Look, it's somebody lying on the TV.
Yeah, I know. Stop the presses. A more startling headline might be: "Dog eats food!" It's not news that self-proclaimed morality guardian Bill O'Reilly is a source of misinformation next to whom the Weekly World News looks like a Pulitzer contender. Bat Boy has more credibility than O'Reilly.
Now he's professing to be shocked, shocked about a panel last April at Boulder High School that was part of the Conference on World Affairs. (YouTube clip here.) I was on a CWA panel at Boulder High (about "Borat") that same week, and I can only imagine what O'McCarthy could have edited from it to make me or any of my co-panelists sound like we were saying something other than what we actually said. Say we quoted something from Borat in the movie. Out of context, O'Reilly could make it appear as if we were saying it ourselves. This one-man sitcom (oh, wait, that's his term for John Edwards) stoops that low, and lower, all the time, and oops he's doing it again. Of course, O'Reilly deals only in clips and sound bites. He has no patience for complete thoughts. Perhaps he simply doesn't have the time or the inclination to read or listen to what actually occurred during the 90-minute panel discussion, but for the record I'm going to re-print his claims alongside the actual transcript of the panel. We compare, you decide. And then perhaps you'll see why Boulder High students are demanding an apology from Fox and its loudest, most irresponsible (and that's saying a lot!) Spinmeister. O'Reilly's yellow-journalism depends on distortion and misrepresentation. The easiest way to counter it is to let the facts speak for themselves.
O'Reilly introduced the subject by mentioning that the president of the University of Colorado has "finally" recommended that professor Ward Churchill be fired: "But there is another educational outrage in Boulder that makes Churchill look insignificant. At Boulder High School students were ordered to attend an assembly where a bunch of so-called educators encouraged the kids to take drugs and to have indiscriminate sex." First, students say "ordered" is not true -- or, to use more appropriate high school language, attendance was not mandatory. But on top of this, now we are also supposed to believe that O'Reilly's prolonged campaign of outrage against Churchill (which he mounted on 25 "O'Reilly Factor" shows between January and May 2005 alone) was, in retrospect, "insignificant," because... why? You decide.
O'Reilly, a secular-aggressive, does not mention that the topics for the Conference on World Affairs panels at Boulder High are selected by the students themselves, and that the panels are produced by the students, and that questions from the audience are encouraged. This event was also introduced by a student, who said: "…Boulder High is the only High School that helps plan and host panels for this Conference. As students here at Boulder High, we try to create panels that will discuss topics and issues very present in the lives of students here today. [indecipherable] and myself are the creators and producers for today’s panel, STDs, which stands for Sex, Teens, and Drugs." The panelists were provided with the results of a student body survey in which a third of Boulder High students said they'd had sex, and half of those had done so under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some might believe that was a matter of concern, worth addressing in an open student forum.
(Aside to O'Reilly: "STD" is also an acronym for "Sexually Transmitted Diseases." See how the title turns "sex, teens and drugs" into "STDs"? That was the subject of the panel, that drugs and sex can be dangerous and have dire consequences for people in their teens.) As he makes clear again and again, facts and context don't matter much to O'Reilly, for whom an hour-and-a-half panel is too long to say what he wants it to say so he can criticize it for saying what it doesn't say.
On a show posted on YouTube May 18, 2007, in the middle of a one-sided "discussion" of the Boulder High panel with a shock jock from a Denver/Littleton Clear Channel AM station (KHOW), O'Reilly said: "It is hard to believe that in America today you can have a town as out of control as Boulder. You know about the Midyette baby -- took 14 months to get an indictment on a murder case there. You know about JonBenet Ramsey. And now we have Boulder High School. But it doesn't seem that the residents of Boulder care if their high school tells their kids to go out and have sex of all kinds, at all age, and to use narcotics. They simply don't care in Boulder."
That's right -- there's a baby death, a child murder, and now a panel discussion. All in Boulder, the Gommorah of the Rockies! O'Reilly sounds like an insane person, but is there some kind of conscious or unconscious association he's trying to make here? It turns out the only parent to have complained about the panel was Priscilla White. You may remember that she and her husband Fleet had their friends the Ramseys over for Christmas dinner the night JonBenet was murdered, and were called to the Ramsey house early the next morning. Fleet White was with John Ramsey when the latter found JonBenet's body in the house. At first the Whites defended their friends; later, they turned against them. Is that what why O'Reilly related the murder of JonBenet to the panel at Boulder High? Are the Whites Friends Of Fox, feeding them material? What is the connection O'Reilly was trying to make between the murder of a child and the panel discussion?
* * * *
O'Reilly quotes playwright, monologist, author and storyteller Antonio Sacre saying: "That’s the thing they don’t tell you about condoms. If you’re lucky enough to get them on, and you still stay hard, it’s hard to stay hard. (laughter from audience) And it doesn’t feel as good."
Yep, he said that. See if you can spot those words in context, from this transcript of the panel:
... And know this, most of your classmates, when they brag about sex, are lying. Those people that brag about having sex, if you need to talk about it with someone, don’t talk to someone who’s bragging, talk with one of your friends in a quiet time.
And I know me when I was 15, and I know now at 38 deep in my heart that there are some things that me at 15 should have never done. There should have been a law not allowing me to have the ability to drive until I was at least 23 because I was stupid as hell behind the wheel, risking my life every time I drove and, worse, risking others’ lives. (reverts to storytelling voice) ... And you at 15, little Antonio, should have waited to have sex. Because I know now, and I know you weren’t ready for what you felt. And when you got older and you were ready, it was transcending, and beautiful, and amazing, and like God, but you didn’t wait... [And] you realize you lost your virginity to someone you didn’t even like. And you feel dirty, and bad, and you want it back. But you can’t think of anything else.... [A] few weeks later she says she’s late getting her period, and those four days waiting until she finally gets her period are the longest of your short life. (laughter from audience) And from that day on, you swear you will always use condoms.
But, they’re tricky. And even through in your teens, even when your 16 and 17, you could have thousands of erections, sometimes 50 in a day, and you know because you counted (laughter from audience), [indecipherable phrase] the act of putting on a condom, for me at least, makes me lose my erection almost every time. That’s the thing they don’t tell you about condoms. If you’re lucky enough to get them on, and you still stay hard, it’s hard to stay hard. (laughter from audience) And it doesn’t feel as good. And sometimes you hurt the woman because you can’t feel her, because you didn’t know, when you were 16, that lubrication like KY helps you stay hard and makes her feel better. And I know how hard it is to talk like that to a girl. It’s even hard now for me as an adult. So I don’t know how it is for you to be able to say so.
So its no surprise that me at 15 stopped using condoms when she said she was going on the pill, and the next thing you know, something is leaking out of your penis, and it hurts when you pee. So then you find yourself in a clinic across town, pants around your ankles. Dr. Walters pulls out a huge q-tip meant for a horse or something, (laughter from audience) and sticks it right there and says, “This might hurt for a moment.” (laughter from audience) And he puts it in where things should only come out, and you say “Doc, that kind of hurts,” and he says, “Yeah? Well, you should have thought about that if you weren’t using condoms.” (laughter and applause from audience)
And even that experience won’t teach you about condoms. And when you finally fall in love, when you’re a senior and old enough to know, with that beautiful, amazing, angelic girl that makes you laugh, and you trust her with your heart, with all of these stories, and more, and making love with her is literally that, an act of creation, that creates more love in the world, and fills you full of light and hope and joy, and you hold her and she holds you and it is as close to heaven as you can get. And you would move mountains for her if you could. And she goes on the pill and she is clean, and you believe her. And you should, because she really loves you, little Antonio, 16 years old. And she forgets to take her pill one day because she’s 17, and amazing, but she’s not perfect. I know women in their 30s who forget to take their pill. And a little while later, you both make a decision that you’ll regret for the rest of your lives—every year, marking how old it would have been. And how it would have been to have been a 17 year-old father. And you’re glad that you’ve had that choice, and it makes sense, but why do you have a hole in your heart, all these years later? And [I] can’t go back in time and tell myself that.
(applause and cheering from the audience)
From that, Bill O'Reilly gets that Sacre was encouraging kids to have "indiscriminate sex" without condoms, because they are "inconvenient." Sacre, as you can tell from the excerpt above, does not talk down to young people. He puts himself in their place, because he remembers what it was like for him at that age. O'Reilly may well think Sacre's language was more R-rated than PG-13 (though that's arguable), and thus "inappropriate," but he has gone on national television and misrepresented what Sacre said. Which is immoral, and far, far more harmful than anything Sacre did say.
Once again: Do not expect to get any meaningful or worthwhile "news" from television, unless it's a solid hour or more on one subject, like a "Frontline" documentary.
O'Reilly's character assassination has continued. On another show (June 4, 2007) O'Reilly characterized Sacre as a playwright who "performed a play here in New York City in 1999 in which on stage he confessed to having occasional random thoughts about young people's bodies when having sex. This guy is what they call a sexual extremist."
Wow. Do you know anybody who has "occasional random thoughts about young people's bodies when having sex"? (Panty-less Britney, maybe? Beyonce? Ashlee Simpson? Shia LeBeouf? Kanye West?) What, exactly, does O'Reilly mean when he refers to such "extreme" thoughts? Well, he doesn't doesn't know what he means, because he simply cribbed that phrase from a 1999 Village Voice review of a Fringe Festival solo piece (strictly for adults) that Sacre performed under the title "My Penis -- In and Out of Trouble":
Sitting on a chair amid hundreds of strewn photographs, the tall, dark, pony-tailed performer picks one up off the floor. "This is my penis, age seven," he says in a neutral tone, before recalling an innocent childhood erotic incident. Meditating over another Polaroid moment of his young schlong, he suddenly tears the evidence up into pieces. Later, while examining pictures of himself at more advanced years, he talks about his compulsive sexual practices with women. He also confesses to having occasional random thoughts about young people's bodies when having sex. In time, he begins to make the connection between the torn-up photo and his own troubled adult libido.
What is so remarkable about this personal exploration of childhood sexual abuse is the way Sacre avoids pop psychological clichés. His style is that of a naturalist whose subject just happens to be his own past. Only toward the end of his journey does he become rhetorical about his victimization, releasing his anger in a generic, textbook-like voice. His finale, however, makes for gripping drama. Before leaving the stage, he takes the audience to task for wanting to "get off" at his show. "Are you disappointed?" he asks. "Or just ashamed?" He then storms out of the theater in a flourish that would have left me even more red-faced had he refused to come back to take his bow.
Yeah, sounds like a real celebration of pedophilia, Bill. And what does this (award-winning) performance have to do with what Sacre said at Boulder High? Nada.
OK, but back to more of Bill's bull. He claimed that Joel Becker, clinical professor in the Psychology and Psychiatry departments at UCLA, "tells the kids that, not only is pot good for them, but Ecstasy is too." O'Reilly plays a clip of Becker: "Even today, there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence of Ecstasy. If I had some, maybe I'd do it with somebody."
Now, here's what Becker actually said:
I agree with Sanho [Tree, of the Institute for Drug Policy Studies] that the human animal has seemed to want to change its consciousness to some other consciousness since the beginning of time, and I think that people are going to continue to do that. But, I think we have to find a way for people to do that in the safest way possible—harm reduction. And there’s no question that people’s worlds are changed after their consciousness is changed. Well, you have to really sort of think, am I ready to have my world changed? I’m 14 years old. Maybe I’m not ready to see what one sees on LSD. Maybe I’m not ready to have the feelings that mescaline provides in my body, or ecstasy, because a lot of those feelings have to do with feelings of being out of control, and they can be very scary to a person who doesn’t have a strong enough sense of themselves, and that’s why people end up having bad trips at young ages. They’re just not ready. As a psychologist, I know the history of the use of psychedelics. There’s a very famous man named Timothy Leary at Harvard who did therapy with LSD. Even today, there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence of ecstasy. If I had some, maybe I’d do it with somebody, but I don’t, (laughter from audience) you know. I haven’t tried it but there are people that do it.
Sanho Tree: And also, I want to add quickly, you know, I’m 42 years old, and if I could talk to myself, as Antonio said, if I could to myself back then I would say, I would tell myself, some of you in this audience aren’t going to make it to this age. Some of you are going to die from overdose, some of you are going to die in car accidents, under the influence perhaps, some of you are going to contract HIV or hepatitis C, and it will be a slow, painful illness, and some of you may commit suicide because you try to self-medicate yourself with illicit drugs rather than seeking help from people who would know what they’re doing. So I don’t want to make light of this. But, on the other hand, I know that it’s not going to go away, and we should approach these things responsibly and try to minimize the harms caused by these things.
Joel Becker: I could add onto that, because I’m older than Sanho, and I’m a member of that generation, so you know, LSD was my drug of choice in college, and I lost a lot of friends. I had one friend who jumped out of a third story window. He thought he could fly. That’s just one example. So, with non-responsible use, I think what Sanho says, some of you just won’t be there.
So, that's O'Reilly's whole-hearted endorsement of pot and Ecstasy and "narcotics."
O'Reilly's clip: Joel Becker: "I’m going to encourage you to have sex, and I’m going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately."
What Becker actually said:
... I’m going to go in a little bit of a different direction, because I’m going to encourage you to have sex, and I’m going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately. (applause and cheering from audience) [You can bet he got his audience's attention with that opening.] And why I’m going to take that position is because you’re going to do it anyway. So, my, my approach to this is to be realistic, and I think as a psychologist and a health educator, it’s more important to educate you in a direction that you might actually stick to. So I want to, I’m going to stay mostly today talking about the sex side, because that’s the area I know more about.
I want to encourage you to all have healthy sexual behavior. Now what is healthy sexual behavior? Well, I don’t care if it’s with men and men, women and women, men and women, however, whatever combination you would like to put together. But I think that we know enough about what constitutes healthy sexual behavior to think about it along two lines. One is, the issue of health and disease. So all the information that you can get about the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, you should have. And then we should be realistic about what you are actually going to stick to, and what you are not. We were handed this survey that was done here at the high school, and one very shocking statistic that came to me was, and actually the people that compiled it missed something here, there was a question ‘have you had sex?’ and 33 percent of the respondents, and I guess this goes all the way from the ninth grade to the twelfth grade so we’d expect it to be lower in the ninth grade, higher in the twelfth grade, 33 percent, so a third of you copped to having sex. How many were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you had sex? Eight. That would be 8 of the 15, which is actually more than 50 percent, because they saw it was what percent of the total, its over 50 percent of you who are having sex are having sex under the influence of alcohol and drugs. If you look at the AIDS transmission literature, this is a major route of transmission. People having sex under the influence because you get careless, and you get sloppy. (laughter from audience) So that’s very important to look at that relationship between those two variables.
So, what else do I mean by having healthy sexual behavior? I think that we also want to have a definition of healthy sexual behavior as sexual behavior that is appropriate to your level of emotional development. Now what does that mouthful mean? Well, I’m not sure that ninth graders, tenth graders, eleventh graders, and twelfth graders are all exactly equal, in fact I’m fairly sure you’re not, in your level of emotional development in terms of what you can handle. And if you think that having sex doesn’t come with feelings, that’s where you’re mistaken. Sex does come with having feelings, and that’s what you have to have to be prepared for. I’m going to come back to that in a second, but I also just want to just comment on, you know, I’ve been told that this is a very liberal high school, and I’m probably speaking to the choir by encouraging you to have healthy sexual behavior because most of your parents probably have given you similar views, but you know, when you are 13, 12, 13, 14, certainly one of the most appropriate sexual behaviors would be masturbation. (laughter from audience) Masturbate. Please masturbate.
And so, the "indiscriminate sex" that was being encouraged is actually very discriminating sex, because it involves only the individual. No partners.
O'Reilly's clip: Joel Becker: "If you want to get marijuana in the city of Los Angeles, all you've got to do is go to a doctor who will write you a 'script. You go to a club... They not only sell marijuana, they sell hash, they sell baked goods. We have brownies, we have cookies, all the things you might want, so come on over."
What was actually said:
Student Question: So, I’d like to ask about the legalization of drugs. I think, you know, a lot of the drugs we have legal now, like tobacco and alcohol, are in some ways much more addictive and dangerous drugs. So do you think, what do you think about, like, the legalization or even commercialization of some of the less dangerous and addictive drugs?
Sanho Tree: That’s a good question. The point about addiction and the harms, relative harms, caused by different drugs—let’s put that in order. You know, about 44 hundred thousand Americans will die this year from tobacco related deaths. About 80 thousand to 100 thousand perhaps from alcohol. Drugs, both illegal drugs and prescription drugs, will cause about 17 or 18 thousand deaths. And marijuana, from overdose, zero. I mean, operating a vehicle, that sort of thing, you can really endanger your life. But we have a war on drugs against the things that actually cause the least harm in terms of mortality. I’m not saying there aren’t other harms associated with these drugs, but in terms of mortality, tobacco by far is the most deadly drug. It is one we export to other parts of the world, and it’s very subsidized by our government. It is total hypocrisy. Of all the things that I could tell you all about all the bad effects of all these drugs—but tobacco I just don’t get. It’s your age the tobacco companies are targeting. How many of you know people who’ve actually taken up smoking in their 20s and 30s and 40s? Rarely, rarely, rarely ever happens. Its your demographic they’re going after, because you don’t have relevant experience about these things and they’re targeting you. And if you start, know you’ll be a client of theirs for a very long time. If you get one message, it’s that.
But I think in terms of legalization, the great myth of prohibition of drugs is that prohibition doesn’t mean you control the drugs, it means you give up the right to control drugs. We’ve chosen not to regulate these substances, some of which are much more dangerous than others. We have a gift in this country for regulation, or a curse if you’re a libertarian. Well we regulate everything. We regulate what frequency my cell phone can operate on. We regulate how much electricity can come out of a wall socket, who can sell car insurance. I can’t buy hot dog on the street without that hot dog having been inspected by an inspector who went to an accredited university, all up and down just to make sure I’m not going to get anything but ground up animal parts in that hot dog. (laughter from audience) And yet when it comes to drugs, some of which are much more dangerous than others, we choose not to regulate. And the people who regulate this economy, who control this drug economy, are by definition criminals and very often organized crime, and their bottom line is to maximize their profits. And so the person who sells you marijuana may as well sell you something addictive—methamphetamines or heroin. They get a repeat customer that way. That’s how they maximize profits. And so I think we need—I want to find policies that bring these substances under the domain of law. And I’m not saying that we should legalize everything. There are some things that we know you’re just not going to have any happy endings. Methamphetamines? How many success stories do you know about people who’ve used methamphetamines in the long run? It’s not a pretty thing. It’s a pretty bad trip. But on the other hand, we have a lot more experience with other types of drugs, and so we need to find different ways of controlling these things, rather than the anarchy of prohibition, which means we choose not to control them.
Joel Becker: I would also vote for the legalization of most drugs. I think that we’re missing a real opportunity here to regulate something in a way that will work a lot better. I happen to live in the state of California in the city of Los Angeles, which has been described as America’s Amsterdam. We have legalized medical marijuana in the state of California. There are 110 marijuana clubs in the city of Los Angeles. There was an article on the cover of the Los Angeles Magazine that said “When Did LA Become, Like, the Capitol of Marijuana, Like, in the US?” And it is. If you want to get marijuana in the city of Los Angeles, all you’ve got to do is go to a doctor who will write you a ‘script. You go to a club. You go and you buy somewhat regulated production marijuana so you know you’re not getting stuff with chemicals in it. They not only sell marijuana, they sell hash, they sell baked goods. We have brownies, we have cookies, all the things you might want, so come on over.
So, what O'Reilly portrays as an enticement to do drugs is, in fact, a sardonic description of how easy it is to get unregulated drugs in Los Angeles, as part of a classical Libertarian argument for limited regulation of their use (like tobacco and alcohol) rather than continuing a policy of legal prohibition that doesn't work and never has. Americans lost their constitutional right to control what goes into their own bodies in the late 19th to late 20th centuries. Until the first US anti-drug laws (against opium in 1875), an American citizen's body had been protected under the Fourth Amendment guaranteeing "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." [emphasis added]. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was not even primarily anti-drug (though like many prohibition laws it was justified by claims that the substance had a tendency to rile "the degenerate races"), but a way to prevent hemp from competing with the existing cotton, paper, plastics and fuel industries.
Shall I go on? Oh, why stop now?
O'Reilly's clip: Sanho Tree: "It's very natural for young people to experiment with same-sex relationships."
What was actually said [by Antonio Sacre and then Sanho Tree]:
Antonio Sacre: In college I played soccer, and the coach said to us that we were not allowed to drink during the season. And for me there was not—drugs were never a really big issue for me; I never really had a desire to, it never really became a thing—but drinking I was always interested in, and in my family there is a long history of alcoholism. So I was worried that if I drank, I would become an alcoholic. Whether that’s true or not, that was a worry I felt when I was 18, 19, in college. And so to be at a party, there was always drinking at my college, and there was always people, and I was mad that I wasn’t drinking. There was this peer pressure that I felt at 19, in college, I didn’t feel in high school. But in college I felt I was the only one at this party not drinking, everyone’s putting beers in my face, beers, shots, shots, and it was a trick that I used to say, “Oh, no. No. I’m on the soccer team. My coach told me that I can’t drink so I’m not going to drink.” The season would be over in December and I’d say, “Well I’m training for next year, so I can’t drink this year.” So in some ways, if you need an excuse to say no to somebody, make up any excuse you want. “I’m abstinent. Uhm, uhm, my best friend, you know, died of AIDS.” Whatever. If you need an excuse to say no to somebody, because of the peer pressure—again, peer pressure can be hard. And so in some ways I want to—I think that’s a great way to use—to say no. I have a friend who’s in his 30s. He goes, he becomes abstinent for a few months, and then he doesn’t. So he meets a woman, and he’s like, “You know, we’re not really going to have sex.” So he has a great time, and then he realizes that he’s kind of an idiot, then he goes back; he goes back and forth. But anyway, it’s just something that I wanted to mention.
Sanho Tree: Also, there’s an unintended consequence, again, of abstinence-based models, particularly when they’re combined with religious fundamentalism and indoctrination. If it works for you, well, great, it works for you. But what if it fails? What happens then to a person who perhaps may have made a mistake. We all make mistakes; this is how we learn. This is a very important way of learning, from mistakes. But you know, taking someone who may have made a mistake, and you make them feel much worse about themselves—that they have betrayed their covenant with God, that they’re dirty, they’re impure, something is wrong with them. It’s a mistake. We all make mistakes. We all experiment. It’s very natural for young people to experiment with same-sex relationships. Perhaps you don’t talk about it much. A lot of people experiment and never go on to become homosexual. They go on and lead very productive lives, etcetera, etcetera. Well, if you’ve had that indoctrination, you think, “Well, maybe there’s something wrong with me. Maybe I’ve sinned, I’m dirty,”—all these other things that take a bad situation and make it much worse, in my opinion.
And here's the way the panel ended:
Student: Hello. It’s actually really hard for me to get up and say this, but I feel like I have to. So, I’m extremely offended, and just by some of the things you say, and I think it’s important to understand even though this is Boulder High School, there are people who are on that have different views, and I think that this discussion has been fairly one-sided. Sorry. But some of the things that offended me were just that I think it’s inappropriate to discredit religious views on some of these issues. And I know that, Mr. Becker, you discredited abstinence, and this is something that a lot of people feel very strongly about, and I just want everyone to know that there are two sides to the argument, even though this has been fairly one-sided. And also, I noticed that you were taking some of these serious issues to be humorous, and I think that, if anything, kind of encouraging teens to kind of the opposite of what I thought this panel was supposed to be about, encouraging teens to be abstinent. So I would just state that I think that the panelists need to think about what messages they came to send [indecipherable words].
Andee Gerhardt: I just want to—
(Applause and cheering from audience)Andee Gerhardt: I personally want to thank you for being brave enough to do that. I don’t know that I would have ever been brave enough to do that, so I think you should give—feel really good about that.
(Applause from audience)
Joel Becker: I would second that opinion, and even though I think you may have thought that I was—what did you say, something about abstinence—I actually tried discrediting it? I wasn’t discrediting it. In fact, I started by saying, I’m not telling you whether you should or you shouldn’t choose abstinence; I just think if you choose abstinence, it doesn’t obviate your need to still be educated about sex. I also think that—I’m so glad to hear the student body clap for this young woman, because I see that you have respect for a person who has views different than you, and you’re saying that this is this girl’s choice to make. One of the things I’m afraid happens in the religious movement is they don’t give the same choice to other people. They try to tell other people that what they’re doing is right, and what these people are doing is wrong. That’s my issue. I think you’re very right for you. And I think that all the people who believe like you are right for them. But I don’t want you to tell the other people that what they are doing is wrong.
Was this student the one whose mother complained? I don't know.
Popular Blog Posts
This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...
A note of thanks from Chaz Ebert to the wonderful people behind "Life Itself."
A look at Kimberly Pierce's 2013 version of "Carrie."