Sentiment Does Not a Movement (and Mandate) Make
I'm not going make a habit of jumping into Cafe debate very often-- my primary role here is that of facilitator, not contributer-- but Josh called me out so I'm obligated by the Code of Blogging to defend my good name.
His basic point is well-taken: anti-war sentiment has largely been successfully channeled into mainstream electoral politics in a way it simply wasn't in the late 60s and early 70s. Because of that, it hasn't been necessary to try to levitate the pentagon or confront the Democratic Party simply to be heard (and thank God for both). But, while every young lefty probably has pangs of "I was born a generation too late" once in a while, I think Josh's accusation of protest-fetishism misses the basis of my complaint. It's not about the protests, it's about the movement.
There's a reason the midterms have been described as "an opportunity, not a mandate" and anti-war sentiment has translated into a muddled chorus of cutthefundscapthetroopssaymeanthings: public opinion is clear only in its distaste for the war. Only a movement--institutionally organized, public in its presence (maybe even with protests!), and coherent in its critique--could have channeled dissatisfaction into a mandate for a singular new approach.
The promise of the New Left, after all, wasn't it's ability to make noise and garner media attention as a part of the Anti-War Movement at the end of the decade. (The war and the noise, in fact, were its undoing.) The promise of the New Left was that out of Civil Rights and anti-nuclear organizing at the beginning of the decade came institutions and and an intellectual tradition that provided the platform for people like Todd Gitlin to stand up early on and say "this war is wrong." That those institutions and that tradition fell to sectarian pieces (and veered toward crazy) just as they were coming into their own was the great disappointment.
This war, understood on the Left to be the greatest foreign policy mistake in American history, could and should be the impetus for building that kind of institutional and intellectual movement. I hope what Stoller and others are doing with the so-called Netroots becomes just that. The desire, smarts and organization are certainly in place, but a political project beyond rehabilitating the Democratic Party has yet to arise.
Maybe it's out there, simmering under the media radar. There's obviously a great deal of anti-war organizing going on, and I know from experience that movement-building process stories don't exactly thrill political reporters. But I don't see it. For all of the sentiment, the anti-warness just seems frustratingly muddled and ephemeral. And ephemeral things rarely translates into a mandate.
Update: While I say I hope the Netroots becomes this movement, I should give credit where credit is due in acknowledging how much the net left has done since its birth in the midst of the Dean campaign to move the Democratic Party. I don't think, though, that the group is articulating a persuasive vision beyond a robust opposition to a dumb war, so I still don't think it yet lives up to its potential for political leadership.
In my experience, "muddled", non-specific movements are about the only way you can get a group of liberals to unite and fight for a cause over the long term.
The right may be able to unite around policies since they're willing to deal with cognitive dissonance (eg: "I'm in favor of major subsidies to corporations run by Christian conservatives because I'm a LIBERTARIAN by god!"). The Left starts shaking once you get away from themes and start getting into details. We splinter into about a billion different warring clans when a politician actually has the temerity to lay down a policy, particularly one so loathsome that it actually has a chance of becoming law.
I'd argue this was true of the New Left as well: while "Civil Rights is cool" was a widespread understanding, the exact mode of achieving that goal certainly was NOT (non-violent resistance? legal activism? violent revolution? economic separatism?).
This isn't necessarily a criticism of the Left, though. It's just how we operate. There's a lot less of an understanding of what it means to be a "liberal" these days, and there are far more liberals who only sign on to a very specific part of the Democratic party's agenda than there are inconstant conservatives. So it makes more sense to sell this war thematically than in terms of policy. "Bring em Home!" sells a lot easier than "Create a timetable for withdrawal while keeping a standing force in the region to facilitate peaceful division into autonomous nation-states!"
January 23, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a false dichotomy. The Left can have a clear critique on Iraq and a movement to support it without falling into sectarian strife.
January 23, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew and Josh and others: There's still time to get "crazy". :)
When war escalates, dissenters are shot down by National Guard troops, the gore is intolerable, Americans at home start to suffer, and the political process doesn't bring enough change...that's what really amped up the movement back then and may do so now. And we had plenty of electoral activism then too. I'm sure you know that if you think about it.
The lies have been exposed now, which is a start.
I think the internet has performed some of the function that in-person dissent did in the Vietnam peace movement, and it's fantastic, but there is nothing like putting your ass out there with the people and leaving nuance and theory at home. Trust me on that. Yes, it's "expressive" among other things, damn right, and we need that. A movement without "sentiment" is nothing.
Never mind a few crazies, you'll see moms with strollers, guys who look like bankers, priests, and very ordinary folks. Just put one foot in front of the other. Get your picture taken, it does wonders for one's commitment. Actually, though, no one will notice you, you'll be one of the people, which is good, puts one's ego in perspective. If you do it with an open mind, and that's a big if, I guarantee you will learn something about why people march around with signs and chant, which I don't think you will learn very well in this blog medium.
Playing therapist, I know part of you wants to do it. :) If you don't go that's ok too. We need to use every mode of activism we have. Blogs are a very important part of this movement. Peace
p.s. I don't buy it that extremes of the peace movement or counter-culture caused the subsequent wave of conservatism. It would have happened anyway. It's a yin and yang thing. Now I sound like a hippie, sheesh.
January 23, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps "the left" can, but the Democratic Party cannot, at least not if they plan on maintaining some kind of power. This is changing as attitudes against the war harden and Bush continues to be Bush (Compare and contrast: Nixon in Vietnam, vs Bush in Iraq. Can you imagine Nixon politically screwing things up the way Bush has?), but it's still treacherous ground.
January 23, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The peace movement and the counter-culture didn't cause the wave of conservatism. The division between left and liberal, accompanied by the loss of public legitimacy caused by the excesses of some members of the Left, created an opportunity for the Right. They didn't cause the rise of the New Right, they just weren't there to stop it.
January 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point of a movement would be to organize public opinion on the ground in a way that would allow/force the Democratic Party to present a more united front.
January 23, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole discussion hinges on the meaning of the word "mistake" (sorry to sound so Clintonian).
The antiwar camp splits neatly into two groups well represented on this blog. One group believes the mistake was tactical (not enough troops, poor planning, too many ignoramuses like Bremer, Feith, etc); the other group believes the whole enterprise was neocolonial and, as such, doomed from the start.
As long as these two groups believe they're fighting for the same cause, there'll never be a movement: just scattered voices.
In that sense, Bush's spectacular incompetence is what's killing the antiwar camp. It gives people like Tom Friedman and Beinart an escape hatch ("Bush botched my great idea!")
January 23, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The division between left and liberal, accompanied by the loss of public legitimacy caused by the excesses of some members of the Left..."
As I noted in a comment on Todd's "After thoughts" post, the excesses of the antiwar movement paled in comparison to the excesses of the liberal Democratic American government that was responsible for massive criminal violence in Vietnam. Please, tell me anything the antiwar movement or even some of the antiwar movement did that compares to, say, napalm. That the public of the time took greater offense at the actions of the longhair war protesters than at the actions of the short-haired warmongers is a sad comment on the public, not the protesters. By and large, it was the war protesters who were on the side of right and morality, certainly as far as the war was concerned.
In much of the discussions I am seeing on this issue at TPM there is a real historical ignorance over the basic nature of what was happening in the late 1960's. Let's be totally clear here: America was governed by Democrats until 1969, when Nixon became President (and Congress remained in Democratic hands). When the Left was butting heads with power--or getting their heads cracked open, or having infiltrators in their actions, or being spied on, or having their offices burglarized, etc.--it was putatively liberal politicians who were sending in the secret police. And it was putatively liberal politicians who were funding the war research on campus, and who were --repeat after me--waging the Vietnam War.
So Todd Gitlin has a whole load of guilt over Hubert Humphrey not being elected (by a whisker). As I said in my comment on his post, I was 12 in '68 and supported Humphrey. But the Left of that time--20-20 hindsight Todd, of course, an exception--should be given a little bit of understanding for looking at Humphrey, in the heat of that time and based on the facts of his loyal service to Johnson and defense of the war, as part of the problem. Not part of the solution. So Humphrey made tentative steps away from his steadfast commitment to the war during the tail end of the 1968 campaign? Joe Lieberman, here in Connecticut, led (enough) folks to believe last fall that he, too, wanted a way out of the present debacle. And look what he is up to now.
This is the bottom line: There was no reason, based on their experience, for the Left to trust the Democratic liberals--at least, the Cold War Democratic liberals like Humphrey--in 1968.
I think the netroots phenomenom is an exciting breakthrough in progressive politics. But there needs to also be a space for the public gathering of people in political action. For pressure in the streets.
But then I may be addressing a young naive audience here that is yet to learn that Democratic politicians don't walk on water.
January 23, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, coalitions can be formed while Friedman gets an education.
Tom
January 23, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
... but the Right used media manipulation to accentuate the "crazies" at protests during Vietnam (many of whom were government agents). So it was then and now big money calling the shots.
Tom
January 23, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. "Cold War Democratic liberals" says it all. The whole point of the New Left was to challenge the Cold War mentalility (US - good; commies bad) that ruled the common wisdom of the early sixties. Ho Chi Minh must be bad because he was a "COMMUNIST" as only Walter Cronkite could pronounce it. Anyone in the State Department who had the guts to say "Lighten up, Ho's a nationalist first & a buffer against Chinese expasion" had been purged during the Truman/McCarthy era. The fact that most of the country wasn't good enough at critical thinking to see through Cold War BS wasn't the fault of the New Left.
Tom
January 23, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. What united front should they present to this exceedingly complicated and muddled issue?
January 23, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But then I may be addressing a young naive audience here that is yet to learn that Democratic politicians don't walk on water."
After what has been done to us by the Democratic Establishment since the defeat of Dean in 2004 you have the guts to say something like that?
Wow.
January 23, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. "Movement" sounds a lot like the language of the people who wanted to channel the anti-war protests to their own ends. Most of us just wanted to STOP THE WAR. It wasn't that complicated.
I have a lot of more sophisticated views on government these days, but I am not about to let those old movement types provide me guidance. The left third parties typically didn't know enough about government to know what to do IF THEY DID get control.
Don't get me wrong, I don't EVER want to see the Publicans in control. I don't buy the shit that they deserve a voice, when all they are is a megaphone of Any Rands. AND, I think the Democratic leaders are far too self serving; look at Harry Reid's shenanigans over exposing the sources of earmarks.
I go with Madison's view: people will be what people are, so the structure of government shouldn't aim at changing the politician's nature; instead it should harness the politician's nature for the good of the public. What I mean is when considering the choice between venal but able Democrats and not-yet venal and totally unable 3rd party types, I am prepared to go with the venal Democrats, but I'd like to fix the structure of government so that THEIR venality turns out to benefit ME.
This is the missing piece of modern reforms. We try to fix people, and that won't work. Let's just figure out how, when they are doing their worst, they end up helping us. THAT is what the Publicans are doing.
Read Federalist 10 again. Madison was onto something.
UPDATE: Just to clarify one thing... When I say, "That is what the Publicans are doing," I don't mean they are "helping us." I mean they are figuring out how to achieve their ends when people are at their worst.
January 23, 2007 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in favor of sending Friedman and all the rest of those neocon pundits (as well as think-tank policy advisors) in a special battalion to cover the backs of the retreating American soldiers as they leave the country. The pundits can leave last and any way they can find to get out.
January 23, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. After reading Josh's post and this one, I take it that the original, predominant question being addressed here is why are there no street protests today against the Iraq war like there were in the '60's against the Vietnam war. Although I've railed against the dearth of protests in other venues, and despite all the many fine analytical comments in response to the applicable posts, I think I have the definitive answer and it's a very simple one.
There is no draft.
If thousands of young people were being drafted and forcibly sent to fight and die in this rightly unpopular war, I guarantee you that many thousands of American's would be leaving their cozy living rooms and comfy laptops and hitting the streets in a frenzy.
Bottom line.
Demokat
January 23, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope what Stoller and others are doing with the so-called Netroots becomes just that. The desire, smarts and organization are certainly in place, but a political project beyond rehabilitating the Democratic Party has yet to arise.
While I agree this is true, I think it is too much to expect the netroots as such to become a movement. The net is just a medium, and even the so-called "progressive blogosphere" will continue to encompass too much diversity to constitute a coherent movement. People will continue to use the net as a tool for organizing movements of various kinds.
And the fact is that there is no single intellectually dominant critique of the war among the many groups who make up the current Democratic coalition. Nor is there a dominant emerging vision of an alternative foreign policy.
January 23, 2007 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, I think you can distinguish between the netroots community that has been built up around Kos, MyDD and blogs like Firedoglake, and the medium of blogging generally. Yes, the net is a medium, but there is a cluster that joined the medium at about the same time for about the same reasons and has worked together to further many of the same basic goals.
To the second point, I completely agree. That's my concern.
January 23, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I very much agree.
January 23, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
CTHankster is right that the 1968 left had no reason to trust Humphrey. It had good reason to prefer Humphrey to Nixon, however feeble Humphrey had been. It did not take the Nixon threat seriously. For this, it is culpable. That said, I harbor no guilt. Understand, yes. Justify, no.
Todd Gitlin
January 24, 2007 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about using Al Franken's old chickenhawk brigade of non-fighters who were so cavalier about sending others to their deaths - Cheney and Bush leading the way?
Tom
January 24, 2007 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure let them go too along with all the mistaken (or not) congressmen and senators.
January 24, 2007 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who wasn't there when the Pentagon was successfully levitated has no right to discuss it.
It was a HIGHlight of my 60's experience.
January 24, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was running a college news pool there in October 1967, and did interview the Pentagon building manner, who wrote them out a permit, as long as they got the FAA to countersign it as not interfering with the flight path into National. He was a good enough sport to make several calls, until the FAA gave altitude restrictions and acceptable directions if it moved.
Can't say I say it move, except possibly when a demonstrator hit me under the jaw. He then must of seen it rise much faster as he fell.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 24, 2007 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine that being HIGH helped with the levitating thing.
January 24, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I see. Where the right-wing infrastructure is top-down, one-way communication (talk radio being a prime example), the left-wing netroots is much more effective at promoting dialog. The biggest difference I see is that the netroots really is quite effective at creating a sense of agency in a way that is simply impossible with talk radio.
Rather than listening and nodding like a dittohead, people in the netroots can start off writing comments and such, actually engaging other people. Obviously, just writing comments on a blog really accomplishes nothing and opens up the potential for a solipsistic "I'm fighting Bush, I posted on a blog!" that goes no further, but based on my own experience it creates a strong sense of ownership in the ideas and movements.
Throw in the very powerful, very consistent pre-election calls to activism and you end up with a wonderfully useful need to put your money where your mouth is. I've always been interested in politics but never volunteered for anything. After being engaged in the netroots for a few years now, there was no way for me to avoid volunteering time with a clear conscience. I went from just being proud of never missing an election to actually getting my ass out there and doing some canvassing and phone banking, and had a great time doing it, and I don't think I'll be able to go through another election without working for the people I'm planning on voting for again.
This is not to pat myself on the back; if the netroots can inspire someone as generally lazy and apathetic as I am, I can only imagine what it'll turn into as it gets bigger.
January 24, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That makes sense. I certainly see how powerfully the netroots have moved people to action. But my question is this: with what vision of America as the goal?
January 24, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are some interesting observations, in communications economics, that show the power of top-down right-wing infrastructures you describe, rather than decentralized models. The rules of thumb are called "Laws", but, for those readers who know the nuances, have some mathematical quibbles beyond the scope of this discussion.
Sarnoff's Law, originally developed for radio broadcasting, states that the network value grows linearily with the number of subscribers, N.
Metcalfe's Law applies to the telephone model, where communications are pairwise among the subscribers rather than top-down. The basic expression of value is (N * (N-1))/ 2. [* is multiplication] There is a supplemental value from the telephone network operator itself: the value of the directory service that lets subscribers find subscribers. Increasingly, telephone companies charge for directory assistance, increasing the owner value but increasing the cost to subscribers.
With the Internet, we have Reed's Law, which recognizes that meaningful groups can be not just pairs, but any arbitrary group (e.g., blog subscribers) that can be interconnected via the Internet. The value of a Reed network grows much faster than a Metcalfe network: 2**N - N -1 [** is exponentiation]. With the distributed Domain Name Service (DNS), there is no direct equivalent of a directory assistance charge.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 24, 2007 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, tricky. I'm definitely getting well out of my depth here, but I'll stumble ahead anyway.
My impression is that ideology right now is primarily reactive and should be looked at in terms of backlash; against Bush and the war, but also against big business in general. People are feeling preyed upon by corporations to a degree they probably haven't felt since the 30's and are angry at everything from health care, to fuel costs, to the environment. Bush won't back down on anything, ever, so he'll continue to radicalize people against his policies.
Honestly, I'm not sure there's a coherent vision of the future coming out of the netroots, at least right now. There are too many issues and too many voices for that to be possible. What I do see in the short term is a shopping list of issues that need to be resolved:
1) The war in Iraq
2) Health care
3) Energy/The environment
What's happening now is more of a populist attempt at getting these issues resolved; it seems like there's some kind of a consenus forming across the political spectrum on these issues (evangelicals and hunters/outdoors, traditionally a very solid part of the Republican base, are becoming increasingly stirred up about the environment, for example).
If the left, both the netroots and their Democratic allies, are able to deal with these issues successfully, I think the potential is there for a genuine groundswell on tackling the other issues. At this point, though, I'll have to dodge part of the question a bit and point back to the netroots as more of a medium, because it's responsible for opening lines of communication between groups that likely wouldn't have any.
If the netroots make it possible for the left to reconnect to its populist roots, it's at that point that I think it'll become more of a true movement. Right now, the netroots are most useful for mobilization, and those first few fights have to be won for there to be any kind of coherent ideology, and that ideology will rise out of whatever won the previous battles.
January 24, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 24, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
=== With the distributed Domain Name Service (DNS), there is no direct equivalent of a directory assistance charge. ===
Never fear; Google is working on /that/ little "bug".
sPh
January 24, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Internet tends to be self-repairing around excessive profiteering.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 24, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The war the Johnson administration escalated killed 58,000 Americans. Voting against that administration was a moral necessity.
Some things actually do matter and as a matter of mass death, war is high on that list.
Meanwhile, back to not managing to throw a few quarters at the minimum wage....
January 24, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I started to talk about the draft focusing our attention, creation automatic empathy. It could be me: It could be my brother: It could be my friend type moments!
Then it occurred to me that they stole this. They meaning the masters of war, those whose unlimited budgets we the citizens give them to manipulate. They took 911 and focused the "it could be me" to the public. Terrorism, 911 were the driving force for today as the draft was for Vietnam, but then was a naturally occurring event. Today we have been R.F.ed as Nixon's dirty tricks team would say. Professional pimps sold the goods, those virgins after death for others have nothing to compare to these R.fers. Offerings. Joseph Goebbels would envy these techniques, he would die of envy with the ability to manipulate the American public.
The media is complicit also.
What set me off, a slow burn, erupting was looking back to the "real" of the past. The Life, Look, magazine covers. The published human condition of our soldiers, the Vietnamese, the mud, death, dying we will never see today.
How can anyone identify with nothing being shown? No music allowed. Look at them chicks.
Hear the songs then. http://www.manchu.org/music/
This time for the media should be compared to the south when Lynching was not shown, accepted by the supposed educated newspaper editors, reporters, and owners.
Is our individual and collective accountability so vast that no redemption is possible? What can be done? Who is accountable? Not I say the politicians, not I say the Generals, and not I say me, us, we!
Search Vietnam way, Life covers, photographs, they are human beings dying, not today. Darth Vader images never show death of anyone. Like other things in life, Karma can only be postponed.
Kent State 1970 Ohio National Guard, killing four; two were simply walking to class
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm15.html
April 16 1965 vulnerable US copters, shouting crew chief, dying pilot
http://www.magazine.org/Editorial/40-40-covers/28.jpg Life Cover
Wounded GIs in Vietnam Feb 11, 1966 Life Cover
http://www.life.com/Life/cover_search/view?coverkeyword=&startMonth=1&startYear=1964&endMonth=12&endYear=1966&pageNumber=10&indexNumber=0
GI at Con Thien Oct 27, 1967 Life Cover
http://www.life.com/Life/cover_search/view?coverkeyword=&startMonth=1&startYear=1966&endMonth=12&endYear=1968&pageNumber=8&indexNumber=9
Vietnam soldier carries wounded buddy May 12, 1972
http://www.life.com/Life/cover_search/view?coverkeyword=&startMonth=1&startYear=1971&endMonth=12&endYear=1972&pageNumber=6&indexNumber=7
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire 1911
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm24.html
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
January 24, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, as I generally am enlightened by your posts, could you try to synthesize a point of the images of death you cite? I am, for example, mystified on what the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire has to do with war casualties. At the level of individual casualties, these have the flavor of things I've seen in big-city trauma centers. Kent State had casualties, yes, but the nature of the casualties suggest it was a horrible accident, incompetence if you will, as opposed to deliberate military fire.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 24, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard
Sometimes, I sits & think, sometimes I just sits not knowing which state produces a truer plumb. Tangency or bi-section of the target can be called a square hit on the pool table.
I just sits for a while on this, as there is the obvious -we just don't see this human presentation of death from -our- media anymore, but there is more.
Stand by one or two, please; you are not ignored, just switching heads.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
January 26, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will say in turn that I am not ignoring, but musing. The reality of death and serious illness or disease are things that not just the MSM, but much of our society tries to hide.
In medical settings, I've encountered some pretty bad things, some for which there is no easy way to explain in words. Perhaps the worst experience I had was going into the room of a patient with gas gangrene, just to get a sample. The smell was such that I went into the hall, more or less in panic, leaned against the wall, and shook and cried. A surgical resident, someone I had not suspected of the slighest empathy, took me into his arms and, holding it tightly, said "I know. The only consolation is that you will never encounter anything worse than this. When you're ready, I'll help you to the doorway, and let you get a small whiff and prepare yourself. A little later, you will be ready, I'll be at your side, and you'll do what is needed -- and you will, in the future, be able to help people that you can't conceive of helping now."
I was recently musing on the practice of lethal injection, and humane execution in general. Now, I've had open-heart surgery, which is the model used for the drugs used in execution. I would note that the combination used for lethal execution is forbidden as inhumane by the American Veterinary Association, but the effects of the combination are easier to watch. I can't say I was ever awake but fully paralyzed, unable to breathe, but I have had potassium chloride injected just a little too fast. It was agony. Veterinary and international euthanasia protocols are simpler, probably more reliable, but take more time than our prisons would like for an efficient execution.
If anyone ever does need to execute me, I suspect I'd prefer hanging with a competent hangman.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 26, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink