Mount Virtus

Editor’s note: This is the last scheduled post on Mount Virtus for the next 10 days or so. The author is taking a self-imposed “blog vacation” but shall return to his wit and witticisms after the Memorial Day weekend holiday. May God bless our brave but media-beleaguered men and women in uniform both today (on Armed Forces Day) and on Memorial Day. They and their families remain in our thoughts and prayers. Until then, enjoy the following….

Throughout the crescendoing rancor of the ongoing debate over the judicial filibuster, the Senate Democrats and their MSM allies perpetually reassert two suppositions:

1) That President Bush’s nominees are radical and outside the “mainstream.”
2) That Republican Senators should not implement the so-called “nuclear option” because it would hurt their party in some future day when the roles are completely reversed.

In light of this, you need to go read the hard-hitting three-part essay on National Review from Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center - found here, here, and here. The three-part essay certainly adds some perspective to the Senate Democrats’ claims! Take especially Whelan’s third installment, a true gem:

Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.

Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.

And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.

Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.

Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops—filibuster and everything—to stop such a nominee.

That makes sense, doesn’t it? I’m not even going to enter the calculus of how much more “out of the mainstream” this hypothetical liberal judicial nominee is than any of President Bush’s selections. At least be fair-minded for a moment and admit that such a jurist’s views as described above would garner no more public support - and probably considerably less - than those espoused by the most conservative Bush nominee. Right?

So you think the Republicans would have to throw out all the stops, including use of the filibuster, to prevent such a liberal candidate from reaching the federal bench? Aha, then! They’re hypocrites, right?

Read the rest of this entry »

The same week as several Republican state legislators launched their “First Class Education for Colorado” ballot initiative proposal, following a national organization’s lead in calling upon school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their operating budgets in the classroom, the Denver Public Schools Board of Education makes this declaration under the announcement of its proposed 2005-2006 budget:

DPS Budget Facts

69.1 percent of every dollar spent is allocated to instruction and instructional and pupil support. This includes the learning support provided by counselors, librarians, nurses and others, in addition to books, supplies, computers and other classroom equipment.

23.4 percent of every dollar covers school administration (principals’ offices, maintenance, custodial services and transportation).

7.5 percent of every dollar covers district-wide leadership and support, which includes the central instructional, business, administrative and technology support.

You can learn a lot from statistics… enough to know how manipulated they can be. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) figures say that DPS spent less than 56 percent on instructional expenditures in 2001-2002 and less than 55 percent in 2002-03. That’s quite a significant difference from the 69.1 percent touted by DPS. And the disparity isn’t explained away by the short passage of time.

As the categories DPS uses above are slightly different than those used by the NCES, which figures are used in support of the “65 percent solution,” there is still an obvious point of disagreement on how to define spending in the classroom. From the NCES glossary, something a bit narrower in scope:

Instructional Expenditures (District): Current expenditures for activities directly associated with the interaction between teachers and students. These include teacher salaries and benefits, supplies (e.g., textbooks), and purchased instructional services.

The Colorado version, as explained by Representative Joe Stengel, would also include library-associated costs. But DPS tosses in counselors, nurses, and “others” (which must include food service as part of “learning support,” since it’s not listed in any other category).

The political debate for an initiative that - if it gets enough signatures - will be on the ballot almost 18 months from now is already starting to be framed. The best line of opposition to putting more education dollars into the classroom ultimately will not be a “we can’t do that” excuse model but a semantic “let’s define classroom spending my way” approach. See - aren’t we all for the same thing?

Those promoting the initiative must keep clear, precise, and consistent on how they intend to define classroom spending, or else the debate could define them away.

Colorado’s own Ross Kaminsky, of Rossputin fame, found a bigger platform for his eloquent insights into Social Security reform (had you forgotten about this issue) with today’s Real Clear Politics Commentary. Ross thanks Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler for proposing a whopping tax hike as an alternative to the President’s personal account plan. Check it out.

Food for thought for the moral and religious equivalence crowd - how many Christian-led riots has this incited? How many have died as a result? Where’s the equivalent outrage?

Though I can’t vouch for its complete veracity, the story from Saudi Arabia certainly has much more comprehensive credibility, much more established detail, and a much longer history than Newsweek’s factual faux pas that sparked a firestorm of riot in Afghanistan and heightened distrust of American intervention in the region.

The larger questions must continue to be asked: How compatible is Islam with liberal Western notions of democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law? What Islamic leaders, if any, will take the mantle of reform and make a widespread and lasting impact? How long will it take?

Or will oppression and persecution remain the norm in places like Darfur, so ably highlighted in recent days by Jared and others?

Yesterday I asked to see what the CEA’s reaction would be to the “First Class Education for Colorado” proposal that would put 65 cents of every dollar of current education expenditures into the classroom. Well, the Rocky Mountain News got the scoop on that one this morning:

“The Colorado Education Association, the union of teachers, views the proposal as more political than educational, spokeswoman Deb Fallin said.

“What is valuable for kids is a lot bigger than what Rep. Stengel is proposing,” Fallin said. “It includes counselors, school nurses, teacher training and curricular development.

“School counselors are very key to student achievement and success and to reducing the dropout level.”

Interesting analysis. Ask the average parent on the street if they think funds for counselors, teacher training, and curricular development could fit somewhere into the 35 percent of the substantial K-12 education budgets? A swift and clever dodge by a teachers’ union that doesn’t want to address the essentials of this reform plan. CEA wants to remain the “sugar daddy” for teachers in the state - if somebody else comes up with a creative plan to hire more teachers and pay them more, a plan that could engender public support without raising taxes or spending, then the union has to be against it. Plain and simple. Their members might not “need” them any more.

So, as this issue unfolds, look at CEA to try to paint the plan as part of a vast “Too Extreme for Colorado” right-wing conspiracy, even though as Michael has pointed out, there is nothing essentially conservative about the plan.

One other thing: the Rocky writer, like the Post writer yesterday, neglected to point out that building and construction costs are calculated separate from current expenditures, and so the 65-percent plan would have no effect on them.

And three cheers to the state legislator leading the charge:

House Minority Leader Joe Stengel, R-Littleton, said the state can do better.

“We want taxpayers to know how little of their education dollars go to the classroom,” he said at a state Capitol news conference. “When they find that out, they’re going to be very unhappy.”

The citizens of Colorado have a common sense, widely supportable plan they can rally around - one to tell the educrats in the establishment that they can and will find more efficient ways to spend taxpayer money, that they can and will focus more of public funds into the classroom.

While most of Colorado’s political observers have their eyes fixed on this year’s fight over Referendum C or towards next year’s gubernatorial race, a highly important new development was scheduled to emerge at a press conference this morning at the State Capitol.

House Minority Leader Joe Stengel (R - Littleton) and several of his Republican colleagues have unveiled an initiative they are promoting to put on the ballot in the November 2006 general election. “First Class Education for Colorado” would encourage every school district in the state to spend 65 cents on every dollar (excluding capital construction projects) in the classroom. Most people may be startled to learn how little of their designated K-12 education tax dollars actually make it to the areas where it should have the most direct impact - on teachers, textbooks, student computers, and classroom supplies. (Stengel’s proposal would add libraries.)

And this is an issue where Colorado is in genuine need - ranking 47th out of the 50 states and D.C. in the percentage of education dollars spent in the classroom. If our state followed the 65-percent rule, we could have put $370 million more in the classroom during the 2002-2003 school year (most recent statistics available) without increasing taxes or spending by one dime!

While Colorado as a state ranks particularly low in the classroom spending percentage category, some notable school districts in our state rank especially low:

For more information on the basic First Class Education proposal, please go to their website.

While the proposal is far from the be-all and end-all of education reform, it is a clear and definite step in the right direction. Kudos to Rep. Stengel and the other Republicans standing beside him for promoting a “First Class Education for Colorado.”

Added 1:50 p.m.: And some constructive criticism for the Denver Post’s Mark Couch for opening his story on the proposal with this slanted and misleading sentence:

House Minority Leader Joe Stengel wants Colorado voters to consider a national conservative-backed measure to increase classroom spending by diverting money from buses, buildings and lunches.

How about making school districts fiscally leaner operations by cutting back on some of those top-heavy administration costs? And how about the fact that “building” and capital construction costs are not accounted for in current expenditures? The 65-percent solution has no effect on money used on building projects.

Then there’s this:

According to numbers compiled by that group, Colorado’s school districts spend 57.8 percent of their money on instruction. Denver Public Schools spent 54 percent of its funding in classrooms in 2002-03, First Class Education said.

A subtle omission perhaps? Yes, First Class Education compiled the data, but compiled it from the National Center for Education Statistics - probably the most highly credible and objective source of K-12 education statistics out there.

Then there’s the predictable response from defenders of the cherished status quo:

Critics said the proposal pre-empts a legislative committee that will study all aspects of school finance this summer and fall. They added that it strips local control from school boards.

Within the 65 percent, local school boards would have tremendous latitude. The “local control” argument is a typical canard. In most cases, local school boards don’t have the ability or political will to defy the powerful teachers’ union. And when they try something innovative, like the Ignacio Market Driven Compensation Plan, “local control” goes by the wayside.

Hey, speaking of the teachers’ union, I wonder why there were no quotes from Colorado Education Association officials in Couch’s article. I’m sure he probably gave them a call, but maybe they gave him the silent treatment.

That’s strange, when you consider the proposal to put more money into the classroom could only improve teacher compensation without raising the tax burden on teachers and their families. You’d think they might at least have an interesting comment on the topic? I look forward to hearing CEA’s response.

While I plan to blog on this more at length later this week, I wanted to pass on the information about today’s hearing of the complaint by Fort Collins parents Wayne Rutt and Paul Marrick against the teachers’ union.

A good summary update can be found over at “From the Desk of….”

Let me just add these observations of the tedious all-day affair: the CEA / PEA legal team passed up the chance to cross-examine the complainants’ campaign expert Rich Beeson and instead filed another motion to dismiss, mostly on flimsy charges (the judge ruled against them on all but one count). It was a sight to see when Marrick’s and Rutt’s attorney Scott Gessler unloaded both metaphorical barrels on the union’s political expert Craig Hughes.

The key to the case hinges on one basic question: did the teachers’ union (CEA / PEA) communicate with the Bob Bacon campaign about electioneering? The evidence is adding up against the union. As our friends reporting from Fort Collins have pointed out, the hearing will conclude on June 1, as the last few of the respondents’ witnesses (including CEA officials) take the stand and the two sides offer their closing arguments. Stay tuned.

If you’re in the Denver area this Sunday and looking for something to do, then get out the butter and the maple syrup: Republicans in Douglas and Arapahoe Counties have invited Senator Ken Salazar to join them for a waffle brunch, and they’re inviting you, too.

After running on a conservative independent platform that included allowing the President’s judges to receive fair up-or-down votes on the Senate floor, Colorado’s junior senator and failed Dairy Queen franchisee Ken Salazar has completely flip-flopped.

The spokesperson for the citizen activists, Republican Party district captain Laura Teal, says they have invited Salazar to join them to explain why he has switched his position and joined the hyper-partisan liberal Democrat obstructionists in not allowing a simple up-or-down vote for every one of Bush’s judicial nominees. The event was set around Salazar’s schedule, as he will be offering a commencement address nearby at Metropolitan State College later in the afternoon.

Be there: Sunday, May 15th, at 12:00 PM at the International House of Pancakes in Greenwood Village, 7017 S. Clinton Street.

And of course there’s a wonderful Web site you can go to for more information on how Salazar has waffled.

Looking for a worthwhile cause to support? Know someone who is? Then please read this message from Paul Marrick, co-founder of Parents for Truth in Education:

We’re two parents in the town of Fort Collins, Colorado. Next week we go head-to-head with the teachers unions in court, and we desperately need to get the word out about our cause.

We filed a legal complaint against our local union for violating election law last year. In our first hearing, the union’s motion to dismiss was rejected and we managed to get the statewide Colorado Education Association and the local school district enjoined as co-defendants.

We go to trial next week. Our legal complaint states that the union illegally conducted blatant campaign operations during school hours and using school resources. Teachers even complained – in writing – about the campaign demands on their time.

The local and state teachers unions, working through the schools, used district resources to recruit volunteers, organize meetings, and offer inducements to volunteers on behalf of Bob Bacon’s campaign for State Senate. This was done using school resources during school hours by school employees.

We are seeking injunctive relief, meaning that our suit could re-write election law and force teachers unions to change how they do business in the future. This could be the little lawsuit that significantly alters the balance of power in Colorado politics.

We created Parents for Truth in Education, and we quickly put up a website at www.parentsfortruth.com so we can accept PayPal contributions. Without significant financial help, we will not be able cover our legal fees. We need money, and we need it immediately.

You can find coverage of our suit here:

PSD added to union lawsuit

PEA disputes election-law charge

Union violated election laws, parents contend in complaint

PEA complaint heads to court

Abusing Public Resources, Trampling Teachers’ Rights [ed.- by a talented young writer]

Thank you so much for your help, and please contact me directly at (970) 215-6192 if there are any questions I can answer for you.

The hearing is on Monday, May 16. This is largely a grassroots campaign supporting Parents for Truth against the destructive hypocrisy of the teachers’ union. Please pass on the word and help if you can!

Thanks to Clay for also sending out the alert.

Yesterday afternoon, upon the kind invitation of Sean Duffy, four members of the Rocky Mountain Alliance - American Kestrel, View from a Height, Clay Calhoun, and myself - spent more than an hour with Governor Bill Owens in his office discussing key issues facing the state. Needless to say, I want to give that meeting a fair and thorough write-up. Look for that to come over the weekend or early next week.

Thanks again to Governor Owens, Sean, and Mark Salley. I truly appreciated the time and the opportunity.

After listening to this colorful account on the floor of the Senate from West Virginia’s senior statesman - as replayed today on the Hugh Hewitt Show - I think somebody needs to package the idea and sell it as “Bedtime Bible Stories with Bobby Byrd.” I can almost hear the promo now…. Well, I’ll leave the ideas to some budding marketing prodigy. I don’t need any share of the profits - just a little credit is all. Thank you very much.

The Colorado Education Association (CEA), the state’s largest teachers’ union as well as the largest roadblock in the path of true education reform, was called to the carpet today in an awesome column by the Denver Post’s David Harsanyi - “True or false: Union backs school choice.”

Of course, the answer is a resounding “False,” though you have to wade through the garbled doublespeak of union officials to see it clearly. Harsanyi’s column unravels a recently published letter from CEA President Ron Brady written in response to one of his earlier pieces. With today’s offering, Harsanyi again proves that he is at his best when he exposes union officials’ duplicity:

Being accused of having a “narrow view” on education by a group that opposes virtually any choice for parents and works overtime to strand academically at-risk children in failing schools doesn’t sting one bit.

What was most fascinating about Brady’s letter of complaint, however, was his boast that Colorado “has a long history of school choice.”

Brady points to the Public Schools of Choice Act of 1990 and 1993’s charter school law, which created “another kind of public-school choice.”

Brady, who did not return my calls, is right about one thing: Colorado does indeed have a superior record to most states when it comes to public school choice. It’s Brady’s CEA that has a truly embarrassing record.

In what can only be described as deceptive advertising, he is now trying to take credit for programs his organization has vigorously opposed in the past.

Yet, however hard he may try, there is no obscuring the fact that the CEA has been a force of obstruction to school choice, even in public education, something most Colorado parents support.

And he’s got some good evidence to back it up, evidence teachers’ union officials wish to keep in history’s dust bin. Sit back and marvel, if you will, at the chutzpah of CEA’s public relations department in their efforts to rewrite history and whitewash their image. Sadly for them, however, an excellent Denver columnist has scraped away some of that top layer of white paint.

The Pew Research Center has released its new assessment of “political typology,” the first such report since 1999. Reading the report is an exercise for diehard political junkies, but anyone out there with some curiosity and a few minutes to spare should take the quiz to see where you fit into the scheme of things.

A gracious hat tip to Michelle Malkin, a fellow Enterpriser:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 59% have a gun in the home; 53% trade stocks and bonds, and 30% are small business owners ­ all of which are the highest percentages among typology groups. 48% attend church weekly; 36% attend bible study or prayer group meetings.

2004 ELECTION: Bush 92%, Kerry 1%. Bush’s most reliable supporters (just 4% of Enterprisers did not vote)

MEDIA USE: Enterprisers follow news about government and politics more closely than any other group, and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs. The Fox News Channel is their primary source of news (46% cite it as a main source) followed by newspapers (42%) radio (31%) and the internet (26%).

Intriguing. How many members of the Rocky Mountain Alliance share my typology? And how many liberals are masquerading among us? Inquiring minds want to know.

As the brother of a police officer, I am especially disturbed when I follow news stories like the one headlining across Denver this week: the 19-year-old firing shots without warning at two Denver police detectives, killing Detective Donnie Young. I can only send my condolences to his widow and two daughters and pray for God’s will to be done in their lives. May they find true peace and rest in Him.

As for Raul Garcia-Gomez, his punishment must be swift and certain and severe, and I pray that his capture comes quickly and without harm to anyone else. Those who would seek to kill uniformed police officers must be sent the sternest of messages.

But now the revelations come out that Garcia-Gomez was an illegal immigrant who worked at one of the restaurants owned by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. That fact is an unfortunate coincidence for the mayor, who has little or no oversight into the day-to-day operations of his businesses. A lot of business owners in the area - more or less prominent, Republicans or Democrats or no political affiliation at all - have hired illegal immigrants for various jobs. The phenomenon is systemic, and events like the one that occurred this past weekend in Denver should only drive us to find a resolution to the problem.

What is more disturbing is Denver’s broader public policy, as brought up by U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo:

The Littleton Republican said U.S. immigration officials should have been contacted after each of three traffic citations issued to Garcia-Gomez in Denver because police could not confirm his legal status.

“Denver’s sanctuary policy prevents local law enforcement from cooperating with federal officials on immigration matters, despite federal law which explicitly prohibits such a policy,” Tancredo charged in a news release.

Once the initial period of grieving is over for Detective Young, some colleagues and officials may want to take a cold-eyed look at the sanctuary policy and decide who or what it’s really protecting. There are a lot of complex issues surrounding this case, but taking more care to ensure that illegal immigrants who flout our laws are sent back to their country of origin seems one simple and logical solution.

The Colorado General Assembly called an early end to the legislative session yesterday… and there was much rejoicing. Yay!!!

All in all, it turned out to be an unspectacular session - thankfully - with less damage inflicted than we originally feared. Having Republican Governor Bill Owens in place played a significant role in offsetting the Democrats’ new legislative advantage: with one key exception. And all state political focus now shifts to that notable exception - the November ballot’s Referendum C, which is sure to provoke a costly campaign on both sides.

As for me and my house, we will work actively to reject the folly of the “No Refund for You” Romanoff Rip-Off. Too bad the Democrat-controlled legislature couldn’t come up with a more sensible, fiscally-sound solution to the state’s budget difficulties. But they (and sadly, some Republicans) have their eyes on your wallet and on your checking account… what amounts to a $3.1 billion tax increase for an $800 million shortfall. That’s smart!

But the Post’s initial reaction to the end of this historic legislative session highlights the disappointment of the Democrat base with the lack of accomplishments by their party in its newfound majority status:

Labor unions wanted better protections for workers. They lost.

Environmentalists wanted stronger measures for clean air. They lost.

Health advocates wanted a statewide smoking ban. They lost.

Women’s rights groups wanted emergency-contraception information for rape victims. They lost.

(I’m resisting the temptation to quibble over the above labeling and descriptions… someone else can deal with that.) The Post omitted, but you could also add:

“The teachers’ union wanted to roll back important education reforms. They lost.” Just one more reason to smile and to keep working hard to make sure that it doesn’t change.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have put in their two cents worth about State Treasurer Mike Coffman’s decision to step down and serve a seven-month stint in Iraq.

The Post finds it easy to salute elected Republicans, when they decide to leave the country for awhile, even if it means participating in a military action that the Post editorial board is less than comfortable with. At least they left this stern admonition:

We don’t think it’s appropriate for Coffman’s party to use his decision to seek a partisan advantage. Coffman has our good wishes as he prepares for his second service in Iraq, and we look forward to welcoming him back to the treasurer’s office.

They couldn’t resist leaping into the political speculation instantly falling out from Coffman’s announcement, and of course their advice is always in the Republican Party’s best interest.

The Rocky’s editors also weighed the question of whether Governor Owens should appoint a permanent or temporary replacement for the departing reserve Marine major:

This request puts Owens and other Republicans in an awkward spot. It would have been much simpler for all had Coffman decided to leave the job permanently.

True enough, and a more balanced assessment. After careful consideration, I think the governor should do all he can to accommodate the departing Treasurer’s request. The GOP won’t suffer for it, and sometimes there are other things to consider besides politics. Sometimes….

Meanwhile, some commenters over at The Dead Governors site question Coffman’s motives, others speculate about his political ambitions, and a few stand up to defend his noble decision. Look, you can take the man at his word. He has said he is considering a run for Secretary of State and that’s all, so any suggestion that he is planning a secret campaign to run in the 7th Congressional District is ridiculous and made by someone who doesn’t understand Coffman too well.

I must say that Treasurer - no, make that Major - Coffman is a rare breed: one of a handful of politicians I’ve met willing to put greater interests ahead of his own personal and political ambitions. I suggest to you that he should be looked at as a role model. We can worry about the 2006 election later - Coffman is getting ready to play a key role in a larger and more significant mission now.

To quote my friend Clay’s remarks on the topic:

Colorado will miss Mike. He is an honest and honorable gentleman. On this day especially our prayers are for his comfort with his decision, his safety while in training, a hedge of protection around him while in service to our nation, and for his safe return to our country and his family.

Godspeed Mike.

Amen to that.

Jim of Thinking Right, one of the RMA’s best, could use your prayers. His dad is reporting that Jim is in intensive care.

Make sure your seat belt is securely fastened and get ready for a ride through the “Tunnel of Oppression,” the latest multi-sensory, feel-not-so-good liberal method to promote an agenda - and 100% free of reason, logic, or coherent argument. But what else did you expect?

Gina Garcia, one of the tunnel coordinators, said the shock value is part of the intent of the display. “If you just provide a lot of factual stuff, you’re only connecting with people cognitively. This is supposed to be very much of the effect, we’re supposed to be getting to people’s emotions,” she said.

A conservative could try to start a conversation about many of the topics graphically depicted in the Tunnel and automatically receive a negative label. But be so enlightened as to promote awareness of oppression by “the use of images such as realistic vomit in a toilet at the bulimia display and papier mache legs representing a black man being dragged behind a truck,” and you will be applauded as a compassionate soul and avant garde thinker in today’s university.

Of course, it’s perfectly within their rights to create and make available displays that “employ 3-dimensional graphics, including a woman under a glass ceiling, a Ku Klux Klan member, a toilet bowl full of condoms and a phallic symbol representing a sex change operation,” but it’s also my right and prerogative to decry the effort as myopic, naive, foolish, simplistic, and obnoxious.

Plus it makes great Thursday morning fodder for my blog…. What a hoot! I wonder how much of what I post here would be considered eligible for a future display in the “Tunnel of Oppression”?