Jack Kevorkian To Speak at Democratic Convention

Actually no, but the equivalent: Dick Cheney to speak at the Republican convention.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm and is filed under Election, Morning's Minion, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

52 Responses to “Jack Kevorkian To Speak at Democratic Convention”

  1. Policraticus says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    I have to disagree sharply with you on this one, MM. Kevorkian has done far, far worse things and in a direct way.

  2. Chris Burgwald says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    What Poli said.

  3. digbydolben says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Dr. Kervorkian never influenced OTHER people to do the evil things he was doing, so CHENEY is actually the worse and the most corruptive agent of evil.

  4. JSullivan says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    ditto

  5. JSullivan says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    I was agreeing with Poli.

  6. Sean says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    You guys need to take a break from politics. Confusion is starting to set in.

  7. blackadderiv says:
    August 11, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Dr. Kervorkian never influenced OTHER people to do the evil things he was doing

    Er, are you not familiar with Kevorkian?

  8. Michael J. Iafrate says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    I’m not sure I would say Cheney was not directly involved in grave evil. He may not have pulled the trigger (except for that hunting accident thing – ha!) but he is indeed directly responsible for the united states’ unquestionably evil military involvement in Iraq and elsewhere.

  9. Sean says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    ‘unquestionably evil military involvement’….I think you’ve drinken a heavy dose of the Michael Moore Kool-Aid friend.

  10. Gerald A. Naus says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Well, I’ll be sad to see MM and Michael I. taken away by black helicopters.

    I personally wouldn’t call the war evil, but unnecessary. It has had good consequences, too and I don’t think the intentions were evil. Not that I’d volunteer for it or think the USA should have started it. I think it’s also pretty clear they lied to us.

    But by Catholic standards, since it’s not a just war, it’s an unjust war, and unjust can, I’d think, also be called evil. Since these guys are Catholics, I think they’re right to call it that.

  11. Michael J. Iafrate says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    ‘unquestionably evil military involvement’….I think you’ve drinken a heavy dose of the Michael Moore Kool-Aid friend.

    No, I agree with Pope Benedict who said that there is “no doubt” that the Iraq War was unjustified. Unjustified war is evil. And it is just as evil as abortion.

  12. Morning's Minion says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    I think the comparison is apt. Both provide manifest support for gravely and intrinsically evil acts (patent non-negotiables), and both are very close in proximity to these acts in question.

  13. Gerald A. Naus says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    I’d say Cheney is worse, Kervorkian helped a small number of people who were suffering to die, Cheney got a war going that killed 4000+ Americans and untold thousands of Iraqis. To those terminally ill people death was welcome, not so much for the Americans and Iraqis (minus suicide bombers). Along Catholic terms, they’d be equal, I agree.

  14. Nate Wildermuth says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Though I agree that Dick Cheney appears to have done a great deal of wrong things (and profited greatly from them), this analogy made me cringe. It’s a little like calling someone Hitler – there’s too much emotional undertone for anyone to get something positive out of it. I’d rather have a long post about why Cheney is both a war-criminal and a war-profiteer than a short one that compares him to someone like Kevorkian. But maybe that’s coming? :)

  15. jonathanjones02 says:
    August 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    So I suppose that if Evan Bayh or whomever else was part of a Democratic administration making difficult choices of foreign policy and possible intervention – with incomplete information and perhaps in a position of no “good choices” – he or she would be the equivalent of a man who kills with his own hands???

    MM, you’re better than this bit of hack dailykos-ery.

  16. phosphorious says:
    August 11, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    I personally wouldn’t call the war evil, but unnecessary.

    There are unnecessary wars that are non-evil?

    How so?

  17. Chris Burgwald says:
    August 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Torture is intrinsically evil. So is euthanasia. But the latter is without question worse, as it violates a greater good.

    This isn’t any form or proportionalism… it’s a recognition of the hierarchy of goods and corresponding evils.

  18. sc says:
    August 11, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Good grief MM! This is the stuff of ultra political web sites, not a blog remarking on current events from a Catholic perspective. If this is the direction you will continue to take this site then it is time to remove it from the link collection of thoughtful Catholic insights.

    A better question is why would anyone endorse an individual who does not respect the natural progression of life – conception to natural death? As Michael points out, a separate thread discussing the merits of Cheney’s actions could be interesting. But linking these two disparate topics is not in the mission of this site.

    So, instead of challenging the act of giving this individual a stage to proclaim death, you resorted to shilling for a specific party yet again.

  19. jh says:
    August 11, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    ” better question is why would anyone endorse an individual who does not respect the natural progression of life – conception to natural death? As Michael points out, a separate thread discussing the merits of Cheney’s actions could be interesting. But linking these two disparate topics is not in the mission of this site.

    So, instead of challenging the act of giving this individual a stage to proclaim death, you resorted to shilling for a specific party yet again.”

    Sc
    don’t bring up those interesting questions. Again I think the post of the week was by Catholic blogger “Civic geeks: that talked about about honest partianship.

  20. Henry Karlson says:
    August 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    How is it “shilling for a party” when MM is saying both the Republicans AND the Democrats are having people central to the current culture of death giving speeches at their conventions? It really is an equal opportunity attack on both, pointing out how both are willing to engage and listen to the speakers of death.

  21. Policraticus says:
    August 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    How is it “shilling for a party” when MM is saying both the Republicans AND the Democrats are having people central to the current culture of death giving speeches at their conventions? It really is an equal opportunity attack on both, pointing out how both are willing to engage and listen to the speakers of death.

    I see where you are going Henry, and you are right to ask this. Sc introduced partisanship into the discussion when MM is really asserting some sort of moral equivalence among the actual speakers themselves.

    Now, I have indicated that I do not agree that there is moral equivalence between Cheney’s war profiting and Kervorkian’s direct assistance in suicide. Whether or not MM does believe there is moral equivalence is not the issue for me, but whether there actually is moral equivalence (I hold there is not). And we can argue on this topic without introducing the complexities of partisan politics (the DNC and RNC simply provided the opportunity to raise the question of moral equivalence). And let’s just say that MM is insanely partisan when it comes to the Democrats. To attempt to argue against his argument for moral equivalence solely with reference to MM’s political interests is a an ad hominem circumstantial argument (an informal fallacy in logic). We can discuss moral equivalence and argue for or against it without regard to political persuasions. Let’s do that.

  22. Henry Karlson says:
    August 11, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Poli

    Right, I think that would be a better question (and it was indeed the one you raised early on). Since the post was short, and wasn’t intended to answer it, but show his disapproval of both sides, I certainly understand where MM stands and I also understand your disagreement with him, which had nothing to with how many have made this post out to be.

    I could see an argument made for DC being as bad as JK in the sense of how both are arguing their positions in a similar manner: evil is to be allowed for the greater good. Of course, it takes more than DC’s support of torture (an intrinsic evil), but his support of use of weapons such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells in Iraq (as well as his defense of shock and awe), killing many innocents, making light of their death as mere collateral damage, and ignoring the long term effects in the region that comes as a result of their use, where one can say he has turned life into a mere object to be used up when needed, that one can begin to see the similarity of their positions and how both are important elements to keeping up the culture of death from two different, opposing, angles. And both have been capable of having their beliefs acted out and encouraged, making them, in many ways, two sides of the same coin, each working to encourage their own side into thinking in a way which keeps the culture of death (with its objectification of life used as a means to devalue it) as a core belief within our society.

    Now, I would not say everyone would agree; but if one takes that view, one can then understand MM’s point and use it to engage what is valuable (a discussion on life) instead of using it to engage what is not (Republican vs Democrat) because the second is a shell game.

  23. G Alkon says:
    August 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Once again, the intrinsic evil criterion is screwing up this discussion.

    Kevorkian is guilty of performing obviously intrinsic evils.

    But so is someone who buys pornography.

    Obviously Kevorkian has done far worse, but not because his acts are “more intrinsically evil” (sic) than the serial fornicator and exploiter. “Intrinsic” is a formal term describing the structure of an act. As such it cannot serve as a criterion of evaluation. We are already using other criteria to condemn him, apart form the intrinsic evil of his acts.

    Now it is debatable whether or not Dick Cheney is guilty of performing intrinsically evil acts.

    We would need to get in touch with his deepest motives — his self-aggrandizement, his power-mongering, his laziness, his cruelty, his apathetic nihilism — to see his acts whole.

    But even if his acts are not deemed intrinsically evil (and therefore not as intrinsically evil as a fornication, for example, or as performing euthanasia), his acts are the cause of many tens of thousands of deaths.

    Obviously — obviously — Cheney is guilty of grave and terrible crimes. So is Kevorkian. That one is obviously also guilty of intrinsically evil acts, and one is not, does not help us compare their relative evils.

    Assessing them both _personally_ , and not by trying to use formal criteria of evaluation, w can say they are both sick mutilators of humanity, both their own and others’.

  24. Gerald A. Naus says:
    August 11, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Boobs don’t kill, Alkon.

    That was always my problem with Catholicism – it doesn’t judge like courts do. You guys have this ‘intrinsically evil’ category, and all of a sudden wanking, looking at naked women, gay sex, torture and abortion are in the same category. And, the kicker, starting a freakin’ war isn’t ! To whom does that make any sense ? So you end up in a discussion where the warmonger wins out over the abortion to save a woman’s life. Not to mention that, in order to maintain principle, you have to come up with scurrilous methods (ectopic pregnancy). I quit Catholicism because I find many of its demands and rules immoral, illogical and cruel. In particular when it comes to sexual matters. It’s similar to how Hitchens expresses it in “God Is Not Great.” It’s not because I want to go off ‘fornicating’ and live a life of crime, it’s because I find many rules deeply opposed to my conscience, that I gave up.

    Because of your absolute rules you can’t really have any normal discussion. There’ll always be one yelling ‘Hah! Intrinsic! Sure, my guy does evil BUT it’s not INTRINSIC! You lose!”

    Not to mention that in far too many cases the anti-abortion position is an alibi. It’s the joker in a deck of cards, it fits any issue, and it’s brought up incessantly, ad nauseam. Again, an American right-wing phenomenon.

    I give credit to VN for making me re-think many societal issues. In a way, I am a ‘better’ Catholic and a ‘worse’ Republican now. Which is rather ironic.

  25. Tony says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    That was always my problem with Catholicism – it doesn’t judge like courts do. You guys have this ‘intrinsically evil’ category, and all of a sudden wanking, looking at naked women, gay sex, torture and abortion are in the same category. And, the kicker, starting a freakin’ war isn’t ! To whom does that make any sense ?

    It makes sense to me, because the discussion is not about the relative damage caused to others by the acts, but by the classification of intrinsic evilness. A less emotional example would be comparing a single act of adultery with blowing the heads off three home invaders with a shotgun.

    In the first case, the act is intrinsically evil because there is no justification that is morally acceptable for doing it. In the second case defending one’s life makes multiple killing morally justified. Nobody will argue which act was more horrific and damaging to more people. But the discussion wasn’t about the relative damage, it was whether it was intrinsically evil or not.

    As far as the Iraq war goes, should Dick Cheney decide that originally invading Iraq was wrong, and he feels badly about it, he could go to confession and that particular sin would be wiped off his soul. Some would argue that as a gesture of repentance he would have to surrender and bring all of the troops home right now. That, in itself, might be evil. The war in Iraq, as it stands, is a different situation requiring different decisions. Should we pull out, and the terrorists swarm in and kill hundreds of thousands in a purge would be a horrific evil. I wish the war never started. But I’m not prepared to say that the military action we’re taking now is evil. The situation is different, and may very well qualify for just war status now, even if it didn’t at the beginning.

    Though Al-Malaki suggesting we leave convinces me that the direction we ought to be taking is pulling troops out as long as we are coordinating with the Iraqis.

    Kavorkian, on the other hand, advocates grave evil. As far as I know he’s unrepentant (as shown by his actions), and the Dems honor him knowing this.

    I don’t believe there is any comparison.

  26. G Alkon says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    Gerald, I agree with much of what you’re saying here. You’re pointing to the danger of the “intrinsic evil” category. However, what I am saying is:

    1) this category is meaningful, but mis-used when it becomes a criterion of evaluation; it is in fact meaningless to say an intrinsic evil is more evil than a non-intrinsic one. “Intrinsic” describes the structure of the act, not what is being done.

    2) the problems with the mis-use of this formal category are not necessarily part of Catholicism per se — though they are a big part of it today. John Paul II started some of these problems, but many of them spring from a misunderstanding of his terminology.

    Still, I think we agree that the over-reliance on “intrinsic” as a term of judgment is symptomatic of a desire to have a system of rules, a code of laws, to which one can sign up. This has always been problematic, but has been much worse in the modern era. It’s not that different from certain other forms of (Protestant) fundamentalism, which it is trying to oppose. There are parallels between Protestant “sola scriptura” fundamentalism and the Catholic ultramontane desire for the papacy to have an unanswerable power. Both are forms of authoritarianism that hinder the formation of true community.

    This is an area where the Anglican church can (and in fact already has) helped the Catholic church.

  27. G Alkon says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Gerald, just to be as clear as possible:

    Cheney is infinitely more evil than a serial fornicator, despite the fact that the latter is the one who is more obviously engaged in intrinsic evils.

    And the fact that Kevorkian is guilty of intrinsically evil acts does not make him more evil than Cheney.

  28. G Alkon says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Tony — the point is that intrinsically evil acts cannot be said to be MORE evil than other evil acts.

    The problem emerges very clearly if you ask, who is guiltier of a greater evil, a serial patron of prostitutes, or a serial killer?

    Both murder and fornication are EQUALLY intrinsically evil. That is because “intrinsic” describes the structure of the act — its object, its goal, its purpose is evil.

    But no one would say that fornication is as BAD as murder.

    The judgment MUST be based on criteria OTHER than the “intrinsic” category, because BOTH are intrinsically evil, but one is WORSE than the other.

    “Intrinsic evil” describes the formal structure of an act. It does not evaluate it.

    It follows, therefore, that any number of NON-intrinsically evil acts can be WORSE than certain intrinsically evil ones.

  29. Michael J. Iafrate says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    As far as the Iraq war goes, should Dick Cheney decide that originally invading Iraq was wrong, and he feels badly about it, he could go to confession and that particular sin would be wiped off his soul.

    [...]

    Kavorkian, on the other hand, advocates grave evil. As far as I know he’s unrepentant (as shown by his actions), and the Dems honor him knowing this.

    I don’t believe there is any comparison.

    Strange how you hold out your hand to Cheney’s hypothetical repentance but will not do the same for Kevorkian! Is it not just as possible (and likely) that Kevorkian would repent for what he has done? The fact is, they are both equally unrepentant.

    Bizarre moral calculus going on here.

  30. Tony says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Strange how you hold out your hand to Cheney’s hypothetical repentance but will not do the same for Kevorkian! Is it not just as possible (and likely) that Kevorkian would repent for what he has done? The fact is, they are both equally unrepentant.

    Bizarre moral calculus going on here.

    Point is, you can’t judge Cheney’s soul unless he sends us into another unjust war. Kevorkian still advocates euthanizing people. Seems like the calculus adds up.

  31. sc says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    “Sc introduced partisanship into the discussion when MM is really asserting some sort of moral equivalence among the actual speakers themselves.”

    The partisanship was introduced when an unsubstantiated moral equivalency was implied. During the peak of Dr. Kevorkian, the poplar press had dubbed him Dr. Death. When I saw the the tile and Kevorkian’s name, the first recollection is the assisted suicide and Dr. Death. We seeing the content the unsubstantiated equivalency to Dr. Death was implied. There has been much innuendo in certain circles about the culpability of Cheney but nothing as definitive as the acts attributed to Kevorkian. The equivalency is not apparent and cannot be left to the imagination of the reader.

    Again, the more interesting discussion on each point should be separate posts.
    Democrats and Kevorkian – why would a party trying to shed the anti-life image give the leading spokesman for euthanasia a platform to spread his message?
    Republics and Cheney – why would a party trying to distance itself from the war put the perceived force behind going to war on stage?

    Each could be interesting topics … but making a stretch for equivalency in the manner is not a clear discussion. Cheney is a lightning rod for the left, Kevorkian is a lightning rod not for the right but for the pro-life movement. The linkage made can only lead to a partisan conclusion.

  32. sc says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    … When I saw the the title and Kevorkian’s name, the first recollection is the assisted suicide and Dr. Death. When seeing the content, the unsubstantiated equivalency to Dr. Death was implied. …

    sorry for the grammar

  33. jh says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:08 pm

    “How is it “shilling for a party” when MM is saying both the Republicans AND the Democrats are having people central to the current culture of death giving speeches at their conventions? It really is an equal opportunity attack on both, pointing out how both are willing to engage and listen to the speakers of death.”

    Comparing Cheney to Dr Deeath is just insane

    Ok Obama and his infanticide vote and pro choice record = Dr. Josef Mengele

    Discussion elevated!!!

  34. Michael J. Iafrate says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Point is, you can’t judge Cheney’s soul unless he sends us into another unjust war. Kevorkian still advocates euthanizing people. Seems like the calculus adds up.

    Truly remarkable.

    Point is, you can’t judge Kevorkian’s soul unless he assists another suicide. Cheney still advocates bombing people.

    Seems like you need to check your addition. Try again, carry the one…

    I don’t mean to make fun. Perhaps you are playing a joke on all of us?

  35. Liam says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Uh, I can find no verification that Kevorkian will address the Dem convention. He’s planning to attend – needed judge’s approval. But nothing about his addressing the convention.

  36. Morning's Minion says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    The issue is not one of moral equivalence, or of quantifying who is responsible for the most evil. The fact is that bothe men are moral monsters, in a way that is directly proximate to the acts in question. In terms of proximity, there is very little difference between Kevorkian pulling a switch and Cheney giving the nod to a CIA agent to waterboard somebody, or deciding that war must be started based on evidence he knew did not exist.

  37. Tony says:
    August 11, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    The issue is not one of moral equivalence, or of quantifying who is responsible for the most evil. The fact is that bothe men are moral monsters, in a way that is directly proximate to the acts in question. In terms of proximity, there is very little difference between Kevorkian pulling a switch and Cheney giving the nod to a CIA agent to waterboard somebody, or deciding that war must be started based on evidence he knew did not exist.

    Wow, there’s a lot of Madame Cleo in that one. Do you know that calumny is a sin?

  38. Chris Burgwald says:
    August 11, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    deciding that war must be started based on evidence he knew did not exist.

    A link from a reasonable source to validate this will do, MM… you needn’t go into a lengthy explanation on your own, unless you so desire.

  39. digbydolben says:
    August 11, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    with incomplete information and perhaps in a position of no “good choices” -

    Mr. “jonathanjones02″ and others, in order to find moral equivalence between what Cheney does and what Kervorkian does, I think you have to accept the much-documented position that Cheney LIED us into an unneccessary war that continues to destroy lives. I DO accept that propostion, and consider that Cheney is, therefore, a much greater moral monster than Kervorkian, who only contributes to a bad decision by some very unfortunate and miserable people. Cheney, on the other hand, even now perpetrates a mindset that induces tragically misinformed young men and women (many of whom I’ve known and taught) to involve themselves in an unjust war that adds to the tragedy of modern Iraq. Many of these young Americans go there not even knowing that the majority of the Iraqi people and their religious leaders DO NOT consider them to be fighting for Iraq’s “freedom.”

  40. Michael J. Iafrate says:
    August 11, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Uh, I can find no verification that Kevorkian will address the Dem convention. He’s planning to attend – needed judge’s approval. But nothing about his addressing the convention.

    Liam, I think you are confused because of a typo in the original post. MM, shouldn’t it read “Actually, no…”?

  41. Magdalena says:
    August 12, 2008 at 12:13 am

    This is getting pretty bad.

    C’mon guys. This is Ann Coulter-level of intellectual achievement. Cheney is not my favorite either but for pete’s sake. I worry that there are people who actually think this (Cheney = Dr. Kevorkian). Then again there are probably an equal number of people who actually think Obama=AntiChrist.

  42. Michael J. Iafrate says:
    August 12, 2008 at 12:23 am

    I worry that there are people who actually think this (Cheney = Dr. Kevorkian).

    I worry more about people who actually think that killing elderly American people is worse than killing people from another country.

  43. Morning's Minion says:
    August 12, 2008 at 12:24 am

    Michael: yes, thank you, my typings skills are atrocious!

  44. Henry Karlson says:
    August 12, 2008 at 2:19 am

    Then my reading of the post was a bit off, since I thought it was saying both parties were having reprehensible people speaking at their conventions.

  45. Liam says:
    August 12, 2008 at 4:12 am

    Well, if “Actually so” is supposed to be “Actually no”, then that’s a big typo that should be fixed….

  46. Henry Karlson says:
    August 12, 2008 at 4:31 am

    MM

    I hope you don’t mind I corrected the typo for you (since it appears it was one, now). If you want it back to how it was, feel free to change it back.

  47. sc says:
    August 12, 2008 at 7:21 am

    The typo confirms the partisan nature of the post – save it for DailyKos!

  48. grega says:
    August 12, 2008 at 9:58 am

    Cheney/Bush had the backing of close to a majority of Americans.
    Those Americans very much liked getting into this War as a retribution for 9/11.
    Yes call them Warmongers – frankly they got exactly what they lusted for and ended up more than matching the toll of civilian death from 9/11 with killed american soldiers.
    Give me a break – lot’s of blame to go around beyond ‘Cheney’- and as cynical as the guy is he represents exactly the nature of a good many ‘fine american folks’.
    By the way Bush is 100% in this – silly actually to bring up Dr. Kervorkian in this context. Call it what it is – stop the silly childish games – Plenty of average people did know and could know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 – this was pointed out over and over again late in 2002/ early 2003 – they really wanted that War – they got it – we all pay the price. The oil companies that had Bush /Cheney on payroll well before they took office laugh of course all the way to the bank.
    And yes plenty of ‘good catholics’ will again vote for the heir apparent to those oily “warriers” – including our talented Mr. Naus who all of a sudden decided that catholic inconveniences and grievances amounted to much of a cross to bear.
    Psst Gerald most of us do take the churches advice on the matters you mentioned with a grain of salt. And yes most religions on this planet are actually very much alligned with what our church sets as the ideal gold standard.

  49. Morning's Minion says:
    August 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

    I really love the way people single out DailyKos, but not NRO or Red State…in fact, we once had a contribtor here who was associated with Red State which is up there with Kos in partisan hackery.

  50. sc says:
    August 12, 2008 at 10:47 am

    More deflection … DailyKos was singled out due to the slant of the comment. Had it been slanted the other direction I would have pointed to RedState.

  51. Chris Burgwald says:
    August 12, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    MM, is there a post here at VN that you think has sufficient GOP partisan hackery to meet the bar set by RS? That, I think is the difference, and perhaps exemplifies the reasons for some of the recent complaints regarding VN from those otherwise inclined to support its mission.

  52. Southern Appeal » McCain’s latest ad: “The Obama Fab Club” says:
    August 12, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    [...] of basic medical care to children who survive abortions. But he’s not partisan, folks. No, not partisan at all. PermaLink | | Trackback/Pingback [...]