Standing up for Rights by Sitting Down

So this post is maybe a bit delayed, but a few weeks ago I was watching a news show on the TV, I can't remember which one, but they had a story that caught me by surprise. On the show, there was a ten year-old or so kid, who was being interviewed. This boy had caught media attention by refusing to stand up for the pledge of allegiance in school. Why was he doing this? His reasoning was that he was and still is (I assume) refusing to stand up until the pledge is a reality for all Americans to have "liberty and justice", in his case he was sitting down for Gay-Rights. Yes, that's right, he is refusing to stand for the pledge until gays have equal rights to marry in our country! Of course this courageous child had been ridiculed by his classmates, who called him names and such, but he seems to be the poster child for all of the politically active existentialists we have been reading about, Martin Luther King came to mind when I heard this. Specifically it made me think of a quote from MLK's Letters from a Birmingham Jail, "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" (King). I thought of this because as a few of us were discussing the issue of equality for gays during office hours (brought up by a poorly written article in the school paper regarding the topic) it is clear that many people simply do not have a strong opinion either way that creates obstacles for progress. This pioneer of primary school has set an example for how true change is enacted. Anyway, I thought this was an interesting story, what do you guys think?

Eichmann, cont.

All,

Basically I am splitting the Eichmann readings into thirds. Thus, you should read up through, but not including, XIII for Tuesday, and the rest for Thursday. Again, there is a lot there, so don't fall behind. However, after the last three semesters you should have honed your reading abilities such that you can move rapidly through parts of the text, while recognizing that which is relevant to our purposes.

Enjoy ur fudz.

-W.

Orthodoxy, Updates

All,

First, the following reading comes from the op-ed page of Wednesday's New York Times. While I normally avoid endorsing op-eds, let alone assigning them, Mr Simon's analysis is as valid as his subject matter is poignant for our purposes. In the course of his piece, Mr Simon makes the connection between the contemporary terror trials (and the debate surrounding them) and the trial of Adolf Eichmann, which you should already be reading. Thus, I can't imagine a better transition to the next part of the course than this article.

This constitutes required course materials. Read and comment.

Second, there are a couple other pieces from this week's NYT that I would like you to read, although they are not necessarily course material in the sense that they will be potential test questions. (A) in reference to Libby's post on women in combat, here is a piece on that very same issue. Specifically, it addresses the "disconnect between the policy that says what women can do and what women are actually doing." The reality is that women daily face combat in Iraq, whereas the policy (which is to keep them out of regular combat assignments) precludes them from receiving regular combat training. In short, the practical result is to willfully deploy unprepared individuals in harm's way on the basis of an unrealistic theoretical principle. This is bad. (B) Thomas Friedman wrote a concise, clear, compelling piece on the economic and security interests behind energy policy. I like his argument due to its focus: rather than basing his writing on some sort of milquetoast-yet-principled position of neo-hippie sensibility, he proceeds from international policy and population growth to promote green energy while exposing the contradictory arguments of the opposition in all their naive and narrow glory. Valid if vitriolic, Mr Friedman addresses rarely heard yet vitally important concerns in what is often an idiotic screaming match between ill-informed half-wits. (C) This is just cool.

Third, hopefully you started reading Eichmann. The book can be difficult, as I have mentioned previously, not least because of its subject matter. For Tuesday have everything (including the Introduction) up through, but not including, chapter VIII read. Take it home with you over Thanksgiving.

Finally, we need to chat about the final paper assignment, as we only have four (*gasp*) regular class periods before the end of the semester. The final paper topic is simple, which in a way makes it more difficult. You are wrapping three semesters studying the history of philosophy, religion, history, etc., in the West. Yet the course is not meant to be a humanities survey, but as the title specifically states it is meant to be a "search for values." Thus, I would like you to write about what you have learned. Using texts from all three semesters (though leaning more heavily on our current semester), you will write a fifteen page paper due on Monday, December 14th. Although that date is three weeks from now, and although a research paper assignment given within that length of time might seem atypical, remember that this is not a research paper. Rather, you should have been thinking about the topic all along. We will talk more about the assignment during the next class period.

Cheers,

-W.

De Beauvoir and Women in Combat

In discussing Simone de Beauvoir, I have been reminded of a debate we recently had in my French class about whether or not women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military. As a political liberal and general supporter of gender equality, I was in favor of this idea and was thus a bit annoyed when our professor told me that I was a part of the “contre” group and had to argue against it. But when forced to think of arguments in opposition to women in combat, I immediately conceded that men are inherently more qualified for these positions. Not simply because of their facticity, but because of the naturally superior strength and endurance that their facticity affords them, males are, in general, physically more equipped to serve in combat than females. While there are certainly some exceptional women whose strength is above that of the average male, this is generally not the case. (If this claim seems somewhat stereotypical or even absurd, think about it in a different context. In professional football, for instance, no one really questions why there are no women in the NFL.) So, the question that arises is, Is the government’s policy of letting women serve in positions of combat in the military for the sake of equality and progressiveness an irresponsible one? If a women is placed in such a position in lieu of a man who is presumably more physically qualified, is the military not unnecessarily jeopardizing both the safety of the woman and the overall strength of the United States military? When so much is at stake, would it not be more conscientious to push the cause of equality aside for a moment and constrain women to non-combat positions in the military? Despite my best wishes as a woman, I am forced to admit that the answer to all of these questions is, in a word, yes. While I am certainly not trying to oppress or discriminate against my own sex in saying this, it seems clear to me that, despite what de Beauvoir might say, there is not a whole lot that women can do about such a situation. I am hoping that someone can prove me wrong.

Calling All (Female) Athletes

All,

The relevance of this incident should be obvious, so no introductions needed. Indeed, even in a simplistic sense, when is the last time you heard anything about women's college soccer? The first article from the NYT on Elizabeth Lambert's now famous (apparently the video has gone viral) behavior during this game is also interesting, in that it addresses the meta-issue regarding the double-standard for women and men in the sports world.

I encourage comments, but keep perspective. The issue under discussion, both in our context and in the national media, is not whether such behavior is permissible or appropriate. What is of interest here is the presence, or absence, of different treatment based on gender roles.

Cheers,

-W.

Foucault: Free Speech for Everyone?

In his speech, Foucault describes how parrhesia demands courage to speak up in the face of danger. It also serves as critique to keep rulers in check and is regarded as a duty. But a question I wondered is who is entitled to use parrhesia? Foucault seems to imply that as long as these criteria are met, it is parrhesia.

Although Foucault focused his discussion on parrhesia and how it is a duty for everyone, he seems to imply that not everyone can actually partake if they wish. Meaning that slaves seem no have virtually no chance to get out of the subservient role because they are not given the opportunity to be heard. His examples seem to disregard his point. In The Phoenician Women, Polyneices is unable to use parrhesia because she has been exiled and has no way to exercise power. This makes her “in the same situation as a slave.” Then in Hippolytus, Foucault claims that “Parrhesia require both moral and social qualifications which come from a noble birth and a respectful reputation.” Therefore, slaves have no chance to speak up and if they cannot speak up, they will never be free. It seems that Locke is right in a sense because it seems that slaves can’t fight for their freedom (since they can’t be heard) and if they don’t fight, they are not human. Therefore they cannot exercise their duty as human beings to use parrhesia. Many slaves attempted to fight back and used courage but it ultimately failed simply because they had no power (or often education). How then can slaves ever be free? If they cannot use parrhesia, what other means can they use? Is it truly free speech if not everyone can participate? Like all the other philosophers we have discussed, it seems like Foucault only applies to the educated land-owning males. Thoughts?

More thoughts on the Alina Fernandez Lecture. . .

While I also attended the lecture, and also thought Fernandez's actions in escaping Cuba were brave, I was somewhat surprised by her story. Fernandez did not find out Castro was her father until she was about ten, and by the time she was eleven she already despised her position. From her friends at school to the strangers that stood outside her house, people were constantly asking Alina for help. She said she never attempted to help them, since she thought she couldn't make a difference.  She also said as she grew up, she tried to live a normal life, or however close she could get to normal. In 1993, she, along with her daughter, quietly escaped to America. Today, she has no contact with her Cuban relatives. During the questionnaire part of the session, Fernandez was asked numerous times about her current involvement with Cuba or if she was involved in any action to improve the conditions of Cubans. She firmly answered no to all of the questions, that she was not in anyway involved with Cuba and that she was simply here to tell her story, which had ended in 1993 when she arrived in America. Being that it is 2009 I was surprised that her story had ended more than a decade ago, and that Fernandez was trying to live a noncontroversial life here. She said she believed revolution to be unnecessary, and she thought people often caused more harm than good when intervening in situations such as that of Cuba. I can understand where she is coming from in her anti-revolutionary ideals, since her childhood was filled with revolution that seemed (to her) to ruin her country. However, perhaps because I had just been overwhelmed by the civil rights revolution only two hours before, this blatantly apathetic view was quite disappointing. As Martin Luther King Junior said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". It seems as though Fernandez, once escaping to America, chose to forget the injustices of Cuba. Also one of Thoreau's central ideas of Civil Disobedience is that anyone, no matter how small, can make a difference. He says even if one person were to go against the government, this would still be a revolution. By not paying his taxes in an attempt to be free of the government, he practices what he preaches. Fernandez's message, on the other hand, seemed to me to be that she was just one person, just a distant daughter of Castro's, and that there was nothing she could do, or even nothing she should do for the Cubans, since it would end up being more costly than good. So what do you guys think, do you think Fernandez is right? That Thoreau and MLK are just romanticizing revolution? That revolution is actually costly and people should just find their own way out like she did? Thoughts?

Civil Rights

So the trip to the National Civil Rights Museum was a worthwhile and humbling experience, and for those of you who were unable to attend today, if you have not been I strongly encourage you do so. We read the words of great Civil Rights leaders from Booker T. Washington, to Malcolm X, and of course Martin Luther King, and of course we have also read more in depth some of Martin Luther King's ideas. Following our trip to the museum we discussed what we saw as we rushed through the history of African American oppression and eventual triumph. Anyways Professor Harwood brought up the question that there was one glaring mistake made by the museum. After a minute or so of puzzled looks and waiting for an answer, our curiosity was satisfied. For being the National CIVIL RIGHTS Museum it was focused solely on the movement for African American freedom and equality, but as we all know there was more than one movement for equality, the Women's Rights movement was also an important chapter in our history. This we all realized was true because the closest the museum came to addressing women's rights was Rosa Parks, and she flew under the banner of African American rights more so than women's rights. Looking back through our course work this semester, it doesn't seem completely surprising that women be left out of something, but it lead me to ask myself whether it was such a big deal. While the name National Civil Rights Museum does not sound like it should be dedicated exclusively to African Americans, it is important to remember that the movement was labelled the Civil Rights Movement, and so it is a museum that is documenting the history of this particular movement. Perhaps it would be better if they decided to chop off the word "National", but even so, I feel like there would be too much material if they included the women's rights movement. Instead of doing something radical like that there should be a separate museum for women's rights, if there is not already one, and it could be in a place that is more historically significant like Seneca, New York. I guess what I am trying to say is that the name of the museum, while it was a misstep is not something that should be blown out of proportion.

Your thoughts, comments, criticisms?

Connections with Alina Fernandez Lecture and Foucault

In Alina Fernandez's talk this evening, she touched on the many different ways how the Castro regime oppressed the people of Cuba. Specifically, the regime dissolved the majority of their civil rights. The people were not allowed to do anything or thinking anything that wasn't condoned by the government. The Cubans only could have one opinion and could support only one idea. This was the support of Castro and his totalitarianism. Those who thought differently or acted differently were going against the Caestro, his regime, and the country. They were seen as traitors. By going against the regime, they were risking their lives and many had to leave the country.

This type of outspoken speech would be considered parrhesia by Foucault. The situation in Cuba can be directly related back to Foucault's definition of parrhesia. He describes parrhesia as involving a sense of danger by speaking against the majority or against those who are in power. The people who spoke against Caestro and his ideology would be in danger of losing their lives or being exiled from the country.Foucault refers to an example similar to this when talking about speaking out against a tyrant. Those who voiced their opposition and discontent with the regime, like Alina, are the parrhesiastes. These people have a lot to lose. They can lose their lives, relationships, and popularity by speaking the truth and their opinions. Alina talked about how families were torn apart when family members went against the ideas of the government, and these people became viewed as evil and traitors. Many people lost their lives for their parrhesia. Foucault would say that it is our duty to preform parrhesia and speak the truth to others. Would he support the idea that everyone should preform parrhesia in a situation like in Cuba even if this means potentially causing unrest and risking their lives and the lives of others? Or would he say that is better to avoid death and violence? In a situation like Cuba, would parrhesia do more good than harm?

Can women win?

The idea of the woman as the “other” is something that cannot be avoided. Going back to our discussion on Thursday, women have always been, and will always be the “other” because if we were to win and end this separation, it would mean the end of half of the race. The end of conflict would mean the end of the species. So looking at this, it seems that us as women need to accept it and use it as a catalyst for getting what we want. Instead of being pissed off for being considered as not a being itself but a negation of one, I feel like we could think of it as being the better half of something. If we were to turn de Beauvoir’s considerations into something positive, I think we could then work past this basic stigma to put it into a different context.

De Beauvoir talks about the fact that women and men have been thought of in this sense of duality. And looking at such, in history the women figures in partnerships (she speaks of Uranus and Zeus, Sun and Moon, Day and Night, etc.), woman has always been portrayed as the dark side, the side associated with being unlucky, with evil. This long-term association is exactly what needs to be displaced. Therein lies the hard part. How do you work past a whole history of women being aligned with these associations? Is it possible at all? Is it even worth it? Just some thoughts after consideration of the text.

Who Is The Modern Woman?

Last class we discussed De Beauvoir who in her text wrote about femininity. She tried to describe discover and explain what it meant to be a woman. She began by making the obvious physical distinction between men and women. But, as we discussed in class, the difference must transcend this. I am not sure I really understand where de Beauvoir resolves this? Regardless, my question concerns femininity today. Outside of the physical differences what is it that gives a woman her femininity? Because it seems to me that anything we typically attribute to being a woman, seems a part of some traditional depiction of women, or some stereotype of what women should look like. However, I can't find anything of this nature which one could attribute to solely women, and all women. The first example of something that society has deemed feminine that came to mind was hair. Having long pretty hair is usually deemed a femanine attribute. However to say that women derive any of their femaninity from their hair implies that a woman with no hair is so how less femanine which is certainely not true. So then I tried to think of something less physical, and thought women are often said to be motherly. And, as much as this is often true, but there are women who are not so gentle and not so caring, are they not femanine? So my question is who is the modern woman? Someone please describe her to me.

Dreams and Such

All,

I mentioned previously that we will be reading Foucault alongside MLK Jr. and Malcolm X. The former (MLK) readings can be found here and here. I have decided to make a change in the readings, however: I'm adding Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. As you read these texts/speeches, think about Foucault as well as the Civil Rights Museum. Most importantly, remember that none of these things--the texts, the museum, the speeches, the movements--are "history." Just as the midterm questions showed the direct relevance of all of our readings to the "real world," all the more should you recognize what remains in this course as being, for lack of a better term, current. Thoreau, MLK and Foucault are not referencing some discreet moment(s) in our collective Western past, before you were born. They, too, are talking about what it means to be a human being.

Cheers,

-W.

NB: The precis for Tuesday will cover Foucault. That for Thursday will cover MLK and Thoreau.

Ceiling Cat R Angry!!!1!

All,

In case you didn't know, the annual Leonid Meteor Shower is scheduled to peak early Tuesday morning in this part of the world. If you have not witnessed it before, it can be pretty spectacular--as long as the weather holds and as long as you can find your way out of the city. The bad news is that Memphis should be blanketed in clouds until roughly after 2 AM according to the Weather Channel. The good news is that this is when it is supposed to peak.

So go get yourselves some nature--just make sure you have your reading done and don't fall asleep in class. Red Bull is your friend.

Cheers,

-W.

Fearless Speech

All,

The reading for Foucault can be found here. Please note that this link will take you to the main page only; you have to click on the chapter name to read the actual text. Please read this for Tuesday. I will be sending you the links for the MLK Jr and Malcolm X readings shortly.

Please start reading as soon as possible. First, you don't want to fall behind. Eichmann is long, and the semester grows short. Second, Foucault's text is directly related to the Civil Rights Museum, as you will recognize immediately. Thus, I want you to consider all three of these assignments (Foucault, museum, and readings from MLK Jr and Malcolm X) together as you process each one individually.

Cheers,

-W.

Eichmann in a Movie.

Just thought this was interesting, considering we'll be reading about him shortly. Field trip when it comes out? I think so.


http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/eichmann/


.

Pub talks

Every second Thursday the philosophy department does a pub talk in the lair at 4 pm. There is no real topic, it is basically just a couple of the philosophy professors and some students talking about anything and everything philosophy. Everyone is invited to come and join in on the conversation.

Sartre's Rib, or: de Beauvoir's Boyfriend

All,

Here are two readings for the feminism part of the course. First is a pair of short articles (here and here) which offer (most likely startling) interpretations of Genesis, specifically Adam's "rib" (pictured above, though this one is taken from a raccoon). Yes, I recognize that the latter quotes the former; read both. Second, a reading from de Beauvoir (pictured above, with her boyfriend) can be found here. I may add a few more pages to your reading, but not much. Although the first two texts are relatively simple, a word of caution regarding de Beauvoir: her style is quite lucid and rapid, but there is a lot going on here. Avoid the temptation of racing through it. Try to consider the impact of what she is saying (and why on earth I would have you read this stuff about Adam's "rib" in connection with her).

Just to confirm the discussion we had today: we are headed to the Civil Rights Museum on Monday at 3.30 PM. I know that a few of you will not be able to make it until later, but this seems to be the most auspicious time for the largest number of people and it is free (with a school or TN ID), so in this case we are following Mill's utilitarian calculus. Logistics:

For the majority, we will meet out front of the pub ready to leave by 3.20. For those of you who do not have a car, I have three additional seats (four uncomfortably). Although the majority of you do have cars, I would like us to carpool for a number of reasons, not least of which being to avoid the all-too-American obsession with unnecessary and unreflective waste, as well as encouraging discussion of what will hopefully be a thought-provoking experience. After the museum, for those who are able, I will suggest somewhere (cheap) for dinner. Dinner is not part of the assignment, so feel free to make alternate plans or go hungry.


If you cannot make it that day for some reason, you will need to inform me via email that this is the case, arrange to attend the museum as soon after as you can (as it will be part of class discussion), and notify me via email that you have attended. If you have been to the museum previously, this does not exempt you from going either with us on Monday or sometime soon after.

Cheers,

-W.

Locke and Hegel on slavery

I know that this is about some readings we did a while ago, but it has been running through my head and I am interested in what people think. When we read Locke, we spent a while going over his argument for slavery. This argument basically said that if you are a slave, you obviously cannot be human because no human would ever give up his or her rights to his or her own body. While Locke was using the argument to justify slavery in his own time, what comes out of the argument is that if you are in fact human, you can’t be a slave. Hegel also talks about slaves in his book the Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel talks about the first time humans gain self-consciousness by recognizing the self in the other. After this recognition, there must be a fight to the death between the two consciousnesses until one is the victor. Hegel says that at some point, the victor decided not to kill the defeated, but instead made the defeated a slave. Hegel says that this enslavement of one consciousness to another is a vital stage in the development of human spirit. In fact, Hegel argues that modern man comes out of the slave rather than the master. As Nietzsche describes it, the slave is the first time man is pregnant with a future and becomes an interesting animal.
These are two interesting views on slavery because Locke is arguing that it is impossible for a human to ever be enslaved, while Hegel and Nietzsche are arguing that slavery is not only possible, but a vital step in mankind’s progress. They argue that even in the modern era, people still have this slave mentality. Can both of them be right? Is one of them right? Both Hegel and Locke describe mankind in the state of nature and as well as in society, but Hegel is giving us a progression from the state of nature to the present state, while Locke doesn’t provide such a progression. The Hegelian model of the master slave dialectic seems like a more robust account of the progression of human behavior than Locke’s description of the state of nature and the state of commonwealth. After today’s discussion, what would Sartre say about either model? Would he agree with either thinker?

'Peanuts' and Existentialism

A bizarre article I found about the debate of whether Charlie Brown's life demonstrates existentialism.

Here

Sarte: Pessimism or Optimism?

Sarte is by far my favorite book that we have read yet in this class. Many of his views are consistent with my own ideas on humanity and how people should live their lives. I found Sarte to be extremely interesting and fairly easy to understand, but I found some of his ideas conflict and oppose each other. One of the goals of Existentialism is a Humanism was to address the comments that critics have made about existentialism beginning a pessimistic philosophy. Although several of the ideas of existentialism that Sarte discusses are not exactly what I would call optimistic. I think it is extremely pessimistic to say that man can never count on another man and that we can't trust others on just the goodness of humanity. What about those who devote their lives to protecting others? Those people who are doctors, police officers, soldiers etc. Can we not depend on these people who in many cases have sacrificed their lives to save others? These are people we don't at all and who don't personally owe us anything. In the world of Sarte, if there is no goodness of God to depend on, then who can we trust in life? Who is there to save us from ourselves?

Then there are parts where he does show how existentialism can be very optimistic. Sarte believes that man are responsible for their own destinies, and that their life is solely determined by them and their actions. Basically, to Sarte, life is what you make it. People shouldn't go on living their lives the way others have defined it or defined them. We can all define our own lives and who we are as people. This means that man have the capacity to, by their own actions, to make something of themselves. We make our own circumstances. It is very optimistic to believe that all humans can create and invent great things for themselves and for others. Personally, this is the part of exisentialism that I agree with the most, because it grants a lot of responsibility to the individual. People shouldn't be able to blame their misfortunes on others. But at the same time, it is sometime this full responsiblity can be scary and too much for people to handle. It would be nice and comforting if there was some goodness in the world that was directing our actions.

Updates, Field Trips, Extra Credit, Oh My!

All,

On Tuesday we need to spend a few minutes discussing extracurricular activities. We will be talking about the trip to the Civil Rights Museum among other things. Please bring your calendars and have some idea of what would be potentially (in)auspicious dates for the trek. I am still looking at the afternoon on Monday before Thanksgiving, so check your availability on that day. (It is also free on that day.)

If on Tuesday I dive right into Sartre, unable to contain my eagerness and excitement to discuss existential ennui and despair, please remind me to spend a moment or two discussing calendars.

In other news, I have completed the take-home portion of your midterm assignments. The average grade was a C+. The writing was on the whole excellent, and bodes well for future polished assignments. The majority of points were lost due to failure to answer parts of the question.

Cheers,

-W.

P.S., below you can find my response to Lindsey's Venn Diagram.

Annoying Reminders That Will Help Your Grade

All,

After trying a couple of different things (e.g., I entered the class CRN email address into the settings for the blog, though it did not seem to work), I have discovered how you might receive notifications when the blog is updated. The trick is to go into your blogger account Dashboard, scroll down to where it says "Blogs that I'm following" (or some such), and Add the address of the class blog. I'm not sure if it works every time someone comments, but it does appear to register posts. This should help you keep up with the blog.

Remember: Aside from your bare minimum requirement of 1 post and 4 comments between tests, you are also required to maintain your discussions. That is, you cannot simply present a position without defending it (or conceding defeat). Or you can, but your grade will not be as good. Following directions and all that.

Cheers,

-W.

Shrinks

All,

In an effort to simultaneously reduce your reading load and to make up for lost time, I have decided not to add any additional readings on or about Freud. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a free lunch: from the discussion on Tuesday, it was apparent that people haven't been reading Solomon. Thus, (re)read your Solomon such that we can discuss it, and I won't require another book or essay of you.

Sound like a deal? It shouldn't, because Ceiling Cat does not make requests.

Cheers,

-W.

The Fourth Estate

All,

I would like to encourage you to post, in addition to lolcat pictures and Onion articles, news pieces of interest. As you hopefully noted given the midterm topics, the course materials are directly relevant to much of that which is going on in the world on any given day. Also, as a fan of the Constitution, it is not a privilege but a duty for the citizenry to remain informed in a democracy. In other words, there is much to be learned.

NB: (1) Although posting and commenting on news articles will not count towards your course assignment responsibilities, it will add to your participation on the blog (relative to that which you post, of course). (2) Naturally I will expect the type of decorum and consideration that we maintain in class discussion. I am not interested in, and will not suffer, partisan (either side) tripe on the blog. I think you know the difference.

Cheers,

-W.

A new favorite Onion headline?


Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck