.

One thing for sure. At Newsweek, nobody better ever say again, “We don’t make the news, we just print it.”

3. Muslims in Muslim countries can dish it out, but they can’t take it. They had no problem expelling all the Jews from their countries in an ethnic cleansing every bit as vicious as anything the Spaniards did in 1492. They desecrated Torahs left and right. Nowadays they blow up babies and call it a heroic act, because they were Jewish babies.

But let somebody start a rumor that somebody dunked a Quran in the toilet, and they go insane and riot and kill people.

What planet do these people live on?

It’s Earth.

What you see in those riots is the result of centuries of being in an almost complete majority — and having nothing to show for it. Not freedom, not prosperity, not even respect.

Practically everybody they know is Muslim and yet they are still powerless and ashamed and angry.

Muslims in the United States might feel all the same things, but they know they’re not in the majority and they’ve learned to keep their heads down. Like every other minority that doesn’t have the power of the state behind them.

The religious right in America thought they were in the majority back in the 1980s, when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and others flexed their political muscle, only to discover — oops — that committed Christians had somehow slipped into a despised minority position without even realizing it.

They didn’t have anywhere near the muscle they thought they had and they soon relapsed back into relative quiet. (Forget the way they keep getting trotted out as dangerous demons — that’s just the Left, looking for somebody to demonize so they can whip up support. The new McCarthyism; they always need devils.)

It’s hard for me to feel even a shred of pity for all those poor Muslims who heard that somewhere in the world, their holy book might have been desecrated. Do they really expect people outside their religion to take their beliefs as seriously as they do?

Why, just a few weeks ago a CBS television show (Cold Case Files) ran an episode that made an outrageous attack on my church, in which items as sacred to us as the Quran is to Muslims were openly displayed and mocked on national television.

But you didn’t see Mormons rioting over it. Oh, we were angry enough– it was infuriating to be treated with such contempt, as CBS, without a second thought, turned its airwaves over to some Mormon-hating writer who reveled in having the power to get at us with impunity.

But you see, we Mormons are very much aware of being in the minority. The memory of “Christian” mobs and state militias murdering helpless Mormon men, women and children, and then betraying and assassinating our leaders while they were in government custody, is still keen within our culture. It didn’t happen far away, it happened in Missouri and Illinois. And it has continued in the years since then, in isolated incidents of murder and expulsion throughout the world, not least in America.

We remember our forebears leaving their homes again and again to get away from an oppressive majority. We remember our haven being invaded by the United States Army; we remember being prepared to burn our homes and crops and flee again, leaving our homeland a desert rather than submit to oppression again.

But in the years afterward, we learned something else, too: How to get along. How to avoid making waves. How to blend in. How to make a moral stand when it matters, without alienating those who might stand with us and without (usually) provoking those who stand against us.

That’s what you learn when you’re in a perpetual minority.

When would Muslims in the Middle East have learned lessons like that?

What the rioters haven’t learned is that blowing up with rage accomplishes nothing except to make themselves look like big babies throwing tantrums. It doesn’t make anybody in the world respect Islam more — it makes us respect Islam less.

After all, when babies are prone to throwing tantrums, we may tiptoe around the house to avoid waking them up, but we don’t give them the car keys. It’s not respect you’re giving them. You can’t take them seriously as equals. You only avoid provoking them. They’re a nuisance.

I can hear people already complaining that my rhetoric is “excessive” and I have indulged in “name-calling.”

I have not. What I have indulged in here is correct labeling. Rioters have surrendered to their passions precisely as babies do, instead of controlling their emotions and acting sensibly, the way grownups are expected to.

Nobody respects people who riot over such offenses, period. But we’re so used to lying about things like that and pretending to take this sort of thing seriously that the truth has become unspeakable in polite company.

Yet this is precisely the truth that most needs to be spoken. The fact that Muslims riot over such an offense does not make anybody in the world admire Islam more, or take the words of the Prophet Muhammed more seriously. It just makes us shake our heads and think, Are these people supposed to be ready for self-government?

The fact is that most Muslims in Muslim countries did not riot. Most of them were appalled and frightened when so many of their fellow citizens went crazy in the streets.

But those aren’t the people who shape the image of Islam. It’s the rioters who make the news and get the airtime.

The rioters and the terrorists. For what is Osama’s “movement” if not a tantrum that has been cynically focused and organized in order to get the maximum attention.

Not real damage, mind you. They’re big babies, kicking mommy’s shins and screaming “I hate you I hate you.” We have to stop them. To that extent we take them seriously. But not as equals.

And yet that is the thing that hurts them most. The thing they crave. To be treated with respect. Oh, they can say “We don’t care if you respect us,” but their actions prove that to be utterly false. All they care about is gaining the respect of the world. And yet they behave in ways that
guarantee they’ll never have it.

4. Seeing Kingdom of Heaven this week, I was sharply reminded of the fact that Islam has produced great leaders who accomplished great things. The portrayal of Saladin in that movie coincided very closely with the historical record. And if this movie were actually to be shown in the Muslim world, Saladin’s words in the script could be read as a political instruction manual for political Islam today.

Instead, the Muslim world has turned its back on Saladin and embraced leaders who are exactly the kind of people shown in the movie as fanatical warmongering Christians.

Sure that God would protect them, the true believers wanted all-out war with the surrounding Muslim world. Never mind that they were unprepared and their enemy vastly outnumbered them — God would provide! So they murdered innocents in the name of God … and got God’s answer. Because whatever else God may or may not do, he certainly does not help those who commit murder and other crimes in his name.

Osama and his ilk are identical to the monsters in this film. Some of them are true believers even if they violate every aspect of Islam with the crimes they commit against humanity; others, like the character Guy, are jockeying for command of a ship — and they’ll sink it if that’s what it takes to get control of the helm.

Which should mean that we are like Saladin. After all, without even being asked we waged and are waging the most humane major war in history. Our efforts to save the lives of our enemies have cost us many casualties that we need not have suffered — who does that?

5. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The greatest asset that Osama and his tribe have going for them is not the tantrumlike behavior of their supporters. It’s the fact that the West is deeply divided, as a new religious movement — politically correct puritanism — is perilously
close to seizing control of the governments of most of the major nations of the West.

These citizens of Smartland disingenuously claim that they are neither organized nor a religion — organized religions are the bogeyman they invoke to frighten their opponents into silence.

But let’s remember, please, that Puritanism wasn’t an organized religion, either. (Nor was anarchism; nor, for that matter, is Islamicism.) Without ever quite being organized as a church, Puritanism still managed to seize power in England in the 17th century, rather the way that Islamicism seized power in Iran and Afghanistan in the 20th.

How long did it take for the people to be utterly disenchanted by government-by-fanatics, who see every opponent as evil and make every political decision an article of faith? Afghanistan longed to be free of the Taliban; the people of Iran hunger for freedom now. And when the Puritans were toppled in
England, the people rejoiced.

Just so the fanatics who now rule the Democratic Party, serving the cause of Smartland at the expense of the Heartland, will find that if they ever really get control of government, they will quickly be the most hated rulers our country ever had.

Already large numbers of Americans seethe over the puritanical laws imposed on us by anti-democratic judges, who cannot wait for compromise and the political process to “purify” us. Already we are outraged by the propaganda they foist on our children in the schools, without reference to the values of the community or the roots of the American culture.

The Taliban of Smartland will be just as repugnant to the people of America as the Islamist Taliban was to most of the people of Afghanistan.

So as we watch the Democratic Party flush away democratic processes in order to get correct outcomes, it’s worth remembering that we’re not so different from “those wacky Muslims.”

People who are so sure they’re right that they are willing to eliminate democratic processes in order to get and keep power are the enemies of freedom for everyone. We may be slow to recognize the danger, but one thing is certain: Once the Puritans have power, everyone else will finally see the cost of their utopia.

And as the Iranians and North Koreans have learned, it’s very very hard to get rid of a dictatorship with a puritan ideology. Sometimes you’re lucky and a big country comes along and liberates you. But sometimes there’s no country big enough to do it, and you just have to hunker down and pretend to think correct thoughts and live some kind of life below the radar.

You know, the way believing Christians do right now at American universities.

Copyright © 2005 by Orson Scott Card.

yeah, what he said.

— end of line —