Friday Funnies

Why Americans Pay Triple the World Price for Sugar

by James Bovard

Washington is once again massively screwing up the American sugar market. Because American farmers cannot compete with foreign sugar growers, the federal government has maintained an array of sugar import quotas and/or tariffs for most of the last 200 years. The regulatory regime has provided windfalls for generations of politicians and jobs for legions of bureaucrats while destroying more than a hundred thousand private, productive jobs. 

It’s Getting Worse

The sugar regime is back in the news thanks to a squabble over Mexican sugar imports. Mexico is by far the largest sugar supplier to the U.S., exporting more sugar here than all other nations combined. This is a huge windfall for Mexico because U.S. prices are routinely double or triple the world sugar price.

As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico was granted special access to the U.S. market. However, Mexican and U.S. government officials strongly disagree over the details of how many benefits were promised to Mexican sugar growers. The years-long controversy recently spurred the Mexican government to cancel all sugar export permits.

The sugar squabble is typical of NAFTA’s convoluted rules and helps explain why the final deal was more than 1700 pages long. NAFTA was never intended to result in free trade. Instead, NAFTA is a trade preference agreement akin to the "imperial preference" that Great Britain once provided for members of the British Empire. 

NAFTA did not reduce U.S. trade barriers for the entire world, but instead specially lowered many barriers for two trading partners. NAFTA actually gives Mexico an incentive to lobby to perpetuate U.S. trade barriers - at least on every other nation. 

Poisoned By Managed Trade

Free trade is a font of good will between nations. But NAFTA-style managed trade sows as many disputes as there are lawyers. The sugar hubbub is only one of an array of squabbles that impeded willing sellers from reaching voluntary agreements with willing buyers on the other side of the border.

The sugar program illustrates why politicians cannot be trusted to competently manage anything more complex than a lemonade stand. In 1816, Congress imposed high tariffs on sugar imports in part to prop up the value of slaves in Louisiana. In 1832, a committee of Boston’s leaders issued a pamphlet denouncing sugar tariffs as a scam on millions of low-paid American workers to benefit fewer than 500 plantation owners. 

In the 1890s, Congress first abolished and then re-imposed the sugar tariff, spurring a boom-bust that ravaged Cuba, spurring an uprising that helped drag the United States into the Spanish-American War.

Despite perpetual aid, the number of sugar growers has declined by almost 50% in recent decades to fewer than 6,000. Federal policy failed to countervail the fact that the climate in the mainland U.S. is relatively poorly suited for sugarcane production. The only thing that could make U.S. sugar farmers competitive on world markets is severe global warming.

It’s Sweetened Welfare

Federal sugar policy costs consumers $3 billion a year and is America’s least efficient welfare program. In the 1980s, sugar import restrictions cost consumers $10 for each dollar of sugar growers’ income. The USDA ceased tracking sugar farmers’ income, but a University of Minnesota study estimated that sugar-beet farmers in that state lost an average of $300 per acre in 2013. Actually, the sugar program imposes costs on other farmers, since heavily-subsidized beet farmers bid up farmland rental prices higher than they would otherwise be.

Food manufacturers that use sugar are hostage to a byzantine combination of price supports and arbitrary import restrictions (such as those that torpedoed the Mexican supply). As a result, producing candy and many other food products is far more expensive here than abroad. Since 1997, sugar policy has zapped more than 120,000 jobs in food manufacturing, according to a study by Agralytica, an economic consulting firm. More than 10 jobs have been lost in manufacturing for every remaining sugar grower in the U.S.

Making Us Fat and Sick

At a time when the U.S. government is endlessly hectoring Americans about their diets, federal sugar policy may be partly to blame for the skyrocketing rate of diabetes in recent decades. In 1984, Coca-Cola and Pepsi replaced sugar in soft drinks with high-fructose corn syrup - which has a more stable supply and is cheaper. 

Many other food producers followed suit, and Americans now consume 55 pounds of high fructose corn syrup a year - more than any other nation on earth. 

A 2012 study by the University of Southern California and the University of Oxford found that nations that heavily rely on high fructose corn syrup in their food supply "had a 20 percent higher prevalence of diabetes than countries that did not use" corn syrup. The study found that the diabetes rate was sharply higher regardless of the obesity or total sugar intake level of residents in those nations.

This Is Not Working

Sugar subsidies are also hell on alligators. Because the U.S. mainland does not have a natural climate for sugar production, farmers compensate by dousing the land with chemicals to artificially stimulate production. More than 500,000 acres of the Everglades have been converted from swamp land to sugar fields. Over the years, phosphorus from the fertilizer used by sugar growers leached into the water of the Everglades and helped destroy the ecosystem of the entire region. For more than 20 years, local and federal politicians have promised one “fix” after another to curb the damage, but the ravages continue. 

The sugar lobby showers Congress with money, including almost $50 million in campaign contributions and lobbying between 2008 and 2013. In return, members of Congress license sugar growers to pilfer consumers at grocery checkouts and rob hardworking Americans of their jobs. There is no evidence that pro-subsidy members of Congress have lost any sleep over their role in spawning an epidemic of diabetes.

Raze these Barriers

Federal sugar policy is a stark rebuttal to anyone who believes that moderate reform will end the poxes that Washington inflicts on the nation. There is no reason to expect politicians to learn from mistakes that impoverish others while enriching their reelection campaigns. The only way to fix the sugar program is to abolish it. And the only way to achieve free trade is by razing trade barriers without any 500-page appendixes.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Hump Day Hunnies

The Historical Origin of 'Political Correctness'

By Jon Miltimore


In the November issue of Claremont Review of Books, Angelo M. Codevilla wrote a deep-dive article on the rise of political correctness in America.

The phrase “politically correct” is ubiquitous in America today. I complain about political correctness now and again, but I’d never given any thought to the phrase's origins. Codevilla, however, offers a fascinating look.

“The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself,” writes Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University.

The semi-humorous reminder went something like this:

“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.”

The anecdote was a vital reminder in Stalin’s empire: Stray from the party’s official position and it could mean death. Whether or not something was true mattered less than whether or not it advanced the Idea (i.e. the Party’s interest).

How does this apply to America today? Codevilla says progressives, like the Marxists before them, have a simple raison d'etre: fix a broken society.

“The formula is straightforward: the world is not as it should be because society’s basic, ‘structural’ feature is ordered badly....For Marx and his followers that feature is conflict over the means of production in present-day society…. For Freudians it’s sexual maladjustment, for followers of Rousseau it’s social constraint, for positivists it is the insufficient application of scientific method, for others it is oppression of one race by another. Once control of society passes exclusively into the hands of the proper set of progressives, each sect’s contradictions must disappear as the basic structural problem is straightened out.”

The methods of the Communists and progressives differ, but the goal is one and the same: achieve “cultural hegemony,” a political phrase popularized by Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), an Italian Marxist and politician who became prominent in progressive circles decades after his death.

Progressives learned that achieving hegemony by criminal punishment is difficult. Intellectuals seeking to remake America—“born tainted by Western Civilization’s original sins: racism, sexism, greed, genocide”, etc.—found a more effective way.

Political correctness, perpetuated by a small class of people ensconced at universities, bureaucracies, and major media, is the ideal tool for achieving cultural hegemony. It is “forceful seduction” in lieu of rape. It achieves “tacit collaboration by millions who bite their lip.”

As a political philosophy, political correctness might seem lifeless and aimless. But Codevilla noted the goal of Lenin and Stalin was not a state built on Marxist principles; it was always party control. The two philosophies are similarly empty.

“Like its European kin, all that American progressivism offers is obedience to the ruling class, enforced by political correctness….Nor is there any endpoint to what is politically correct, any more than there ever was to Communism. Here and now, as everywhere and always, it comes down to glorifying the party and humbling the rest.”

It’s not exactly light reading, but Codevilla's article is a must-read for anyone serious about understanding the nature and origins of political correctness. I found it interesting that Codevilla made a point similar to one that Dr. Jordan Peterson made in an interview over the weekend. It’s the idea that political correctness is a movement 1) fundamentally political in nature; and 2) built on resentment.

Peterson said this is no accident. It comes right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

“The social justice people are always on the side of compassion and ‘victim’s rights,’ so objecting to anything they do makes you instantly a perpetrator. There’s no place you can stand without being vilified, and that’s why it keeps creeping forward….There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally.”

It's a simple point, but a very important one. Stop and think about it for a moment. How much of our politics today is driven by resentment?

--
Jon Miltimore is senior editor of Intellectual Takeout. Follow him on Facebook.

Originally published here:
The Historical Origin of 'Political Correctness' | Intellectual Takeout

Why Most Students No Longer Read the ‘Great Books’ | Intellectual Takeout

by Daniel Lattier

For about a hundred years now, various educators have tried to promote a return to the study of the “Great Books” in schools. But they have largely failed to gain much traction.

  

“Great Books” is the name given to the so-called Western canon of literature—those books throughout history that have been influential in shaping Western Civilization. Some of the titles of the Great Books include Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Euclid’s Geometry, and Virgil’s Aeneid. (Here’s a link to one of more famous lists of the Great Books.)  

Until the nineteenth century, it used to be common for students to be familiar with many of these works by the time they finished college. And then, they used to finish college at the age of 18!

However, in the first half of the nineteenth century American schools began to move away from a Great Books focus. Today, only a small minority of students happen to encounter more than two or three of the Great Books in their educational careers.

There are a number of reasons why:

1) A scornful attitude toward the past. The Great Books were dumped in the first place because it was thought that the ancients no longer had anything “relevant” to teach us. The same attitude still prevails in schools today.

2) The snowball effect. The decline in knowledge of the Great Books is not easily reversed. Most of the teachers in today’s schools have not themselves learned the Great Books, which means that they would have a difficult time effectively teaching them to others. As the Latin saying goes, Nemo dat quod non habet—“No one gives what he doesn’t have.”

3) The Great Books are hard. Sorry, but most students aren’t capable of grasping the content and complex themes in the Great Books. Previous centuries understood this, which is why higher learning (in the teenage years and beyond) was reserved to a minority of people. But today, our society labors under the romantic illusion that all students should be scholars. To stack the deck in favor of that illusion, schools have had to considerably dumb down the curriculum, which means that they’ve had to give the boot to the Great Books.  

4) The Great Books are boring. Students today grow up in an environment where their expectation is that “all is entertainment,” including their educations. Teachers are usually in a difficult situation of having to find books that will hold the ever-shortening attention spans and satisfy the narcissistic cravings of these students. The majority of the Great Books—while they do communicate important truths—are not centered on arrow-wielding teenage female heroines who save the world.     

5) The Great Books are taught in English. I think this is part of the reason they seem boring. English is too familiar to students, and when certain works from the past are translated into their native tongue, the prose and style seems too stilted and is off-putting. But when students study these works in conjunction with learning Greek or Latin, and read them in their original language, then engaging with them becomes like solving a puzzle. The fact is that translating the Latin opening words of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars—Omnia gallia in tres partes divisa est—is naturally going to be more interesting than simply reading “All Gaul was divided into three parts” in English.   

Thus far, the push for a return to the Great Books may not have had the widespread impact on American education that its original purveyors had hoped for. That said, there are some inklings that a more popular movement is afoot. Americans are increasingly waking up to the shortcomings of the present education system, a growing number of K-12 schools are adopting a classical curriculum, and over 100 colleges now have a Great Books Program.

But the recovery of Western education is still going to take a while.

Originally published here:
Why Most Students No Longer Read the ‘Great Books’ | Intellectual Takeout

How an Obscure Oriental Cult Converted a Vast, Pagan Roman Empire

The Roman empire became Christian during the fourth century CE. At the century’s start, Christians
were – at most – a substantial minority of the population. By its end, Christians (or nominal Christians) indisputably constituted a majority in the empire. Tellingly, at the beginning of the century, the imperial government launched the only sustained and concerted effort to suppress Christianity in ancient history – and yet by the century’s end, the emperors themselves were Christians, Christianity enjoyed exclusive support from the state and was, in principle, the only religion the state permitted.

Apart from the small and ethnically circumscribed exception of the Jews, the ancient world had never known an exclusivist faith, so the rapid success of early Christianity is a historical anomaly. Moreover, because some form of Christianity is a foundational part of so many peoples’ lives and identities, the Christianisation of the Roman empire feels perennially relevant – something that is ‘about us’ in a way a lot of ancient history simply is not. Of course, this apparent relevance also obscures as much as it reveals, especially just how strange Rome’s Christianisation really was.

That a world religion should have emerged from an oriental cult in a tiny and peculiar corner of Roman Palestine is nothing short of extraordinary. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, though an eccentric one, and here the concern is not what the historical Jesus did or did not believe. We know that he was executed for disturbing the Roman peace during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, and that some of his followers then decided that Jesus was not merely another regular prophet, common in the region. Rather, he was the son of the one true god, and he had died to bring salvation to those who would follow him.

Jesus’s disciples began to preach the virtues of their wonderworker. Quite a few people believed them, including Saul of Tarsus, who took the message on the road, changing his name to Paul as a token of his conversion. Paul ignored the hardscrabble villages of the Galilee region, looking instead to the cities full of Greeks and Greek-speaking Jews all around the eastern Mediterranean littoral. He travelled to the Levant, Asia Minor and mainland Greece, where he delivered his famous address to the Corinthians.

Read more:
How an obscure oriental cult converted a vast, pagan Roman empire | Aeon Essays

No Joy In Reading -- That's the Plan.

By Bruce Deitrick Price
 
Newspapers in my state reported a particularly sadistic murder.  The victim was shot, strangled, beaten with a hammer, stabbed, punched, and set on fire.  The killers were thorough and then some.

If you look at how reading is taught in the U.S., you will think of this  execution.  Children are taught stupidly and then some.  Every technique that will make reading difficult and unpleasant is employed. 

To start with, Sight-words are the worst way to start.  Instead of learning letters and the sounds they represent, children memorize graphic designs.  Rudolf Flesch (Chapter V of Why Johnny Can't Read) said that as of 1948, eleven studies had been conducted; all found that phonics is superior.  (So the Education Establishment has always known that if you want a society to have low literacy, you will promote Sight-words.  And that is what they relentlessly do.) 

Children who rely entirely on Sight-words will invariably end up semi-literate (aka functionally illiterate).  However, it's also true that the more verbal children will in time figure out that Sight-words are not efficient.  These children will notice that certain letter-shapes represent certain sounds.  And by the third grade, many children will be reading phonetically even though they were never taught to do so!


Articles: K-12: No Joy In Reading. That's the Plan.

Friday Funnies

Helping a Veteran in Need

He fought for us. Now let's fight for him.

From the Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2889:

We have all seen the news article about the 84 year old veteran who was evicted and is suspected of being an elderly abuse victim...
Many of you all have asked how you can help. My phone has been ringing off of the hook! Here is the answer...
After speaking with the various entities associated with this gentleman, I know that he is in need of temporary housing. There are multiple options (fully furnished) around Rock Hill and Fort Mill. The amount we are able to raise will determine which location he will live at.
Please note that the fully furnished option will allow us to not have to take in stock piles of furniture/odds and ends, until we have a permanent location.

I know that all the local Veterans Organizations have been following this case and are ready to help out as well. Feel free to donate here!

We will also take any donations in person at the local Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2889. 732 West Main St. Rock Hill SC 29730.

I love it when the community comes together for such a righteous cause! SCProud!

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139654728.html

Helping a local veteran in need by Vfw Rock Hill SC - GoFundMe

Hump Day Hunnies

You Do the Prayin' and I'll Do the Shootin’

One of the most highly decorated American soldier of World War II, Audie Leon Murphy, was born^th June 1925.  His life story was an incredible mix of heroism and acting – heroism because he was one of the bravest and most successful warriors the United States of America ever produced, and acting because, when his military career ended, he turned his attention to Hollywood and became an international celebrity in a film career that spanned 21 years.
on the 20

Murphy received a vast amount of awards and decorations both from his own country and from France and Belgium. These include the American Campaign Medal, the French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star, Campaign Medals for the Middle East, Africa and Europe, the French Legion of Honor, French Croix de Guerre with Palm, the World War II Victory Medal, the Army of Occupation Medal, the French Liberation Medal, the Belgian Croix de Guerre and the American Medal of Honor and Legion of Merit.

In total, Murphy received 33 awards and medals. Amongst these was the prestigious Medal of Honor.

The Medal of Honor was awarded to Murphy after he single-handedly held off a company of German soldiers at the Colmar Pocket and then, incredibly, even after being wounded, led a counterattack.
The Germans scored a direct hit on an M10 tank destroyer, setting it alight, forcing the crew to abandon it. Murphy ordered his men to retreat to positions in the woods, remaining alone at his post, shooting his M1 carbine and directing artillery fire via his field telephone while the Germans aimed fire directly at his position.

Murphy mounted the abandoned, burning tank destroyer and began firing its .50 caliber machine gun at the advancing Germans, killing a squad crawling through a ditch towards him. For an hour, Murphy stood on the tank destroyer returning German fire from footsoldiers and advancing tanks, killing or wounding 50 Germans.

He sustained a leg wound during this stand and stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Murphy then rejoined his men, disregarding his own wound, and led them back to repel the Germans. He insisted on remaining with his men while his wounds were t

Read more:
You Do the Prayin' and I'll Do the Shootin’: jumped up & manned a .50 cal on a burning M10 tank destroyer

Christopher Hitchens - The Best of the Hitchslap

How an ESPN Announcer's Career Was Destroyed by a False Accusation of Racism

In his 2000 novel, The Human Stain, Philip Roth created the besieged professor Coleman Silk, who

was the object of calumny and hysteria after he called roll in class and, noticing that two students had never appeared in five weeks, asked the students present, “Does anyone know these people? Do they exist or are they spooks?” The two missing students, who turned out to be black, may have had no interest in attending class, but they took the trouble to charge Silk with racism.

Since Silk had never met the students, and hadn’t known they were black, the charge of racism was absurd: “I was using the word in its customary and primary meaning: ‘spook’ as a specter or a ghost,” he said. Nevertheless, Silk (who turned out to be a black man who passed for white) faced a kind of witch trial, including expulsion from his college and the loss of his wife, who suffered a stroke and died during his battle with the administration. “Creating their false image of him, calling him everything that he wasn’t and could never be, they had not merely misrepresented a professional career conducted with the utmost seriousness and dedication­­—they had killed his wife of over forty years. Killed her as if they’d taken aim and fired a bullet into her heart,” Roth writes.

This winter, Roth’s fictional scenario played out in reality, via ESPN and a contributor to The New York Times. Hardly anyone noticed. Why should we care if an ordinary man’s life is ruined for no reason?

The new Coleman Silk is Doug Adler, a (former) ESPN sports announcer whose career was demolished because of a frenzied overreaction to his (correct) use of a single word: Guerilla. Adler was calling an Australian Open tennis match between Venus Williams (who is black) and Stefanie Voegele when he said,“You see Venus move in and put the guerilla effect on. Charging.” Adler noted that “guerilla tennis” is a commonly used phrase and has been ever since a famous 1995 Nike TV spot of that title in which Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi hastily strung a tennis net across a busy city street and started playing right there.

When Adler made his “guerilla” remark, a few Twitter users accused him of using the word “gorilla,” their complaints amplified considerably by New York Times tennis writer Ben Rothenberg. “This is some appalling stuff. Horrifying that the Williams sisters remain subjected to it still in 2017.” Wait, the Williams sisters, plural? Who said anything about Serena Williams? Rothenberg took one misunderstood word, turned it into an imaginary insult, then doubled the fantasy slur. When what Roth termed “the ecstasy of sanctimony” takes over, logic bows its head and retreats. Rothenberg’s Tweet was re-Tweeted 142 times, reaching many thousands and apparently Adler’s bosses.

Read the rest:
How an ESPN Announcer's Career Was Destroyed by a False Accusation of Racism | Intellectual Takeout

Friday Funnies

The Remarkable Bass Reeves

Hump Day Hunnies

Five Festering Problems the Democrats Cynically Ignore

Our national media have a knack for missing important trends.  They are focused on what is seen as general confusion and a lack factual fidelity in the Trump administration.  The media miss entirely the contrast in adult responsible behavior by Republicans and the increasingly irresponsible Democrats.  Republicans at all levels of government are trying to solve America's problems.  Democrats are, at best, indifferent; it requires only a sliver of cynicism to conclude that very liberal Democrats are actually working to make our problems worse.


Here's a review of five of our most pressing problems.  If I'm missing some good works from the Democrats, I'd love to hear about them.
 
1. Bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare.  Left uncorrected, the financial weakness of these programs either will result in default on their obligations or will drive our country into bankruptcy.  
From George W. Bush to Paul Ryan, Republicans have weathered a constant barrage of liberal obstruction and ridicule for their efforts to reform both programs.  Meanwhile, Democrats offer nothing.  Really let that sink in.  They offer nothing.

That's not quite true.  Obama's budgets contained ever increasing budget cuts to Medicare, which would bring us dangerously close to a default of its obligations. 

2. Obamacare.  From its inception, critics argued that the Affordable Care Act was actuarially unsound.  They were right.  There's no doubt that a few people benefit from the program, but only at the expense of many other people.  There is even less doubt that the program cannot continue.  It has reached the predicted death spiral.  Obamacare must be undone before it causes irreparable damage to our health care delivery system.
    
Republicans were elected to repeal and replace Obamacare.  The Democrat position is a modern version of "mend it; don't end it."  Here's the catch: there are no Democratic Party proposals to mend their creation.

Liberals are completely hands off.  They offer no help with the mess the ACA created, but they say if Republicans try to fix the problem, then Republicans own whatever problems ensue.  It's difficult to put the breadth and depth of this irresponsibility into words.  Happily, we have Michael Ramirez to express it artistically.

 
Read the rest here:
Blog: Five festering problems the Democrats cynically ignore

Berkeley Goes Offline

A few years ago, an adjunct professor and disability-rights activist named Stacy Nowak went to take
a look at a college course offered online by the University of California, Berkeley. The course was called "Journalism for Social Change." Nowak is deaf. She has no connection to UC Berkeley; she teaches art at Gallaudet University. But she was displeased with the quality of the closed captioning the university provided on the course's video.

Nowak, who declined to be interviewed for this article, got hold of the National Association of the Deaf, which she's a member of. In doing so she set in motion a train of events that will come to a head on March 15. Already famous for other reasons, the Ides of March will likely stand as a signal day in the development of modern liberalism, or progressivism, as we are supposed to call it. That's when one bastion of left-wingery, UC Berkeley, will give in to the demands of another, the disability-rights movement, to deprive the rest of us of a uniquely wonderful resource of modern technology. It's not as complicated as it sounds.

Since 2012, UC Berkeley (among many other schools) has offered video and audio recordings of many of its courses to the general public, via YouTube and iTunes U. The Seussian acronym is MOOCs, for massive open online courses. Over the years Berkeley's catalogue of MOOCs has grown to more than 40,000 hours of high-end pedagogy. There are introductory courses in economics, European history, statistics, physics, geography, and pretty much everything else. More advanced courses range from "Scientific Approaches to Consciousness" and "Game Theory" to "The Planets" and "Philosophy of Language," this last taught by John Searle, the country's, and maybe the world's, greatest living philosopher. Not all of the content will be to everyone's taste, of course, and I'm sure there's something to annoy anyone sooner or later. Professor Michael Nagler's simpering "Intro to Nonviolence" makes me want to punch something. I probably wouldn't like "Journalism for Social Change," either.

But still, wandering around this digital edifice one can't help but marvel. Has the Internet ever seemed so close to fulfilling the promise of its salad days? Think of it: Anyone anywhere can take a class at UC Berkeley, at their own pace, without tests or note-taking or waking up before noon! And despite the reflexive slanders from conservatives and its well-earned reputation as a hive of left-wingers, Berkeley remains one of the great intellectual centers of the world when it's not being torched by its students. Clicking on a course that seems even vaguely interesting, a former liberal arts major will now and then feel a reawakening of the thrill and sense of elation and limitless possibility that are among the great rewards of brainy adventures. Berkeley's MOOCs constitute an expansion of intellectual opportunity unimaginable 25 years ago.

Read the full story here:
Berkeley Goes Offline | The Weekly Standard

Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)

Friday Funnies