Dennis Prager, Ad Hominem Attacks
Left Versus Right
| December 29, 2006
| Tim
There's been an ongoing discussion on several posts regarding my contention there is no conservative equivalent of the tendancy among "the left" to use various thought-stopping insults -- "bigot", "sexist", "homophobe", "racist" etc. -- to avoid considering an argument seriously.
Here's an example: Recently, a mediumly-popular radio host, Dennis Prager wrote that he was concerned that a Congressman, for the first time ever, was being sworn on some book other than the Christian bible.
Dennis is Jewish, and doesn't believe in the New Testament. He sees it as a loss of a common symbol: he believes that through its history, the bible has been the primary source of American values, and notes that many people who didn't believe in it still used it for ceremonial swearing-in ceremonies.
I can see Dennis's point. I can also understand those who believe the book chosen is more about your own beliefs than a common symbol. I can see two sides to this.
(And I can understand those who (rightly) got tripped up by his own use of "should not be allowed", by which he meant social pressure (he made this clear immediately afterwards, and you can deduce it from the context) not legal means.)
But this isn't about whether Dennis is right or wrong: this is about the reaction. Overwhelmingly, Dennis has simply been called a "bigot", his arguments not refuted -- generally not even engaged. The counter-argument I offer above, or another reasonable response, is not generally offered. Only egresious straw men and charges of "bigotry."
For example, Ed Koch is seeking for Dennis to be removed from the Holocaust Memorial Board. His argument seems to only be composed of the charge that Dennis is a bigot, case closed:
"I believe that the great mission of the members of the commission is to spread the word you may not engage in bigotry directed on the basis of religion or on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of political disagreement. For Dennis Prager to take the position on Mr. Ellison not using the Bible is wrong."
(Not the subtle slip: Koch doesn't actually say Prager's position was wrong. He say it was wrong for him to "take" it -- to hold or offer that view. He is objecting to the speaking itself, not to the meat of the argument.)
Here's another, better-written response, over at TPMCafe:
"Never Again" means that we must never tolerate the persecution or demonization of any group because of their skin color, creed, race or any other intrinsic personal characteristic including sexual identity.
Dennis Prager is a bigot who believes that America essentially belongs to conservative white Christians. He rails against homosexuals and considers equal rights for gays as threatening western civilization. He opposes programs that benefit minorities and women. He believes that Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians are second class citizens who should accept second class status as their due.
Again, note the pattern: The conservative is charged with bigotry. Shamefully false straw men arguments are invoked. The dissenter's innermost heart is judged; yet his actual argument is not cited, much less refuted.
(And we learn, astoundingly, that religion is intrinsic, like race.)
What lesson does this author draw? That we must never "tolerate" "demonization" of any group -- by which he apparently means we must never allow people to offer arguments which appear to favor one group over another! Pay attention here: he is saying we must not allow speech we don't like.
I don't think that Prager would want to see violence directed against Muslims or anyone else. But I also believe that he does not care where his Muslim, gay or Jew bashing will lead. And, to me, it is that kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust. After all, the Shoah did not start with ovens. It began with words of hate.
Yet again: Though he doesn't want overt violence, Prager is motivated by "hate", and we must not allow those whose have wrong motivations to speak. Speech can lead to ovens, so we must carefully control who can do it, and stop those, like Prager, who we know to be motivated by bad inner feelings and thoughts.
So the author actually argues (perhaps another slip) that we must not "tolerate" that speech: we must be, he implies, intolerant of those with whom we differ. (In fact, he wants to get Congress involved in disciplining Prager for his opinion!) So much for Voltaire's: "I disagree with you, but will fight to death for your right to say it." Apparently, fine-sounding platitudes about the importance of free speech are reserved for Holocaust deniers, not who argue that American values are largely derived from the bible.
How ironic.
Finally, I want to give credit to a political opponent of mine who has also noticed this phenomenon. In the comments here, he writes:
Once again it seems we on the left are reluctant to face up to right winger's arguments and refute them on their (lack of) merits. We perfer to use labels like bigot, Islamaphobe, homophobe et al, instead.
The prager issue is one that is actually pretty easily refuted with intellect and it's shame not to use it when we can....
There is simply nothing gained or lost if Mr. Ellison uses only a koran in his private ceremony, and for prager to make an issue out of this is just a silly waste of his time and efforts. He is not a bigot for what he said, and we should rise above using labels to dismiss radical right wing ideas, when there is in face a logical refutation to them.
My hat's off to this guy: He can see what so many refuse to admit, when the evidence is right in front of them. And I recognize it must be particularly painful for him to do so, as it is for me when I admit there are a few people on my side (Ann Coulter, for example) who also say or do things I wish they wouldn't.
The comment you refer to in your statement, "I want to give credit to a political opponent of mine who has also noticed this phenomenon," was posted on my web site, The Political Chase. I recently replied to his comment and thought it was appropriate to make note of it here.
The link is here
David,
There is a follow-up to your comment here.
I apologize for the long delay after you've put so much time into these articles. I'm going through a move right now, among other things. And I don't think that I could match you word for word even with a clear schedule.
Koch has addressed at least part of Prager's argument, or at least responded to it without citing it directly. Granted, he's also used a number of labels; bigot, shmuck, etc. However;
Prager: Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament
Koch, who served as a U.S. representative from 1969 to 1977, said he recalled using a Hebrew Bible at his initial, private swearing-in ceremony. A number of commentators, including Koch, have criticized Prager for factual inaccuracies in his column, including the assertions that Jewish legislators have traditionally used the Christian Bible to take their oaths of office and that use of the Christian Bible is a traditional part of the official swearing-in ceremony. (In fact, lawmakers often choose to use religious texts at optional private events held with family and friends.)
...
In his interview with the Forward, Koch pointed out that the first observant Jew elected to the British Parliament, Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, vigorously fought against a required Christian oath of office, and succeeded in having the law changed in 1858. (I assume this is relevant due to America's inheriting British common law.)
forward.com article
Not the subtle slip: Koch doesn't actually say Prager's position was wrong. He say it was wrong for him to "take" it -- to hold or offer that view. He is objecting to the speaking itself, not to the meat of the argument.
Koch (and others) have presented evidence that Prager's position was wrong.
If Prager had simply made the comment, we might chalk it up to a lapse or mistake. However for a person in Prager's position, to "take a position" implies a certain amount of deliberation. To take a considered position which is based on factually incorrect information leads us to ask why the error occurred.
And we learn, astoundingly, that religion is intrinsic, like race.
It's possible that you've misread what the author is saying there. "any other intrinsic characteristic" might be attached to the word "race."
link
yet his actual argument is not cited, much less refuted.
I agree, M.J. Rosenberg didn't address Prager's argument.
My mistake, Parlimentary resolutions in 1858 wouldn't affect American common law.
I apologize for the long delay after you've put so much time into these articles. I'm going through a move right now, among other things...
You'll note my many, bitter complaints. ;-)
Good luck with the move! If you don't mind my asking... ?
And I don't think that I could match you word for word even with a clear schedule.
Brevity is more virtuous, Ryan.
Personally, I blame my highly-effective high school typing teacher, who made verbosity cheaper. (Just kidding!)
I appreciate you taking your time to find a better statement from Koch. Yet...
(A) I can't help but notice that the article seems to be dated yesterday, weeks after his allegations. Yes, I suppose if pressed by much media attention, even a mere accusation of "bigot" would have to be bolstered with something -- but it's worth noting that his initial response, as best I can see, seem to simply start on the the assumption of bad motives, and move little beyond that for days, if not weeks.
(B) Koch's argument, described above, is still a straw man: Prager has repeatedly stated he's opposed to a religious test for office. In follow-up statement, he stated he simply wants the bible to be present, as a ceremonial nod.
I personally think that's a bit silly, but, as best I can see, it's no more "bigoted" than wanting to leave Moses hanging over the Supreme Court, as historical marker.
Yet this is the pattern I see over and over: First, we start with the ad hominem attack. Then we repeatedly mischaracterize the argument being offered and rebut points no-one is arguing. That's not a form of engaging the argument; both are ways of avoiding the argument.
I'm not saying there are no possible rebuttals: I've suggested a very simple, direct one above, and given yet another here. But I find it telling nobody's actually offering them.
Koch (and others) have presented evidence that Prager's position was wrong.
Koch (and others) have misrepresented Prager as demanding a religious test for office.
I never even hinted that there should be a religious test. It has never occurred to me that only Christians run for office in America. The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian...
I want people of every faith and of no faith who affirm the values I affirm to enter political life. My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. [1]
That was posted over a month ago. It seems fairly clear.
So can we explain the failure of Koch (and so many others, as you point out) to engage it in yesterday's article (nor others, in the interim)?
Does Koch not have internet access? Or a friend who does? Or was he utterly unable to locate Dennis's column? Or does he not have access to a telephone he could have used to call Prager and make sure he understood correctly, before demanding Prager be thrown off the Holocaust Memorial Board? Or was there simply no time in the intervening month for Koch to look up and read Prager's actual stance?
At what point can we suggest that perhaps it's not just an honest misunderstanding? Or is our credulity to be infinitely stretchable, in the name of decorum?
And why doesn't that go both ways, then, Ryan? Koch's opening charge of "Bigot!" hardly speaks of someone who is imputing good motives until all possibility of misunderstanding is eliminated. That's an accusation of bad character from square one.
[Perhaps I've misunderstood:] ... "any other intrinsic characteristic" might be attached to the word "race."
Typical usage would imply all belong to the same category. Only a tortured argument could render this merely poor phrasing.
Look at the context: the author neatly sandwiches "creed" into a list of "intrinsics" -- between two which imply racism. And then he tosses another would-be "instrisic" at the end, in case we've missed his point about intrinsic-ness prohibiting "demonization" (there's that word again).
Indeed, his argument fails otherwise, since he must otherwise admit that intrinsic-ness is not the operative criteria.
As I see it, it looks like he's pulling the same trick four times, and has an affinity for this particular tactic:
(1) First he places "creed" between two "race" categories to make it appear to be in the same category. (Example: Disagree with Islam? You're a "racist".)
(2) He also explicitly calls "sexual identity" an "instrinsic", including it in a list of protected categories to which it has not historically belonged.
(3) Next, we are already used to seeing "sexual orientation" placed in that list. But -- hey, look closely! -- we see he's written "sexual identity" instead!
("Sexual orientation" is about who you sleep with. "Sexual identity" is about whether you are male and wear a dress in public. So once again...)
(4) Last, he places "demonization" in the same category as "persecution". Again, this is also a common tactic: We're used to protecting people from persecution (firings, physical attacks, prohibition from public access) not mere verbal disagreement.
(And certainly, nobody is seriously arguing my religion or religious group should be protected against "demonization", though everyone could agree "persecution" would be wrong -- meaning they fully understand the difference in some cases.)
So all four strike me as an attempt to impute some characteristic, and advance an argument, by conflation and proximity. If we can justs say X is like Y often enough, by placing it the same context frequently, we will advance our position.
Good luck with the move! If you don't mind my asking... ?
I'm moving from Phoenix to Tucson. I just bought a house and I'm going to go to U of Arizona to get some more education. My original undergrad was in Biotech, but I've done no work in that area yet. I'm looking at a CS undergrad and then a masters in CS, masters in plant pathology or similar or a combination of the two. I originally wanted to be creating applications for the life sciecnes, but I needed to work for a bit after my undergrad and didn't want to spend time in lab.
So here I am. Thanks for asking.
And if you see someone named Danielle (or under the pseudonym Lisa) posting off-topic on these boards, I suggested she write to you. She's a good friend of mine, but I hope you won't hold that against her. ;-)
If nothing else, the online media's repeated failure to use hypertext to their advantage by linking to full transcripts is an endless frustration to me. However I'm not sure if I follow the timeline you're proposing.
You said; I can't help but notice that the article seems to be dated yesterday, weeks after his allegations. Yes, I suppose if pressed by much media attention, even a mere accusation of "bigot" would have to be bolstered with something
The linked to article is dated Fri. Dec 08, 2006. It includes "“There is no question that Dennis Prager is a bigot who ought to be repudiated even by his closest supporters,” Koch said this morning " So the Koch quote seems to have been issued on Dec 8th.
It also includes the phrase Koch, who served as a U.S. representative from 1969 to 1977, said he recalled using a Hebrew Bible at his initial, private swearing-in ceremony. A number of commentators, including Koch, have criticized Prager for factual inaccuracies in his column, including the assertions that Jewish legislators have traditionally used the Christian Bible to take their oaths of office and that use of the Christian Bible is a traditional part of the official swearing-in ceremony.
I honestly couldn't find a more complete statement from Kotch in the breif time I have so I really don't know what he said. But from these two pieces, I infer that;
1. Koch made his 'bigot' comment on December 8th, after Prager's article had become controversial enough to be news.
and
2. Koch supported his comment on the same day with the arguments listed above, and possibly others as well. However the 'bigot' comment is what was repeated.
At what point can we suggest that perhaps it's not just an honest misunderstanding?
Koch's argument, described above, is still a straw man: Prager has repeatedly stated he's opposed to a religious test for office.
Where does Koch make that strawman argument?
In follow-up statement, he stated he simply wants the bible to be present, as a ceremonial nod.
He said that even Jews used the Christian bible for swearing in, which is simply untrue. Koch and others called him on it.
For swearing in on the Koran to be a loss of a common symbol, use of the Christian bible for all candidates has to be an established tradition, even if voluntary. So far as I can see (and I admit not fully researching this topic, so feel free to correct me) Prager seems to be advocating what you've often accused others of. His attempt to 'conserve' a particular tradition (consistant use of the Christian bible regardless of the beliefs of the person using it) would be an innovation rather than a conservation. Thus, use of the Koran would not amount to losing a common symbol.
Typical usage would imply all belong to the same category. Only a tortured argument could render this merely poor phrasing.
I didn't invent the language. I don't know the author you cited, so he may genuinely be an idiot or misleading. Or he may not be.
Koch's opening charge of "Bigot!" hardly speaks of someone who is imputing good motives until all possibility of misunderstanding is eliminated. That's an accusation of bad character from square one.
True. Koch was uncivil. He insulted Prager and only afterwards sought an interview with him. But Koch isn't using the accusation to avoid Prager's arguement. He's addressed it, and done so on the exact same day he labeled Prager (or am I missing something?) Though that part of his statement seems to have been removed from all the articles quoting Koch.
The TPMCafe guy seems to be off-base enough to have probably meant that creed is an intrinsic characteristic (especially if sexual identity is considered one as well.)
Perhaps it might be more productive to explain why you think this discrepency exists and why some liberals have it while others don't, or don't to the same degree as others. (The earlier Krugmann article also used labels (unpatriotic) but didn't use them to avoid addressing his opponents arguments.
Ryan! Good to hear from you!
I barely know, you yet consider you a friend.
I have a Masters' degree in CS and still work in the profession, if that could be of any assistance to you. But I got it quite a while ago.
Danielle/"Lisa" (or anyone else) is welcomed to e-mail me directly as "blog" at this domain name. I'll try to be marginally less abusive to her than you. ;-) (You're a good soul to put up with me.)
Though you've piqued my curiosity. (I suspect I'll find out, or else it wasn't important to me.)
What was wrong with life sciences? Isn't that growing? (Monsanto in St. Louis seems to be doing a lot with that -- they have a huge experimental greenhouse of some sort there.)
The linked to article is dated Fri. Dec 08, 2006...
Oh. Somehow I'd read that as Jan 8th.
That knocks out some of tone of my argument, but some remains: Prager clarified on Dec 5th (and probably much earlier on his radio show) that he explicitly wasn't demanding a religious test.
And I still think it's hilarious how many criticized Prager as a Christian, without even checking out his bio. I find anti-Prager arguments amusing on that basis. Same goes for Michael Medved. Same as with black Republicans.
Where does Koch make that strawman argument?
I inferred it from the quote you gave:
In his interview with the Forward, Koch pointed out that the first observant Jew elected to the British Parliament, Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, vigorously fought against a required Christian oath of office...
A required oath of Christian faith is a "religious test", as I understand it.
[Prager] said that even Jews used the Christian bible for swearing in which is simply untrue. Koch and others called him on it.
I guess it's my turn to ask: Where?
First, let's clarify that Prager argued this was the first time someone used another book.
Waxman's statement (for example), that he didn't use a bible is not a rebuttal to that argument. Nor would a reference to the UK, since Prager was discussing the USA.
Here's Prager's actual argument, just for clarity:
Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it. [source]
I don't know the history, but I noticed that out of all the Jewish leaders on the Holocaust Memorial Board, only one was even able to say he used no book. This is one of those times where I think if Prager was wrong, we'd be seeing a lot more counter-examples. That suggests to me that Russ Feingold, Tom Lantos, etc, probably actually did swear on a bible.
That's not proof, certainly, but it is somewhat suspicious.
I admit I completely do not understand the following argument:
Prager seems to be advocating what you've often accused others of. His attempt to 'conserve' a particular tradition (consistant use of the Christian bible regardless of the beliefs of the person using it) would be an innovation rather than a conservation. Thus, use of the Koran would not amount to losing a common symbol.
Conserving a tradition is an innovation?
I don't get it.
Koch was uncivil. He insulted Prager and only afterwards sought an interview with him. But Koch isn't using the accusation to avoid Prager's arguement. He's addressed it, and done so on the exact same day he labeled Prager (or am I missing something?)
Again, Koch's argument was a straw man.
Unless I'm missing something (again), Prager's original column was on November 28th, his clarification on December 3rd, and Koch's interview with The Forward -- with "Bigot", "Schmuck", straw man and all -- is on December 8th, 10 days later.
The TPMCafe guy seems to be off-base enough to have probably meant that creed is an intrinsic characteristic (especially if sexual identity is considered one as well.)
Err, I think that was my original comment. ;-)
Aside: See, this is one of those time where I have to wrack my brains to figure out if "dense" or "deceptive" is the worse insult (not that I mean to insult, but what's left?), and choose the lesser. I know most people think "dense" is preferable, but I just don't know sometimes Ryan...
Can a person really think one's religion is coded in one's DNA? Is that even plausable?
I find it more likely to think someone was just busy being rhetorically sly and got tripped up.
Perhaps it might be more productive to explain why you think this discrepency exists and why some liberals have it while others don't, or don't to the same degree as others.
The answer is laughably simple (if you buy into conservative arguments): Liberal policies are wrong, and demonstrably so on most points.
That leaves three categories: those who just haven't done the research (me, ten years ago), those who simply can't understand it, and those who just don't want to know.
[And yes, there are some areas where it's more ambiguous and subjective (e.g. capital punishment), but I'm thinking specificly of things like minimum wage laws, price controls, affirmative action, socialism, Reagan's tax cuts, the effects of welfare, (etc.) where we now have hard economic and other kinds of data repudiating age-old liberal arguments.]
That's why people become more conservative as they get older: more and more get "mugged by reality" and drop their old liberal policies. And, as many of their friends switch, they're less afraid of being ostracized, which is a common fear from what I gather.
(My girlfriend's entire family, for example, insisted she was being "brainwashed" when she started to reject some of their liberal dogmas. Oh, and they definitely didn't want to actually discuss the counter-evidence she'd offer to show them.)
The holdouts are those who either can't think it through or those who have a little too much invested, in one thing or another, to be open to change.
Example: I start out favoring gun control (leftist policy). I read John Lott's book on gun control, I change my mind (now I have a conservative view). I show the evidence to a dear Democrat relative, she bursts into tears and doesn't change her mind. Somebody shows me better contrary evidence, I'll change my mind again. I know I can: I've already done so.
But the fact I more often get heat, not light, in response implies to me that most the people I speak to on that side of the curve, on that topic, simply don't wanna know. There's something invested, ego-wise, and that is at stake.
Also, I think the old maxim is true: Liberals are far more concerned about feelings and intentions than conservatives are. They don't want to ponder a possible dichotomy between good intentions and harmful results, so: they're good people because their intentions (and thus results) are good.
And, since it's inconceivable their policies could be harmful ones, then their opponents must be supporting the harmful policies. And since there's no disconnect between intention and result, their enemies must have bad intentions or bad character.
Begin to attack this, on a crucial, ego-attached issue, and they go non-linear: you get tears, anger, accusations, psychologizing, straw men, apparent inability to hear a simple point, etc.
I sometimes hear Prager's show, and I hear it all the time: He'll make a simple point, then spell out, repeatedly, four things he's not saying, and then he'll get call after all asking why he's saying one some point he just explained he wasn't saying.
It's rather mind-boggling when you witness it over and over and over.
Again, I'm not saying every liberal is like this. Some are just proto-conservatives. (I view my role as helping proto-conservatives realize that and make the change.) And perhaps I'm wrong: if so, I'm always open to counter-evidence.
I've changed my mind before (I wasn't originally conservative), so I know there's no problem in changing it again. But I think it's unlikely: if massive counter-evidence was out there, more people would be presenting it; it would make the evening news.
The earlier Krugmann article also used labels (unpatriotic) but didn't use them to avoid addressing his opponents arguments.
First, let me again gently point out that I'm not saying every single accusation of "unpatriotic" from the left fits this pattern. I'm not saying there can't be any exceptions.
But once again, this isn't even one of them.
Krugman doesn't engage the arguments of the Bush administration at all. In fact, he doesn't even document who is allegedly calling him "unpatriotic"! -- its just one of those dogmas his NYT readers will readily accept.
He's just listing a long list of criticisms of Bush: Bush cooked the intelligence reports, Bush needs to deploy more troops, Iraq didn't attack us, this will drive enlistment levels down, we have no useful allies (who's missing??? Putin? France?).
None of these are answers to conservative arguments, Ryan. None of them even engage conservative arguments. And they've all been answered, before and since, countless times. And there's no recognition by Krugman that those answers exist or have been offered.
They are not refuted; they are not even acknowledged.
This is a bit like arguing with atheists. Atheists have been offering the same dumb rebuttal to the first cause argument ("maybe the earth always existed?") for the last century or two. And 199 years ago, (i'm only half-joking) theists answered that rebuttal: Entropy. Guys like Sam Harris are still making arguments which were answered ages ago. Rather than refute the answers, they just go on and on as if nobody's said anything in response.
See above for a list of symptoms indicating the brain has gone non-linear on some emotionally-dear issue. Not-hearing is a classic brain-lockup symptom, one so common, I have to ban it on my own blog.
I want to clarify a couple things from the previous comment:
(1) I agree that Krugman's article isn't a case where the word "unpatriotic" is being used as a prima-facie thought blocker.
(2) It would, however, appear that he is encouraging that usage (and the charge of "Bush is a criminal"!) among readers. (People didn't just start by calling conservatives "racists" at each turn, for example.)
(3) I'd like to repeat my charge, however, that Krugman is still talking past conservative arguments on all points named except one.
That one is the debate about troop levels, which I think was and is a legitimate question. More later on that point.
But the rest of the article is simply a reptetition of liberal talking points, not a promotion of the debate.
Examples:
Charge: "Bush cooked the intelligence."
Conservatives respond that (a) intel agencies all around the world had the same conclusions, (b) these conclusions were present even back in the late 1990s, (c) two separate bipartisan commissions here, and a similar investigation in the UK, failed to find any support for that charge.
The liberal response to these points? I've never yet heard one. The debate ends there. Liberal pundits simply *reset*, going back to: "Bush cooked the intel!" again.
Charge: "... Therefore, Bush outed Plame as vengeance!"
Conservative response: (a) without the premise above, this motivation makes no sense (b) The UK confirmed the gist of Bush's "fourteen words". (c) Wilson, not Bush, was shown to have lied on many counts; his own report showed the opposite of what he later claimed. (d) Plame wasn't even undercover! (e) (Much later) Uh, oh -- it was Armitage, a Bush critic, who actually "outed" Plame.
Coherant liberal counter-responses I've heard, to these points: None. More repetition (cf Krugman). And after the Armitage revelation, it was: Could we please now talk about something else? (A few admitted they'd made a mistake: good for them! But it was a very tiny minority.)
I could do with this K's other charges too, but I've bored you quite enough already.
The general pattern is:
A: Charge B with X.
B: Respond with P, Q, and R
A: Charge B with X.
Again, I'm not saying all liberals do this, or that all conservatives don't. Just that it is yet another unproductive pattern which is far more pervasive on the left, as far as I can see.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« AACS Cracked, Apparently |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Islam is Untouchable »
|
The comment you refer to in your statement, "I want to give credit to a political opponent of mine who has also noticed this phenomenon," was posted on my web site, The Political Chase. I recently replied to his comment and thought it was appropriate to make note of it here.
The link is here
Posted by: David Pleasant on January 5, 2007 02:03 AM