Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Chickenhawks on the Left
Posted by: Jon Henke on Sunday, April 30, 2006

As I've noted before, they don't actually believe what they write, but they're writing this again...

  • Duncan "Atrios" Black: "While many of the 101st may be unable to serve in our fine military for a variety of reasons ... there are still numerous civilian opportunities available to them in Iraq."


  • Amanda "Pandagon" Marcotte: "But I’m being unfair. I don’t understand. You see, the Captain and the entirety of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists can’t actually put their asses in danger for their war and have to send others to do it because they have families."

In response to which, I would only note that, while many of the them may be unable to serve in our fine military for a variety of reasons, there are still numerous civilian opportunities available to them in Afghanistan. Black, after all, is quick to remind you that he, and Democrats in general, "supported the Afghanistan conflict".

But I’m being unfair. I don’t understand. You see, Duncan Black and Amanda Marcotte can’t actually put their asses in danger for their war and have to send others to do it because they have families.

UPDATE: Amanda Marcotte argues that, since she didn't actually support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, she is therefore exempt from the charge of hypocrisy. Very well. If she supports absolutely no military intervention at any time, then she is exempt from that charge. On the other hand, if she has supported any hostile activity whatsoever during her adult years — or if she supports any military intervention against terrorism at all — then she must necessarily sign up for duty. She would not, after all, endorse allowing other people to be responsible for her personal preferences, I'm sure.

Yet, she supports the Democratic Party, which wholeheartedly supported the war in Afghanistan and currently supports the possibility of military intervention in Iran. And she expects police protection from criminals. And endorses tax hikes...on other people. Clearly, she does not actually endorse the principle she accuses the pro-Iraq war crowd of violating. It is merely a rhetorical cudgel, whose underlying principle she is unwilling to endorse.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Ha! Good "gotcha," Jon.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Jesus! This is the stupid meme that just refuses to die! It’s been refuted and discredited dozens of times yet it keeps popping up again every few months! These people seem to have all the reasoning and memory faculties of a goldfish.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://catallarchy.net/blog/
The Left are just mad that the good Captian has turned their inane chichenhawk meme around and is using to mock them.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Of course, every member of the left who uses "Chickenhawk" surely has been a fireman and a policeman, 2 other professions they support (I would hope but couldn’t guarantee it) that put their asses in danger fo others...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Too bad your cowardly ass is wrong. I never supported attacking Afghanistan.
 
Written By: Amanda Marcotte
URL: http://www.pandagon.net
Amanda, Jon didn’t say you supported the war in Afghanistan. He noted that Atrios did, and that, as Atrios noted, Democrats in general did.

So, do you consider Atrios and all those Democrats to be chickenhawks? After all, the conflict in Afghanistan continues, so where are Atrios and all the left/Democrat bloggers who supported that war? Why haven’t they enlisted, instead of joining the keyboard brigades?
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Too bad your cowardly ass is wrong. I never supported attacking Afghanistan.
No? That puts you in a distinct minority among the Democrats, then. Still, I’m quite sure you support some kind of "war on terrorism/Al Qaeda/Islamic jihad", yet I don’t see you participating. I’ve also not seen your rejection of the Democratic Party for their wholehearted support of the invasion of Afghanistan, or for their embrace of the threat of potential military intervention in Iran.

If, however, I am wrong and you are a pacifist, objecting to any war whatsoever, please say so and I will happily update the post to reflect your blanket objection to any war. I disagree with the position mightily, but I can respect those —e.g., the Amish — who hold a personal, principled objection to any use of violence against another person.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
If, however, I am wrong and you are a pacifist, objecting to any war whatsoever, please say so and I will happily update the post to reflect your blanket objection to any war. I disagree with the position mightily, but I can respect those —e.g., the Amish — who hold a personal, principled objection to any use of violence against another person.
I, on the other hand, cannot. Pacifists claim to put a supremely high price on blood, but will let long tons more of it be spilled rather than get even a drop on their own hands. If that’s "principle," it’s a rotten one.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
In response to which, I would only note that, while many of the them may be unable to serve in our fine military for a variety of reasons, there are still numerous civilian opportunities available to them in Afghanistan
Yes - and the reason there are still needs in Afghanistan is that we are pi**ing away manpower and resources in Iraq.

If we hadn’t gone into Iraq, as many on the left counseled, our existing resources could have easily taken care of business in Afghanistan.

When you are reduced to criticizing Atrios for not going to Afghanistan when the shortage problem there was created by the very war he opposes, you have lost the moral battle. If we had followed his advice, there wouldn’t be a shortage problem in Afghanistan. Asking him to go precisely to help fix the problem he opposed creating in the first place is rich Jon, even for you. Kind of like calling your buddy up to bail you out of jail when he told you not to drive home drunk in the first place.

Nice try though.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I take the thrust of Mr. Henke’s post to be that many on the left are themeselves disingenuous if not outright hypocritical in accusing (typically right of center) supporters of U.S. policy in Iraq of being hypocrites if they are personally unwilling to serve there or have their children serve there. Fair enough.

Personally, I have no problem with hypocracy, though I try not to be too hypocritical about it. I strongly support all sorts of things I am either incapable or unwilling of doing myself. Many of the latter sort include dangerous or dirty jobs, but I still want them done. Feel free to call me a hypocrite or worse. Ms Marcott can even accuse my ass of being cowardly. I can live with it.

In any case, the last time I checked the U.S. armed forces were comprised of volunteers. I know there are arguments against and problems with an all volunteer army and I do not mean to suggest in the slightest that its volunteer nature gives any administration the right to prosecute wars lightly, let alone incompetently. Even so, the fact is relevant to this particular fracus if only to give it some perspective.

 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
One distinct difference - America’s armed forces were perfectly adequate at handling Afghanistan (and, before it, Kosovo). Advocating that they be used in these circumstances was within their existing capability.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has strained their capability. This was known before the invasion, it is known now.

You are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Supporting Afghanistan did not involve straining US military capability. Supporting Iraq does.

So the chickenhawks supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq bear some of the responsibility for the military shortages. If they had any guts or honour, they’d acknowledge this, and, on a personal level, do something to help.

Of course, they don’t have either.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
20/20 hindsight Phoenician. I thought the prevailing wisdom at the begining was that we would be bogged down, just like the soviets.
 
Written By: Wilky
URL: http://
I’m sure that if Amanda supports some sort of action in Darfur, she’ll lead the leftist-Democrat George Clooney crowd to the recruiting station to sign up, right Amanda?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
20/20 hindsight Phoenician

A good excuse - for perhaps the first six months.

What excuse do the chickenhawks have now?

Logically, anybody supporting the war in Iraq now, let alone extending this to Iran, should also be supporting at the very least universal conscription.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
One distinct difference - America’s armed forces were perfectly adequate at handling Afghanistan (and, before it, Kosovo). Advocating that they be used in these circumstances was within their existing capability.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has strained their capability. This was known before the invasion, it is known now.

Considering we can be in conflicts greater than Afgahnistan and Iraq put together (Iran for instance), I’m glad you support growing the size of our military dramatically.

As for Kosovo, you need to check up on that region. Things ain’t over. And its a good example of a counter to mkultra’s point. Because if it was properly supported and the conflict is still going on, then there’s more to fighting a conflict than throwing resources at it.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I’ve taken this to Marcotte’s blog. She and her parrots are entirely too comfortable with substituting snark for real arguments.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Considering we can be in conflicts greater than Afgahnistan and Iraq put together (Iran for instance), I’m glad you support growing the size of our military dramatically.

Feel free to give a quote from me on that. Can you?

Didn’t think so.

There is, of course, a huge difference between growing the military in response to a real threat (i.e. such as the UK to German expansion in the thirties, or America after Pearl Harbour) and growing the military in order to engage in reckless military adventures which serve no purpose of national security.

Indeed, the latter is called "imperialism" or "wars of aggression" when done by Germans or Iraqis.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
So the chickenhawks supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq bear some of the responsibility for the military shortages. If they had any guts or honour, they’d acknowledge this, and, on a personal level, do something to help.
Ah, the telltale "u."
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
My only comment on the Chickenhawk meme is that I didn’t notice this fierce personal criticism from the left toward the last administration when people with no military service were calling the shots and sending our young men and women into action. This inconsistency is the reason I can’t take it seriously when I hear these people crying "Chickenhawk". It is a lack-of-point; nothing more than fuel on the fire of partisanship, without solving a thing.

Anybody on the left ought to be embarassed for people like Marcotte and Atrios. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the way we will use our military in the "War on Terror". But this hypocritical ad hominem crap is not only stupid on its face, but it also distracts from any real issues that some on the left might be trying to make.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Ah yes, we’re back to the whole "moral authority" bullspit argument that the left loves to use to choke out differing opinions.

But that’s ok, we have to let the babies have their bottles, after all their cherished dream of driving Bushhitler out of office via impeachment or an angry pitchfork weilding mob seems to be all but gone.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ah, the telltale "u."

Never claimed to be American.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Ah yes, the telltale u
Ok, that is my cue to take a swing. ;)

I live on both sides of the border but was born in Canada. I spend a lot of time in the US working in high tech.

Unlike Monsier Phoen-y (off this I am pretty sure), I joined the Canadian Armed forces (entering RRMC in 1978) and served for 12 years as an infantry officer (RCR) before finally leaving for civie life as a Captain (hence my nom de guerre, and yes captain is not abbreviated that way in the military).

Canada’s military is seriously underfunded and under manned. Do you support Canada’s role in Afghanistan? If so, then why the heck aren’t you there? That would mean you are a "chickenhawk" by your definition. I have friends there now riding around in POS vehicles because the lie-berals refused to fund land forces to buy the equipment they need.

I am in my mid forties but I tried to get off the sup list (the Canadian Forces supplementary list is where you are put if you are an inactive reserve or reg force member) so I could go. Apparently I am too old for the current requirement (if Canada was being invaded, then sure I would be back in but not for the current condition). So what about you? hmmm.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Never claimed to be American.
So you didn’t, at least as far as I can tell, nor attempted to give that impression, either. And I hasten to add that Canadians, Europeans, etc. have every bit as much right to join the fray and criticize what they take to be the various failings of the U.S., its policies, etc. as we do to criticize the shortcomings of their various parts of the planet.

Then again, this is a largely domestic (in the sense of "family") dispute, albeit over an issue with obvious and serious international implications, for the issue here is how Americans will engage in the civic discourse that affects the national agenda. As you choose to post comments anonymously, I see nothing wrong in calling attention to the fact that you are not, strictly speaking, a member of the family. For that matter, I choose to use my real name and post my real e-mail address when I comment on the internet because (and you may take this as you will) I find that doing so has a tempering effect.

My only real issue with Mr. Henke’s original post was that tu quoque arguments are little (if at all) better than the ad hominem attacks he decried. If non-Americans think it is in their best interests to make the heat-to-light ratio of that discourse worse than it already is, I think that is a sad and unhelpful conclusion on their part. I don’t think the world is a better or safer place when the U.S. determines foreign policy viscerally. Do you?
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
My only comment on the Chickenhawk meme is that I didn’t notice this fierce personal criticism from the left toward the last administration when people with no military service were calling the shots and sending our young men and women into action.

The last administration doesn’t appear to have lied about the reason for going to war (although remarkable exaggerations were made), nor did it do so in such a way as to strain American military responsiveness, nor did it commit the US to an open-ended occupation of a hostile population.

Then again, this is a largely domestic (in the sense of "family") dispute, albeit over an issue with obvious and serious international implications,

Uh-huh.

My country stood by you after September 11th, and still has troops in Afghanistan.

We are not supporting you in Iraq because you were wrong to invade and are wrong to be there. Your recklessness destabalises a critical area of the world (seen the oil prices recently?) and provokes further terrorism.

Your country was wrong. Your President was wrong. For you to support this war is wrong. And it affects the rest of us.

Chickenhawk American wingnuts are a global problem, not a domestic dispute.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
My country stood by you after September 11th, and still has troops in Afghanistan.

We are not supporting you in Iraq because you were wrong to invade and are wrong to be there.
Oh, I’d say that it’s much more like you don’t have the resources to handle both places.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Oh, I’d say that it’s much more like you don’t have the resources to handle both places.

Dunno about that - we have troops in Afghanistan, East Timor, Solomon Islands, Kosovo, Bosnia, Israel/Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, South Korea and Antarctica.

Hmm - one guy left in Iraq after we pulled the engineers out. Poor bastard.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Oh, I’d say that it’s much more like you don’t have the resources to handle both places.

Dunno about that - we have troops in Afghanistan, East Timor, Solomon Islands, Kosovo, Bosnia, Israel/Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, South Korea and Antarctica.
There isn’t enough resources to do much of any of these well. Afghanistan is case #1 in point. I know people who’s wives are out buying them kit on eBay to send to them because the stuff issued is the cheapest crap around. Martin and Chretien before him sucked everything they could out of the defense budget. The whole thing is a hollow shell.

I could go on for hours about what is wrong but that isn’t the point. The point is where were you when the Canadian Military needed funding.

Here you are critizing the US while you and your fellow Canadian travellers DO NOTHING to support Canada’s military. You sir are a dictionary definition of Chicken Hawk.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Yes - and the reason there are still needs in Afghanistan is that we are pi**ing away manpower and resources in Iraq.
(shrug) I disagree. Consistent with what I’ve been saying about US presence in the Middle East for a long time, I’m not really sure that 1) more troops in Afghanistan would help much, or 2) that we’d put more in Afghanistan if we weren’t in Iraq.

Course, if you see such a need for more bodies in Afghanistan — the invasion of which you supported — you will surely sign up for some civilian duty over there. Right?
I take the thrust of Mr. Henke’s post to be that many on the left are themeselves disingenuous if not outright hypocritical in accusing (typically right of center) supporters of U.S. policy in Iraq of being hypocrites if they are personally unwilling to serve there or have their children serve there. Fair enough.
Close, but not quite. My point was merely to note that whatever they say in re:Iraq, they don’t actually believe the underlying principle they’re pushing. If I agreed that their principle was right, but merely noted that they too were guilty of violating it, that would be tu quoque. Instead, I’m merely pointing out that they are advocating a position I don’t agree with....and they don’t actually agree with, either.
One distinct difference - America’s armed forces were perfectly adequate at handling Afghanistan (and, before it, Kosovo). Advocating that they be used in these circumstances was within their existing capability.
Well, you guys are going to have to settle on an argument, because this is directly at odds with the argument advanced by, e.g., Marcotte. She says one should not send others into danger without doing so oneself. You’re arguing that one should sign up if there’s a need. Those are two different things.
Logically, anybody supporting the war in Iraq now, let alone extending this to Iran, should also be supporting at the very least universal conscription.
Certainly you must realize that the official Democratic Party position is that they will resort to military intervention in Iran before allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
It’s like saying you can’t be for public education unless you’re a teacher, or you can’t support socialized medicine unless you go to medical school.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Your recklessness destabalises a critical area of the world (seen the oil prices recently?) and provokes further terrorism
Thank god we’re destabilizing it!! Maybe you didn’t notice just how wonderful things were there when it was "stable"

Sheesh.

But I thought Iraq was for oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil? Yet we’re making the prices rise? I CAN’T MAKE SENSE OF YOUR DISCONNECT HERE!

As for "creating" more terrorism, yeah, it’s our fault. It’s not like they wouldn’t riot and rampage at the drop of a hat if they didn’t like something printed in a newspaper, say a cartoon, for instance.

Double sheesh.

Get a clue pal.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I don’t see the point of this argument - so you’re trying to defend your blatant chickenhawkishness by pointing out others who could technically be called slightly chickenhawkish as well? I don’t see how that is a victory for you...unless you believe being a chickenhawk is actually a good thing, and you’re trying to prove that you’re the chickensh*tiest, bloodthirstiest chickenhawk of them all.
 
Written By: Tao
URL: http://
I don’t see the point of this argument - so you’re trying to defend your blatant chickenhawkishness by pointing out others who could technically be called slightly chickenhawkish as well? I don’t see how that is a victory for you...unless you believe being a chickenhawk is actually a good thing, and you’re trying to prove that you’re the chickensh*tiest, bloodthirstiest chickenhawk of them all.
No, Tao, and you ought to re-read Mr. Henke’s argument; this time, read for comprehension.

What he’s saying is that those making the "chickenhawk" argument don’t really believe the principle behind their argument. Since they don’t believe the underlying principle, their argument is invalid. Is that so hard to understand?

Until you have something better than name-calling, you should probably avoid posting here, as you’ll get torn to shreds.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
There isn’t enough resources to do much of any of these well. Afghanistan is case #1 in point.

Uh-huh.

"In the second half of March 2002, as the Bush administration mapped its next steps against al Qaeda, Deputy CIA Director John E. McLaughlin brought an unexpected message to the White House Situation Room. According to two people with firsthand knowledge, he told senior members of the president’s national security team that the CIA was scaling back operations in Afghanistan.

That announcement marked a year-long drawdown of specialized military and intelligence resources from the geographic center of combat with Osama bin Laden. As jihadist enemies reorganized, slipping back and forth from Pakistan and Iran, the CIA closed forward bases in the cities of Herat, Mazar-e Sharif and Kandahar. The agency put off an $80 million plan to train and equip a friendly intelligence service for the new U.S.-installed Afghan government. Replacements did not keep pace with departures as case officers finished six-week tours. And Task Force 5 — a covert commando team that led the hunt for bin Laden and his lieutenants in the border region — lost more than two-thirds of its fighting strength.

The commandos, their high-tech surveillance equipment and other assets would instead surge toward Iraq through 2002 and early 2003, as President Bush prepared for the March invasion that would extend the field of battle in the nation’s response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."


You remember Osama bin Laden? Do you think you might remind Bush who he is some time?
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
You remember Osama bin Laden?
Yep.

But since you act as if he’s operating in an area where Canada supports us (Afghanistan), perhaps you folks could help look for him. Have fun!

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
But since you act as if he’s operating in an area where Canada supports us (Afghanistan), perhaps you folks could help look for him. Have fun!
Yes, but the damage done by the left to Canada’s military makes that a very problematic mission. At least the government changed and the "right" people are in charge. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Ummm...can you be any bigger of an idiot? First of all, when you join the military, you can’t just pick and choose where they send you.

So, even if people joined up specifically to serve in Afghanistan, the manpower and military needs of the Pentagon would probably dictate that you would be sent to Iraq eventually. Thus, forcing you to serve in a conflict you opposed form the beginning.

For liberals who oppose the Ira war this is a huge problem. For warmongering dumbasses like you, it’s not. You could are less, theoretically, that they sent you to Iraq from Afghanistan. Or vice versa. You support, theoretically, both conflicts.

Thus, there is NO impediment to your signing up for service in the military except your own cowardice.

As for civilian contracting positions, that’s a better point. But, manpower is not a problem for civilian private contractors, as they can pay people to do those jobs. And, unless you had prior military or law enforcement experience, you would have little use as a private security contractor.


 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
No, Tao, and you ought to re-read Mr. Henke’s argument; this time, read for comprehension.

What he’s saying is that those making the "chickenhawk" argument don’t really believe the principle behind their argument. Since they don’t believe the underlying principle, their argument is invalid. Is that so hard to understand?

Until you have something better than name-calling, you should probably avoid posting here, as you’ll get torn to shreds.


That’s what we call an ad himinem attack and faulty logic. You see, whether or not the person making the argument believes it him or herself, or is acting hypocritically, doesn’t invalidate the underlying logic of the argument itself.

It only weakens the moral authority of the person making the argument. So, for example, a liberal who did serve in Afghanistan that criticized the chickenwak cowards who don’t sign up for Iraq would be untouchable. [I think Pat Tillman qualified].

Using your dumbass logic, if Hitler made a statement to the effect that "Genocide is evil," the fact that Hitler hypocritically committed genoicide would invalidate the argument that "genoicide is evil."

No wonder you people still support Bush. You are dumber than a box of pooper-scoopers.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
I realize you probably don’t care and just commented in order to vent at us, rather than engage with us, but just in case you actually cared to communicate a point, it’s probably not useful to begin said point by claiming your audience are fools. Especially when you seem to think I "still support Bush". Aside from that...
First of all, when you join the military, you can’t just pick and choose where they send you.
Indeed. That may be why I wrote that there are "numerous civilian opportunities available". Not all civilian opportunities are "contract jobs" either. There are plenty of NGOs, charity and other organizations involved.
Thus, there is NO impediment to your signing up for service in the military except your own cowardice.
So we’re clear: is it your position that anybody who supports a war must sign up for (military or civilian) service in that war? If so, did you sign up for military service after the Afghanistan campaign began, but before the Iraq campaign began? There was quite a sizable window there in which you could have demonstrated your bravery.
That’s what we call an ad himinem attack and faulty logic. You see, whether or not the person making the argument believes it him or herself, or is acting hypocritically, doesn’t invalidate the underlying logic of the argument itself.
The point was that the argument itself was incorrect and the proponents of said argument do not even believe it. (as evidenced by their behaviour in similar situations)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What a moron you are.
The people who were against this immoral war should go fight it? WHAT exactly would make them "hawks"?
Then you set up a false premise to knock it down.
They’re not in favor of military intervention anywhere.
It sounds like you are in favor of it EVERYWHERE as long as you get your tax cut.
Your hero bankrupted us with his tax cuts in a time of war.
And I’m sure you support his 7 billion dollars in tax breaks for the oil companies.
How dumb can you get.
 
Written By: lizDexic
URL: http://www.sarigraphics.com/postcards.html

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider