Sunday, June 30, 2002

An item that caused a certain amount of controversy this week, that I neglected to comment on, was the 9th Circuit Court ruling, and subsequent staying of that ruling, regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I chose not to comment on the ruling because I was surprised to find out that I really didn't care about it one way or the other. Did I mention that this surprised me?

I'd always been mildly offended by the "under God" that was inserted into the Pledge. I remember as a kid, when we had to say the Pledge each morning at school, I always chose to keep silent during that clause. I was taught early on to honor the separation of church and state, and that freedom of religion also included freedom from religion.

Not that we weren't religious, or didn't believe in God, but it was something outside of, and separate from, our feelings of patriotism and citizenship. Further, as a Jew, we learned about the evil of worshiping idols. Our emphasis was on ideas, not images, and I always thought the Pledge bordered on idolatry.

Seriously: we were pledging allegiance to the flag. Shouldn't we have been pledging allegiance to the country? The flag is merely a symbol for the country, and one of many. Standing, placing our hands over our hearts, and coming close to praying to a piece of cloth seemed odd to me. I'd have much rather pledged allegiance to freedom, democracy, justice, and diversity, and left the flag out of it.

So, I never bothered with "under God," and I'm set against any mingling of church and state. So why was I unmoved when a judge pointed out that there may be a conflict between the Pledge and the Constitution?

To be honest, my first reaction was, "Why a San Francisco judge? The rest of the country thinks we're all a bunch of Commies out here already!" But that wasn't really it.

Then I thought, maybe it's like the old Groucho Marx joke, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member." Maybe now that thinking the pledge was religious idolatry was hitting the mainstream, I couldn't be bothered anymore?

Finally I realized that I simply thought that the ruling was as silly, meaningless, and absurd as the Pledge itself. In the battle to maintain a line between church and state, there are far more important issues right now than the words to some symbolic, but essentially harmless, patriotic pledge.

Because of the heavy symbolism of the pledge, people tend to get very emotional about it. Which makes it a great wedge issue to divide us and keep us from discussing some far more pressing problems.

For instance, the coverage of the circuit court Pledge decision overshadowed the Supreme Court's decision on school vouchers for religious education. I'm far more concerned about my tax dollars, precious few of which are already earmarked for public schools, going into church coffers. Now there's an issue that effects people, and is worth getting upset over.

Then there's the continued dismantling of the social safety net by the Bush administration, handing it off in chunks as part of the "faith based initiatives." Sure, social services may (or may not) be available for the down and out, but only for those willing to get on their knees and pray for it. That's got me a bit ticked off as well.

The Pledge? You've got to be kidding. Say it, don't say it, I don't care. It's a free country. You know that as silly as I think it is, I still say the Pledge, although I occasionally skip the "under God." Big deal.

If you care about the separation of church and state, we've got more important things to worry about than whether or not our money has "in God we trust" printed on it. Let's get going here.

Saturday, June 29, 2002

First of all, the show will go on!

Yesterday afternoon Pete Townshend announced that the Who tour will commence on Monday, with only the two shows over the weekend being cancelled. This, of course, follows news of bassist John Entwistle's death on Thursday of an apparent heart attack.

"We are going on. First show Hollywood Bowl. Pray for us John, wherever you are," was the message posted to Pete's site about mid-day. In a later posting at The Who's site, it said, "Bass player Pino Palladino has been drafted in for the shows. The Las Vegas and Irvine shows will be rescheduled for new dates."

Wednesday's show here, in Mountain View, should be an interesting experience. I'm looking forward to it, but now with a bit of nervous awe as to how they're going to pull it off.

And now, the final word on the subject for today, from Roger Daltrey, "I just hope that God has got his earplugs ready. Whatever happens he’ll have to reinvent thunder as it simply won’t be loud enough any more!"


Now, on to other pressing questions... Do fish fart? - Why do we have fingerprints? - Why does drinking alcohol cause dehydration?

Answers to these and more: The Last Word

Friday, June 28, 2002

America's roads and highways get $32 billion per year; Amtrak has only received $24 billion - total - in its 31 years of existence. Do you care? Should you care?

Why are so many Americans against the idea of public funding for Amtrak. They view billions for highways and bailing out airlines as matters of national security. They all claim to love the idea of rail travel. But, actually put their money where their mouth is? Not quite.

Increased capacity for rail travel is an environmentally sound means of transportation and relieving traffic congestion. One set of rails moves more people than four new lanes of highway. You want open roads? Support rail.

Read more about it: Amtrak is about to be run over -

Thursday, June 27, 2002

John Alec Entwistle, bassist for The Who, died in Las Vegas on Thursday at age 57, just one day before the group was set to begin a North American tour in the city. Entwistle, affectionately known as The Ox, died at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino.

More details (CNN): The Who's Entwistle Dies on Eve of Tour

I'm just in shock right now. How can Entwistle be dead? I'm holding tickets to next week's show at the Shoreline Amphitheater. I'm going to the show, I don't care if they say it's cancelled. I'm going, and I expect a lot of other people will show up too. Even if it's just to listen to the silence together.

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

One of the first rules of organizing a good protest is that for it to be really effective, you need to attract media coverage. Print press is good, but to really reach a mass audience with your message, you've got to get TV cameras there.

So, what happens if the clever angle to your protest also happens to make it ... well, let's say, "challenging" to put it on television without offending the viewer? Well, yesterday, in Calgary, that's just what happened when anti-G8 activists bared all in "cheeky protest."

I would have loved seeing it on the news, but I suspect most networks and independent stations opted out of showing a couple of dozen protesters standing naked in front of the Gap, with "boycott Gap" written across their asses (one letter per cheek), shouting, "I'd rather wear nothing than wear The Gap."

In fact, not only do I think it would have been great on the news, but I think the Gap should use the footage themselves for a new ad campaign - "They'd rather go naked, if they can't wear the Gap!"

The action, by the way, was to protest the Gap's use [abuse] of cheap, foreign labor (true) and their destruction of a redwood forest in California (not so sure about the details on that one).

Meanwhile, from the world of literature: 'World's Worst Poet' Wins Immortality.

Tuesday, June 25, 2002

Oprah says I've got to put more in my journal. On yesterday's show, she had a guest who claimed that journaling has helped him fight Alzheimer's. I can't remember why it helped, but it did. So here's my entry to help remember yesterday:

Getting home from work yesterday and turning on the television I felt a strange mixture of disappointment and relief at having missed Dubya's big speech on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Disappointment, because I would like to be an informed citizen. Relief because listening to - no, even just looking at - Dubya, and trying to believe that he's our President, makes me rather ill.

From the clips on the evening news, however, I got some idea of what he said. Beyond pronouncing the location as "Palesteen," where the "Palestitnian" people live, he basically said nothing new for all the hooplah around this "major address," and did nothing but offer himself political protection. It was nothing more than a "safe" speech, barely more substantive than coming out in favor of bunny rabbits or ice cream.

Offering the Palestinians less than, or barely equal to, what has already been on the table over the last decade is not a break-through. Coming out in favor of a Palestinian state alongside Israel didn't shock or surprise anyone, or introduce any new incentives. Calling for the Palestinian's to elect a new leader? Umh, haven't they already scheduled elections? They're working on it, dude.

For further political commentary on the futility of a speech like this doing anything to halt terrorism, I defer to Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine. The following excerpt is from an email update I subscribe to (subscription instructions follow):

Bush Offers Nothing Real to the Palestinians--but Plenty for the Terrorists
-- a response to Bush's Mid East speech June 24th, 2002.

by Rabbi Michael Lerner
-- Editor, Tikkun

George Bush might be a nice guy, but he sure knows how to miss an opportunity. For the first time since 1948, Arab states have offered to give Israel full recognition and peace if Israel withdraws to its pre-67 borders. The leadership of the Palestinian Authority has just announced that it would accept the terms of an agreement as defined by President Clinton in 2000 in the months after Camp David.

But there are two substantial obstacles to all this: First, the Israeli political Right, which currently runs the Government of Israel, has no interest in withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. ...

Second, Islamic fundamentalists have no interest in the creation of a secular Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. They would much prefer to see an Israeli occupation which will be worn down over the course of the next thirty to forty years of guerilla struggle against Islamic forces than to see a secular state that would restore hope for Palestinians and lessen the appeal of the fundamentalists.

So both have entered into a de facto alliance to prevent any such development. Ariel Sharon says that he will not reward terror by allowing any substantial steps toward withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza as long as Israelis face terror. Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad understand the covert invitation, and respond by acts of terror against Israel, particularly at moments when the Palestinian Authority seems to be moving toward accommodation with whatever is the lastest American or Israeli demand.

Instead of responding by attacking Hamas, Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, Sharon responds by repressive measures against the Palestinian Authority and the entire Palestinian people. Those measures increase despair, generate new recruits for the terrorists, and demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Palestinian Authority. A perfect reward for the terrorists - exactly what they are seeking.

Now George Bush has joined Sharon in endorsing the notion that any small bunch of fundamentalist extremists can veto a peace process. .... And since the Palestinian terrorists do not seek peace with Israel, but the destruction of Israel, George Bush has given them massive incentive to keep going with acts of terror.

... Find the full text, and subscribe to emails from Rabbi Lerner, at

Sunday, June 23, 2002

Today is Leslie and my sixth anniversary! We already began celebrating yesterday, with a little day trip up to Marin to walk in the John Muir Woods, followed by dinner at Scoma's, in SF.

It turns out that the John Muir Woods is one of the most visited national parks in the country, and that the first weekend of summer is a particularly busy time. The giant redwoods are stunning (but, hey, we're used to that here in the Santa Cruz mountains), as is the setting, but at times it seemed more like Disneyland with all the people pushing their way along the trails.

The spot where the international delegates who first formed the United Nations gathered in 1945 is well marked as Cathedral Grove, although its significance was lost on many of those who read the plaque and then said, "But what the heck has that got to do with this here tree?" (The actual meetings that formed the UN were held in San Francisco. Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, suggest a side trip to Muir Woods because sitting among 300+ foot-tall, 1,000 year-old redwoods would help the delegates realize their own small place in the world, and help the cause of peace.)

Our quest, however, was to find the grove (unmarked) where Hitchcock shot Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak in Vertigo. We chose a spot that we each agreed was it, but frankly, it could have been anywhere.

We also saw a cute little chipmunk, a few little tiny fingerling fish, a beautiful Stellar Jay (better than your run-of-the-mill everyday Blue Jay), and many different exotic butterflies.

Here's some history: In 1905 Congressman William Kent and his wife, Elizabeth Thacher Kent, bought 295 acres here for $45,000. To protect the redwoods the Kents donated the land to the United States Federal Government and, in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt declared it a national monument. Roosevelt suggested naming the area after Kent, but Kent wanted it named for conservationist John Muir. Muir was pleased and honored, and blushed just a bit.

- Visit the John Muir Woods (everybody else has)

Saturday, June 22, 2002

Is this a link? Click it and let me know if you think it's a link or not.

When is a link not a link? Does there have to be content on the other end for it to be a link? Apparently not. We all know about dead links - It was once a real link, but the site on the receiving end has given up, and taken the site off line. But what about all those sites you get to, and there's just nothing there? Do they count? is just an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but I'm constantly frustrated by following links that just lead to a bottomless void. But what can we do about it? Maybe a web site needs to be made to start a movement...

Who's behind

Thursday, June 20, 2002

"I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have changed several times since then." - Alice in Wonderland

If I could get all the people I've been in a room together we could have an interesting discussion. Or, perhaps, we could subject them each (me all?) to a police-style interrogation and discover who were the imposters, and who the real me might be.

That could, of course, be dangerous; who's to say that the real me is the one that gets up every morning, posts to this blog, then goes off to work to pay my bills. Maybe the real me was left behind and forgotten some time back. Or, possibly, they're (I'm?) all imposters, and there are more changes ahead that will reveal the real Ken.

I'd better get what I can out of the current me while I can, before I go changing on me again.

Wednesday, June 19, 2002

Near instantaneous broadcast of the latest news around the globe is the standard that we're not only used to; we expect it. What's the latest in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? We can find out in seconds. What about al-Qaeda? Click and you shall know. But it wasn't always like that.

Imagine a time when it might have taken news two and a half years for news to travel from Washington, DC, to Galveston, Texas. Imagine that period was January 1, 1863 to June 19, 1865.

That's how long it took between the official effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation and the news of it actually freeing the slaves of Texas. June 19, 1865, was when Major General Gordon Granger of the Union Army entered Galveston, and read the proclamation.

Of course, much partying ensued among the newly freed, and June 19 came to be celebrated locally each year as a day of freedom, and came to be known as "Juneteenth." As the descendants of the Texas slaves migrated across the country, the tradition of Juneteenth also spread.

Today, of course, is Juneteenth. I hope you celebrate, and think about freedom, and the history and struggles to achieve it.

Learn More:
Juneteenth - A history
Juneteenth - "official site"

Monday, June 17, 2002

What do you wear to a hotel fire? That's a question I got to ask myself on Saturday night. The hotel wasn't actually on fire, and for some reason I was sure of that before I had much evidence, but the alarm was going off.

It was 2:30 AM, and I was sleeping quite soundly when the sirens started blaring. I turned on the light and thought about it a moment, realizing it was probably a false alarm, but I heard some people in the hallway, so I pulled on the slacks I'd been wearing earlier that were still out and tee-shirt and went to the door.

My neighbors all agreed that it was probably a false alarm and went back in their rooms, and I did as well. I was getting ready to take the pants off and thought, "I'd feel pretty silly evacuating the hotel only to find out it's a false alarm." Then, a moment later added, "I'd feel even stupider burning to a crisp." And so, down six flights of stairs I went.

I was very proud of myself for remembering my fire safety tips: At each door way I first felt the door and handle to see if they were warm before opening!

In the lobby people were in all states of dress, from nities that only a spouse should see (thank you!), to fully dressed and quaffed, looking like they'd never been to bed. And all fairly upset as the folks at the front desk explained that it was "probably" a false alarm.

Although it was only "probably" a false alarm, the hotel didn't want to call the fire department - they didn't want the truck sirens to wake up any of the guests who may have slept through the initial wailing. One of the hotel guests called the fire department, who showed up a half-hour later, just as I was back in my room and trying to get back to sleep.

Anyway, I'm obviously back from my trip now, and trying to catch up on all my messages - If you wrote me over the last week and haven't heard back yet, please be patient: it may take me a day or two to go through it all. It's good to be home.

Wednesday, June 12, 2002

I'm off now to San Diego for a conference. I'll be staying at (and the conference is at) the same hotel that Leslie and I stayed in last year on our vacation. Only this summer, I won't be leaving the property much.

So - I won't be posting for a few days while I'm away from the computer. While you wait for me, why don't you read my blog entries from last year's vacation in San Diego.

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

VH1's been airing the "Party at the Palace," the Queen's Jubilee Concert, and I just saw it last night. The show took place on the grounds of Buckingham Palace last week, in honor of Queen Elizabeth II's 50th year on the throne.

An interesting assortment of artists and, overall, a good show. Best performance: Joe Cocker. He may have gained more weight than a lot of the others, but his voice is the same as ever - Something that, unfortunately, can not be said of Sir Paul McCartney (who's getting married today).

My second favorite performance was Lola by Ray Davies. He's so often overlooked when it comes to organizing these events (or, at least, making the final cut on the TV version) that it would have been a thrill to see him even if he wasn't excellent. Ray had the best line of the night, introducing the song with, "I'd like to thank the owners of the property for letting us play in their back yard." The Queen and Prince Charles each did laugh.

Phil Collins was excellent as drummer for nearly every act, from Rod Stewart to Queen. Phil did not, however, get to do one of his songs! Did it just not make it to air, or did he not perform solo that night at all? Speaking of Rod, his voice seemed to be nearing full recovery.

Other highlights: Sir Paul with Eric Clapton doing "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," with an introduction from George Martin. The song started a little sloppy (Sir Paul hit a couple of sour notes on the piano), but quickly came together as a classic performance.

Who's crazier? Ozzy Osbourne or Brian Wilson? Side by side it was easy to see that they each manifest their insanity in different ways. Ozzy can't stop moving while Brian is somewhat of a zombie, but each should be locked up tightly immediately after the show. Not to say that I didn't love each of their performances, or that they're not each the best at what they do. I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that they are each very much insane.

VH1 will be playing the show about 1,000 more times this week - Check for showtimes. And God save the Queen!

Sunday, June 09, 2002

"Vote with a Vengeance" - Introducing The Election 2004 Project:

Below is the slightly edited correspondence between myself and the webmaster of a new site called "The Election 2004 Project" at I'll let the emails themselves fill you in on the what this is all about, and I hope you'll visit the site.

For clarity, his emails are in green, my reply is in blue (and by the way, he posts all the emails he receives through his site, so I'm going to go ahead and post his emails to me).


I was hoping you would check out my website, The Election 2004 Project. The URL is

I'm a strong supporter of third-party candidates and actively & aggressively finding constructive Democratic alternatives to candidates like Gore/Lieberman. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me with forming a broad-based online grassroots Left/Center coalition, to work toward actually making a difference in 2004.

Webmaster of The Election 2004 Project


Thanks for sending your link - Very nice web site....

I'd be happy to be in the loop for a left-center online coalition, whatever that involves or means. At the very least, I'd be happy to include a link to your site and point people your way.

Even among "independents" I'm in the minority: In your polls I chose Jim Hightower for Greens and Barbara Ehrenreich for independent, each of which are at 3% in their groups. Oh well, the only time I ever voted for a winner was 1992, and look what happened then!

Take care, and keep me informed of progress on the coalition,

- Ken Goldstein


... What I mean by Left/Center coalition is a WIDESPREAD group of people who share the basic common goals of: removing Bush from the White House, nominating an AUTHENTIC candidate to headline the Democratic Party ticket in 2004, organizing grassroots consolidation between various activists on the Left (i.e. bringing together Greens, Progressives, partisan Democrats, liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats, independent Democrats, Socialists, Independents, moderates, and anyone else dissatisfied with the Bush Administration) to support such a candidate's presidential bid, and make sure we seek out and elect a leader who can work toward implementing LONG-TERM progressive goals while working constructively with those on the opposite end of the political aisle. That may sound like a tall order on paper, but I truly believe it can be done...the only way, however, is if we start an actual aggressive movement for open discussion along these lines. But in order to achieve this, we need to reach out and get people involved from all over the country, from a wide variety of geographical regions and demographics (all different ages, races, genders) if we're ACTUALLY going to make a difference.

I apologize if I sound too preachy, but 2000 left a very bitter taste in my mouth, and I'm determined to see things done much differently this time around. With the 2002 midterms coming up in 5 months, the only way we can make a difference is if we act now! I'm contacting various online contacts whom I've made over the past year during which I've operated The Election 2004 Project, so we can work as a team to take online activism to a whole new level, and spread if OFFLINE as well. The more people we can get involved, then the more people we'll be able to reach and inform. And the more excitement we can generate for innovative new candidates, then the more new voters we can get registered, and the better and higher the voter turnout will be in 2004.

I would be honored if you (among what will hopefully become many others) would be willing to help me rally a core base of coalition leaders to initiate the type of movement I've described above. The establishment doesn't think we can actually make a difference - - so let's prove them wrong!

Webmaster of The Election 2004 Project

Saturday, June 08, 2002

So you think this is easy? Let me tell you, my friend, blogging is hard work. There's and art and a science to doing right. Oh, yes, I'm serious. And, apparently, the folks at UC Berkeley and USC agree with me.

Yes, blogging has gone legit, sort of. This fall UCB's Graduate Schools of Journalism will offer a course in blogging, and blogging will be included in USC's online journalism course.

Now, this, in and of itself is not really all that ridiculous. The reaction from "blogging pioneers," however, is. "Mark my words, this is going to be the Altamont of the blogging movement," Sean Kirby posted on the Daily Pundit blog, adding, "Teaching of blogging in journalism school signals an end of an era, a movement from blogging being separate from the old media, to it being appropriated by the media establishment."

Get real kids. Blogging is a technology that leads to a particular journalistic format. It works pretty well, too. The use of either the technology or the format by "traditional journalism" does not usurp the power of, or diminish the need for, independent, underground, online journalism any more than the traditional newspapers themselves could eliminate independent, underground, print alternatives.

And speaking of "traditional, legitimate news sources," did you read the one about Congress threatening to leave Washington, DC, if newer, more modern facilities were not built immediately? It was front page news in China.

Thursday, June 06, 2002

Amazing! I can see! I finally got my new glasses yesterday, after a nearly 2-1/2 month wait. (I had my eye exam, and ordered these, on March 29).

The first pair took forever because half-way through the making of them, the lab broke them and had to start again from scratch.

When I finally got them, it seemed to take forever to get used to them. I wore them for a week before concluding that it wasn't me, it was the glasses. They'd made them wrong, with the bifocal too high. Essentially, when I was driving, I was looking out through my reading lens. Not too safe. So I brought them back at the end of the week to have them re-order them.

During the re-making of the glasses, of course, they broke again, and so the second pair took just as long as the original. Maybe longer.

But now, I'm wearing them, and they work, and they're comfortable. Now, we'll see if I can drive safely with 'em on...

Wednesday, June 05, 2002

Two full days of work completed, and I'm still standing (or sitting uncomfortably). I've been going at about 75% power - It's always a little difficult getting back into the swing of things after some time off, but it's especially hard after medical leave.

One nice thing about being back in the office is the air conditioning. It's been about 90 degrees each day, and this apartment heats up like a meat smoker, so it's good to be in a climate-controlled atmosphere.

Not much else to share at this time. Except, hopefully, there will be no more health related postings here. I'm tired of it; I'm sure you're tired of it. It's been two weeks and one day since the surgery and it's time to more on.

Monday, June 03, 2002

Today it's back to work full-time - or at least attempting to. I'm doing much better, but it's still quite uncomfortable. I'm also trying to get off of taking the pain pills.

Leslie keeps reminding me not to push too hard at recovering too quick. It's not even quite two weeks since the surgery, she's pointed out repeatedly. She wants me to come home from work early today, but seeing as the last thing on my schedule is a meeting in SF, I don't know how I can do that without blowing off the whole meeting. We'll just have to see how it goes.

Wish me luck...

Sunday, June 02, 2002

Bush Declares, War Is Peace!

In his commencement address to the graduating class at West Point, yesterday, President Bush told those present, and all Americans, to be prepared for a pre-emptive attack against terror.

His speech, which was littered with references to "defending peace," "preserving peace," and "extending peace," explained that the only way to do so is for us to go on the offensive and bomb the Hell out of more countries (presumably Iraq).

A week after reassuring European leaders that he had "no war plans on my desk," Bush told the graduating cadets that, "In the world we have entered the only path to safety is the path of action and this nation will act."

Americans must be "ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives," he said.

Bush also preemptively brushed aside potential critics who might accuse him of acting unilaterally, saying, "Some may worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree."

I'd love to speak the language of right and wrong to the President, it is not in the least bit undiplomatic. What is undiplomatic, and ultimately wrong, is for the U.S. to go on the offensive, attacking Baghdad, or wherever else, unprovoked.

It will lose us allies in Europe and beyond and it will give would-be terrorists more "justification" to after us (no, I don't believe that terrorism is ever justified, but they do). This will leave us in an even more dangerous situation than we already find ourselves in.

Expanding the war is not the path to furthering the peace. Bush's semi-eloquent double-speak aside, this plan is a blueprint for disaster.

Saturday, June 01, 2002

A majority of Americans believe that Marx's adage on the distribution of wealth - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - was actually a founding principle of American democracy.

According to a new Columbia Law School survey of over a thousand Americans, Marx's slogan is alive and well right here in the United States. The survey found that sixty-nine percent of respondents either thought that the U.S. Constitution contained Marx's maxim, or did not know whether or not it did.

Columbia Law professor Michael C. Dorf declared the results "a call to action to those of us - including journalists, politicians, and especially teachers - responsible for informing the public about the law."
Quite interesting when you think about it. I'm sure those very same Americans who identified the core belief of socialism as a basic tenet of the Constitution would just as quickly have agreed with the statement that socialists are anti-American. Knee-jerk reactions, all, without taking the trouble to think things out for themselves.

Twitter Feed