First they came for the pork chops

…but I didn’t speak up because I don’t eat pork chops:

First, it was a ban on plastic grocery bags, and then on mixing recycling with compost. Now the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is asking residents to go without meat on Mondays.

This city’s latest legislative endorsement of healthy, eco-conscious living can’t stop residents from eating meat, but is meant to call attention to the relationship between diet, health and climate change.

Yeah, it’s just a “suggestion”, but “suggestions” from the government have a funny way of becoming “law”.

I’m all for raising awareness of the effects of climate change, but I’d rather the powers-that-be focus on the vehicles and factories that are constantly belching toxins into the air than on peoples’ meal choices.

Up next: a complete and total Ban on Brussels Sprouts to cut down on deadly methane.

45 Responses to “First they came for the pork chops”


  1. 1 Dr. Prole Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 8:26 am

    See, when they do stuff like that, people like me (those with a “problem with authority”) tend to go out on that Monday and grill up a side of beef. Maybe a few chickens just for kicks.

    Incidentally, more rainforest has been cleared to plant soybeans than raise cattle. Enjoy those veggie burgers, earth haters.

  2. 3 SM Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 8:49 am

    You have a problem with a suggestion to eat less meat? Because you’re afraid it might turn into a law? Yes, just the way the Canada Food Guide police are always barging into my kitchen at mealtime…. I think you’re being rather grumpy without cause on this.

    I just happen to have moved my family’s meatless count up to five days a week. No soybeans in the mix either. We’re taking the meat money and spending it on local organic eggs, and now organic milk, increasing our consumption of lentils (grown in Canada), beans (grown in Canada) (gr, chickpeas (grown in Canada), barley (grown in Canada), and forking out for more expensive spices for our stir fries. As a side benefit of this, we find that generally, we are just eating less in volume, and surprisingly, not as hungry, as if our consumption meter has been turned down. But don’t suggest anyone else try it, they might like it.

    As far as the city of San Francisco focusing its energies on other green efforts that would be of a great world value, San Francisco has an excellent public transit system, and is in a state that leads north america in its emission standards for vehicles, and as you noted has composting programs and a strong recycling program.

  3. 4 JJ Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 9:00 am

    SM

    You have a problem with a suggestion to eat less meat?

    Yes. I think people can make up their own minds what they want to eat.

  4. 5 rww Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 9:37 am

    “Yes. I think people can make up their own minds what they want to eat.”

    Then instead of criticizing people for promoting that people eat healthier diets why don’t you criticize the people spending millions on advertising to convince them to eat less healthy diets.

    I do believe we should have meat in our diets but I also think we need a better balance than we typically have in North America.

  5. 6 Brian Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 10:40 am

    SM,

    All of your suggestions are good ones. And things might be better if more people were living the way you are.

    BTW, we have switched to making a big pot of chili (maybe 2 gallons at a time) with just one pound of meat in the whole thing (a pound of pork sausage), and about 3 quarts of beans.   We did this to save money, because we are reaching a really desperate situation, financially.

    I was amazed to spontaneously discover that I was eating less.   I would look at the clock, conclude it was time for a snack, get up from posting on Unrepentant Old Hippie, only to discover, “You know; I’m not really hungry, and skip eating.

    Anyway, my point here would be that good ideas are fine, but they become a horse of a different stripe.   Sometimes it is just fine, but it is a difference indeed that is just fine in those cases.

    California is nearly bankrupt.   Their legislature has no business taking time on this sort of thing — they are being paid out of an almost bankrupt treasury.   They act often like the image of Roman legislators lounging about in togas, deciding everything for the lower classes: “But it’s good for them.”   That’s the issue, not that they are speaking about meat.

  6. 7 JJ Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 11:20 am

    rww

    Then instead of criticizing people for promoting that people eat healthier diets why don’t you criticize the people spending millions on advertising to convince them to eat less healthy diets.

    Time to invoke the power of my Stageleft Moral Capital Accumulator. Just because I’m criticizing one thing, it does not automatically follow that I support another.

    I’d be perfectly fine with McDonalds (a private company) promoting better eating habits and adding healthier choices to its menu. If the government wants to promote awareness of healthier choices in general then fine, but suggesting private citizens, restaurants and stores comply with a “Meatless Monday” initiative is dumb and intrusive.

  7. 8 JJ Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Brian

    I would look at the clock, conclude it was time for a snack, get up from posting on Unrepentant Old Hippie, only to discover, “You know; I’m not really hungry,

    😆 Yes, I have that effect on people.

  8. 9 Bleatmop Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    From what I understand, factory farms, particularly beef, are a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions.

  9. 10 croghan27 Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    But what does: post-natal abortion mean?

  10. 11 Janus Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    JJ, I’m with you on the Brussels sprouts! (But for those of you who actually like the damned things, and don’t eat them because of the gas they produce, here’s a tip: soak them for a few hours first in a solution of baking soda! About a tablespoon to a quart of water. Then rinse thoroughly.

    I’ve cut down on meat not because I have any concern for the environment (I’ve seen all the arguements for both sides and not only can’t I decide who’s telling the “truth,” I don’t care), but because the older I get, the more I like my veggies. I make a kick-ass meatless chili that carnivores love.

    To my mind, those who want to sway the eating habits of other people really have to start on a personal level — feed them what you want them to eat. Start at home. That is all.

  11. 12 Dr. Prole Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Going meatless isn’t necessarily healthier. Going factory meatless, sugarless and refined carb-less is healthier. Low fat/high grain/high sugar eating and drinkin is what’s making people fat and sick, not animal fats.

  12. 13 Dr. Prole Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Might I add, the government getting involved in nutrition is largely what led us down the road to our current completely incorrect conventional wisdom regarding food and health.

    I’m with JJ. Keep the government out of my kitchen.

  13. 14 brebis noire Friday, April 9, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I don’t see what’s so outrageous about a San Francisco government promoting healthy eating habits – especially since governments already promote unhealthy ones, via the sugar lobby, the beef lobby, chicken and pork farm lobbies (which I prefer to call concentration camps for animals). If one small government is shamed into not promoting healthy eating, then why shouldn’t a proportionate amount of energy be mustered to shame the government into not systematically bending to the wills of corporations that produce and sell “food” that makes Americans overweight, obese and malnutritionally diseased?

    Yah, people should get to decide what they want to eat. But most people only get to decide to eat what’s cheapest, what fills their kids’ tummies with the most calories for the least amount of money – diets that make them old and diseased before their time. Some choice.

    If the San Francisco Board of whatsis decided to promote tolerance for all kinds of sexual lifestyles, I wouldn’t be outraged either. They tend to go for the progressive and tolerant policies (and in this case, compassionate to animals and pro-environment – what’s so wrong about that)?

  14. 15 Reality.Bites Friday, April 9, 2010 at 7:02 am

    I don’t have a problem with them promoting different eating habits this way, and “Meatless Monday” is a better marketing slogan than “have meatless meals more often.” That’s why KFC has Toonie Tuesdays even though I noticed the last time I passed one on a Tuesday it’s actually up to $2.79. I certainly don’t see it as the first step on a slippery slope.

    I’m also, perversely reminded of the saying “I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals. I’m a vegetarian because I hate vegetables.”

    And finally, no discussion of not eating meat is complete without a link to this.

  15. 16 GC Friday, April 9, 2010 at 7:23 am

    “Meatless Mondays” is becoming a global movement – Québec province recently introduced it to consumers here with some media atention, and I’ve read about it being promoted in other cities, as well. Being a vegan, of course I think it’s a fantastic idea, and I don’t see how this ”suggestion” could possibly become a law – what are they going to do, set up hidden cameras in everyone’s home to see what they eat on Mondays?? Come on, let’s not get paranoid here. Yes, sure, they should focus on other causes of pollution, too, but let’s start SOMEWHERE. And let’s not forget (even though most people would prefer to) that factory farming and the horrific treatment of animals is also a very big issue. If most people would see what goes on in those places and in slaughterhouses, you would never touch another piece of meat again, unless you have a black stone for a heart. Google ‘benefits of vegetarianism’ sometime, and you’ll see that only good things can come of cutting back on meat consumption.

  16. 17 Brian Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:05 am

    brebis noire:

    I don’t see what’s so outrageous about a San Francisco government promoting healthy eating habits … what’s so wrong about that)?

    It is malfeasance to be paid to do one thing, and take the opportunity that that pay presents and do something other. It is a form of theft. This particular action is not earth-shattering, but it is outside what they are tasked with, and so is malfeasance.

    I do understand your thinking on this, and I would have no problem with them promoting anything whatsoever on their own time, even if presenting themselves as a congressmen. It is doing this in session — on the clock, so to speak — that is problematic.

    Also, given the things that you point out that they are doing that are bad, doing additional bad things is not a reasonable resolution to that, rather stopping doing what’s wrong would be.

  17. 18 brebis noire Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:12 am

    “It is malfeasance to be paid to do one thing, and take the opportunity that that pay presents and do something other. It is a form of theft. This particular action is not earth-shattering, but it is outside what they are tasked with, and so is malfeasance.”

    Oh puhleez. How do you know, exactly, that this is not exactly what a majority of San Francisans actually want this Board to do? Malfeasance? *eye rolls* It’s just a suggestion, and a good one at that. You don’t even have to agree, and believe me, nobody is going to be stopped from eating meat on Mondays. Sheesh.

    For the record, I’m very pleased that my municipal government, in addition to managing my city very well, has also implemented recycling, composting, and a suggestion that people not use plastic bags every single fricken’ time they go to the grocery store (with a 5 cent per bag disincentive). People are happy about that suggestion and it’s part of the reason they were elected, i.e. to do good things for the benefit of all.

  18. 19 Brian Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:19 am

    …what are they going to do, set up hidden cameras in everyone’s home to see what they eat on Mondays?

    They have tried to set up new home construction with thermostats that have communication with a central control office that allows a government agency to adjust the temperature in those houses…

  19. 20 Brian Friday, April 9, 2010 at 9:25 am

    only good things can come of cutting back on meat consumption.

    Perhaps — if it is voluntary, and without government intervention.

    But when you add government coercion, or worse, legislation (criminalization) then many bad things can come out of that, along with any good that might also come.

    The way things come about is not inconsequential, and is sometimes the biggest issue. (Not necessarily in this case; I’m just saying.)

  20. 21 deBeauxOs Friday, April 9, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Sorry JJ – I understand your open door policy regarding commenters but why is Brian running roughshod in this blog, spouting reams and reams of his ill-informed and ignorant opinions on every topic?

    So far he’s set himself up as an expert on various topics, as well as a staunch defender of rightwing, neocon, fundamentalist religious politics.

    The more space he takes, the less inviting this blog becomes.

  21. 23 JJ Friday, April 9, 2010 at 11:46 am

    brebis – I don’t have any problem with the government promoting healthy eating (if they have the spare budget to do so), and even using “meatless monday” as a marketing theme. But when they start asking restaurants to take part in it, that’s going too far IMO. Restaurants are private businesses, they should be left alone.

  22. 24 JJ Friday, April 9, 2010 at 11:50 am

    brian

    They have tried to set up new home construction with thermostats that have communication with a central control office that allows a government agency to adjust the temperature in those houses…

    😆 Get OUT!!! 😆

  23. 25 JJ Friday, April 9, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    deBeauxOs

    Sorry JJ – I understand your open door policy regarding commenters but why is Brian running roughshod in this blog, spouting reams and reams of his ill-informed and ignorant opinions on every topic?

    I wouldn’t call disagreement “running roughshod”. Besides, I like him — he seems to stimulate conversation around here.

    Just like everyone else who comments here, Brian has a right to express his opinion, no matter how wrong it might be (and he’s not always wrong). So far he’s been polite and hasn’t indulged in any aggressive name-calling, so I don’t see how he’s a problem. Agreement with my opinion is not a requirement of commenting here. There are people in this thread, progressives, who disagree with this particular post. I don’t mind that at all, I like it and encourage it.

    The more space he takes, the less inviting this blog becomes.

    Sorry about that. I find this place generally has way too much of an echo chamber quality, so I enjoy the few dissenting contributions I get.

  24. 26 deBeauxOs Friday, April 9, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Echo chamber, uh?

    Right. I’ll make sure not to clog your combox with … ah, boring echo chamber comments then.

    So, Brian. Do you have a link for that claim you made about “They have tried to set up new home construction with thermostats that have communication with a central control office that allows a government agency to adjust the temperature in those houses…” or did you pull that one out of your ass like your other opinions?

  25. 27 JJ Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 9:18 am

    deBeauxOs – Did I say your comments were boring? Good grief, don’t be so paranoid. I was just making the case for dissenting commentary — not that I should have to do so, we should welcome dissent.

  26. 28 Brian Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    deBeauxOs

    Some of the significant lines in this are:

    The California Energy Commission is introducing radio-controlled, “programmable communicating thermostats” (PCT) that can adjust temperatures in people’s houses…

    Reducing individual customers’ electrical use — if necessary, involuntarily — could avoid [rotating outages]. {Emph. added.)

     

    Another article here, from the New York Times:

    Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages. {Emph. added.)

    I know the New York Times smells like ass, but it’s not because it came from mine…

  27. 29 brebis noire Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    The article from the NYT, when read in full, makes you appear as a quacko alarmist.
    E.g.:
    “The fact that similar radio-controlled technologies have been used on a voluntary basis in irrigation systems on farm fields and golf courses and in limited programs for buildings on Long Island is seldom mentioned in Internet postings that make liberal use of references of George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” and “Big Brother,” the omnipresent voice of Orwell’s police state.”

    Reminding me once again of 1970s-vintage evangelical alarmism wherein bar codes = mark of the Beast and the UN = Antichrist world government.

  28. 30 Brian Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, the article had a particular take on the topic that included making those who are alarmed seem like nuts. But, as a hostile witness, it does support my initial allegation.

    Here in Washington State, they passed a seat belt law fining $100 as long as you had been stopped for some other reason. Legislators insisted it would never, ever be a primary offense (one for which you could be stopped and fined over by itself).

    One year later, they made it a primary offense, and police were out on roadsides with binoculars instead of radar guns, ticketing anyone they could find. My wife was putting her seat belt on as we pulled away from the curb, and we were stopped and she was ticketed.

    Back east (in Michigan, maybe?) police were out at night with starlight scopes, finding drivers without seat belts on, and the mentality was much the same here in Washington.

    Last year, they passed a law regarding hands-free devices for cell phone use, swearing that it would never be a primary offense. This year they made it a primary offense (which goes into effect next month).

    Bureaucrats frequently downplay any anticipated effect their legislation or rules will create — until the rule or law is in place. Then they ramp things up a lot.

    The government has no damn business checking the temperature of my house (or anyone else’s)!

    Personal responsibility is a duty, and personal freedom is a right. Freedom is not a privilege, bestowed by the government through their largess, it is a right that I posses. A government or a person who tries to take that from me is taking from me something that is my possession, not theirs. That makes it theft.

    The government that usurps where they have no authority has just that — no authority. I don’t care whether it is the color of my car, the amount of meat in my diet, how I arrange my furniture, or…, or …

    Propagandists always try to paint those who oppose what the propagandists support as extremist, fringe, some -wing or other, alarmist, Luddite, or worse.

    I knew very well what that article said, and was pretty sure that sooner or later — much more likely sooner — someone here would point out the tenor of that article (it only took 26 minutes!). I posted it anyway, because I reject their opinion, while having use for the underlying facts that led them to so opine.

  29. 31 Brian Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    “[I]rrigation systems on farm fields and golf courses, and in limited programs for buildings on Long Island” are a far cry from people’s homes, and “voluntary” is the opposite of required.

    Besides, it is not the “radio” part that has my attention, it is the “controlled” part.

  30. 32 brebis noire Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    “Besides, it is not the “radio” part that has my attention, it is the “controlled” part.”

    You chose to ignore the “in an emergency” part. Real conservatives, old-fashioned ones, would understand the need for conservation and rationing when necessary. Of course, neo-cons have shown themselves to be of a different ilk altogether.

  31. 33 deBeauxOs Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    JJ, you said echo chamber, not I.

    I enjoy reading quality dissenting comments but Brian’s are in a league of his own.

    Eventually he’ll tire of posting comments in response to his own comments.

    But again, perhaps not.

  32. 34 Brian Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    “You chose to ignore the ‘in an emergency’ part.” For an analysis/commentary that talks about that, see this. (It appears maybe this is the source of the quote in one of the earlier links I posted.) If you’ll pardon the pun, in many ways these power shortages are generated.

    “Real conservatives, old-fashioned ones, would understand the need for conservation and rationing when necessary.” Rationing is an entirely different activity than reaching into the control systems of people’s houses. Plus, there is absolutely no way to conserve our way to the place we need to be.

    But preventing power generation, then making people suffer when there is not enough, is a way to steer the populace into panic. In a much more sever way, this is what types like Yasser Arrafat do (did, in his case). While there was more to be distributed, Yasser kept it away from the Palestinians. Palestinians in poverty were more useful to him.

    I am not saying that all politicians are terrorists. But I do think some of them think making things hard on their constituents makes it good for their career of “standing for the people.”

     

     

    [yuh.  mebee not.]

  33. 35 brebis noire Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Exaggeration and projection of your worst fears and ideological motives onto a relatively benign situation. It’s a lot like lying – something else that neo-cons have developed into a high art form.

  34. 36 Brian Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Are insults really the form of discussion you think best?

  35. 37 Peter Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 2:26 am

    These kind of quasi-symbolic exhortations are usually benign enough in themselves, and it is silly for people like Brian to go all Hayek-and-Tea-Party about them. Is he going to call for a revolution because city hall urges young people to stay in school and get more exercise? But the cumulative effect of a seemingly endless succession of them does become profoundly irritating and gives life to the term “nanny state”, especially when there is some unelected activist/advisor behind them and a wasteful expense of consultants’ reports, community consultations and “action plans”, all to validate some prig bureaucrat’s sense of moral superiority. Meatless Monday is innocent enough, but when it is followed by Turn-Your-Lights-Off Tuesday, Leave-the-Car-at-Home Wednesday, Don’t-Flush Thursday and Fight-Breast-Cancer Friday, one can be driven to fantasies of leading a peasants’ revolt against the beautiful people, especially when Saturday brings news they are slashing the budget for community recreation centres. It continues to amaze me how so many on the left fail to see their resemblance to in-your-face Victorian evangelists condemning the sin and sinners all around them.

    JJ, while your concern about how today’s urgings become tomorrow’s laws is perfectly valid and has been born out by history many times, in some ways I’m actually more viscerally impatient with the former. For some reason, I get more offended by government “urging” me to compost than I do by it forcing me to recycle. Not sure why. That ol’ human nature sure can be puzzling.

    (BTW, this whole issue is one reason why Elizabeth May can’t break out beyond the faithful. Lovely lady, but there isn’t one tiny detail of your life she doesn’t know how to improve upon. She doesn’t even need to reflect for five minutes on it before pronouncing. Have you ever heard her go on about how cosmetics are destroying the planet?)

  36. 38 brebis noire Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 5:03 am

    “Meatless Monday is innocent enough, but when it is followed by Turn-Your-Lights-Off Tuesday, Leave-the-Car-at-Home Wednesday, Don’t-Flush Thursday and Fight-Breast-Cancer Friday, one can be driven to fantasies of leading a peasants’ revolt against the beautiful people, especially when Saturday brings news they are slashing the budget for community recreation centres.”

    Yes, for sure, and yet in my experience of life, these kinds of initiatives have most often been corporate or advertising ones. As such, more of an irritant, or a running joke, than anything significantly life-altering.

    At this point, I’d just like to point out that in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it was the people pushing for a boycott of West Indies sugar that likely had the greatest impact on the abolition of slavery. And of course there were tonnes of naysayers who scorned the idea that drinking your tea without sugar would bring about any significant change. They figured people should be free to eat their sugar, as long as they didn’t have to think too long about how it was being produced.

  37. 39 brebis noire Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 5:06 am

    “Are insults really the form of discussion you think best?”

    Are you addressing me? Reading what I wrote over again, I can’t find anything insulting, or more to the point, that doesn’t address the hyperbole you introduced into the conversation. (butbut but: Yasser Arafat! Usurpation! Extremism! Palestinians! Terrorism!)

    I’m not actually convinced you’re a neo-con so maybe you should relax a bit on that count.

  38. 40 Peter Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 6:22 am

    brebis:

    The story of the suppression of chattel slavery is one of the great and dramatic moral advancements in our history, and everyone who did anything it its cause deserves to be honoured. But, c’mon, surely it’s a variation of Godwin’s Law to try and draw a moral equivalency connection between the struggle against slavery and every flavour-of-the-month popular cause that comes along. I admit to having a vague and incohate sense that less meat in the North American diet would probably be a good thing, but I’m sorry, I don’t care how many farting cows there are, I’m not singing “We Shall Overcome” over this one.

  39. 41 Brian Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Exaggeration and projection of your worst fears and ideological motives… [is] a lot like lying.

    These are compliments?

    “… something else that neo-cons have developed into a high art form.”

    If you don’t think that anyone with even less-then-average intelligence would see that as a statement made as a continuation of the context, then I don’t know what I can tell you. You really couldn’t see even the possibility of taking what you wrote as insulting, even though you were reading it over with the suspicion that someone had taken it that way? Really?

    “In a much more sever way,” I said. I deliberately included that to show I recognized a difference in scope, to avoid winding up exaggerating.

    “I am not saying that all politicians are terrorists,” I said, again to introduce evidence that I recognized a difference in scope, and to add a little levity.

    You’re not convinced that I am a neo-con, so that much is good to know; thanks for that. I feel pretty sure that you would mean labeling someone a neo-con to be a put down at the least, and more likely as an insult.

     

     

    Peter,

    I am really not “all Hayek-and-Tea-Party about” the local legislatures doing these sorts of things. I just recognize, as do you, that taken together they add up to a lot of intrusion. I don’t live in California, so really, they can knock themselves out, as far as I am concerned.

    As I’ve stated before, I’m not involved at any level with the Tea Party movement (which gets its name regarding taxes, not regulations, btw).

    I knew something was destroying the planet, I just didn’t know it was cosmetics… Seems it would be hard to make up this stuff.

  40. 42 JJ Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    deBeauxOs

    JJ, you said echo chamber, not I.

    I’m sorry you took it personally, I didn’t mean it to insult the commenters here.

    What I meant was, most blog comments tend to be made by people who are in general agreement with whatever was posted — not that the comments are boring (the comments are often more entertaining than the post). In that respect, most blogs are “echo chambers” — in fact, I can only think of two or 3 that I regularly read that aren’t.

    So again, I apologize if it came across the wrong way.

  41. 43 JJ Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Brian — American Stinker? Really??? You teabagger.

  42. 44 JJ Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Peter

    For some reason, I get more offended by government “urging” me to compost than I do by it forcing me to recycle. Not sure why.

    By the time they are forcing you to do something it’s too late 👿

    Okay, I don’t want to sound like a nut who believes we get brainwashed by the government, but I suspect that by the time things become law, we’ve heard so much about them that we take it for granted it’s just the thing to do.

  43. 45 Brian Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    I always drink coffee (and lots of it!).

    I don’t browse the American Thinker; Found my way there from a Google search.


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,624
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: