Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship United States Your Rights Online

2005 Jefferson Muzzle Awards 94

Posted by timothy from the their-moms-will-be-very-proud dept.
WaldoJ writes "The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has announced the 'winners' of their annual Jefferson Muzzle awards, given to those individuals or organizations who have abridged individuals' right to free expression. The dubious honor goes to the Department of Homeland Security, The Motion Picture Classification and Rating Administration, the FCC, and NASCAR, among others."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2005 Jefferson Muzzle Awards More

2005 Jefferson Muzzle Awards

Comments Filter:
  • [the contents of this post have been censored]

  • The forgotten constitutional right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:51PM (#12218487)
    It is not quite fair to include the Rep and Dem conventions there. All they were doing was practicing the forgotten right, the Constitutional right to assembly" [trib.com].

    I visited several protester sites, and several of them claimed that their goal was to "shut down" the conventions. Given that they were out to deny someone's rights and disrupt their meeting, some sort of separation was warranted. Maybe not as extreme, but something needed to be done to stop those who were out to "shut down" the peaceable assembly of those who did not share their opinions.

    I have no problem with protests, except when they are trying to disrupt or silence someone else's speech or event.

    • Here's a link (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 )
      Here's a link to Indymedia's shut down the convention! [indymedia.org] page. I guess these Indymedia guys have a right to hold whatever event they want unmolested, but those who do not have Indymedia's opinions do not have any such right. The idea of "shutting down" a meeting you do not like is (or should be considered) quite un-American.

      • Nice troll (Score:3, Insightful)

        by missing000 ( 602285 )
        The cited indymedia page has how many suggestions of an actual attempt to shut down the convention?

        0

        That's right folks, the expression was in jest.

        What's not a joke are Free [amconmag.com] Speech [aclu.org] Zones [sfgate.com] everywhere our fearless leader goes.

        Thanks for playing our game!
        • "What's not a joke are Free [amconmag.com] Speech [aclu.org] Zones [sfgate.com] everywhere our fearless leader goes"

          Do you honestly think these would not be happening if the protesters were not harassing and trying to shout down the speaker, and trespass at his events? Of course it would not. Nice troll you posted.

          I have no problem with their protests and events. However, they should be held well clear of the others' events. Let each side have their say.

          • However, they should be held well clear of the others' events. Let each side have their say.

            Say to whom? The people have a Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievences - i.e., yell at them. You can't do that from the Orwellianly-nameed "Free Speech" zones that are blocks away from the officeholders in question.

            • "Say to whom? The people have a Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievences - i.e., yell at them"

              This is an interesting take on it. Does this mean that this can happen at any time? Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry can have someone screaming in their windows 24 hours a day? If Sen. Edwards dines at Wendy's, his detractors must be allowed in to interrupt him?

              Or, if you support such protest during/disrupting political events in order to redress the government, what about events and co

    • There's also this thing called 'freedom of association' where you get to decide whom to associate with.

      Unfortunately, many people and interests strongly oppose the notion that a private group can choose who to admit as members.

      Which is un-American of them.

      (apologies to non-Americans reading this who take offense. Un-American is something Americans accuse each other of. It's not the same as Non-American, which is a perfectly alright thing.)

  • TJ was great but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lbmouse ( 473316 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @07:58PM (#12218541) Homepage
    Jefferson was a little to the middle (at the time) on many issues including slavery. Another great founding father and the original American *geek* who decided to send a message about liberty was Benjamin Franklin:

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    This pretty much sums up many frustration moods in the post 9-11 America.
    • Agreed. I always considered Jefferson a highly overrated hyporcite due to his support for slavery, and I always looked up to Ben Franklin instead.
      • He isn't a hypocrite, he freed his slaves. It is easy to criticize him for not doing it earlier in today's time. Things are a LOT different now. He was simply born into that system (they all were) and when in Rome, do as the Roman's do. If he hadn't then history could be very different. He may had been relegated as a footnote or kicked out of things all together. See the film 1776 (now on DVD though I had to special order mine), it explains a lot of this. It also shows just how much courage those me
      • Jefferson lived in a different time, where freeing his slaves might not have been the best thing for them. Had they been freed, it is likely they would have faced a society that shunned them. They would have been unable to get jobs or earn money, and starvation and destitution would have been their most likely reward.

        But consider finding a copy of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson goes on a two paragraph rant about the evils of slavery and calling for the aboltion of the practic
    • I think you have been listening too much to the nay sayers (sometimes called the left). You can still do whatever you want just as you could before, if not more so because of handheld video camera's. Some people seem to have this illusion that before 911 you could do anything you wanted - blow up stuff, act like a maniac and nothing happened (in the 1960's terrible things happened to protesters and even students that happened to be at the wrong place, wrong time and got convicted of stuff they didn't do).
      • "You can still do whatever you want just as you could before, if not more so because of handheld video camera's."

        No I can't do whatever I want like before and it involves handheld video camera's. About a year or so ago the MBTA (http://www.mbta.com) announced that you were no longer allowed to take pictures of the trains, the stations, people on the trains, or the staff. I wish I had a link for you but I could not find this anywhere on their web page. I have in the past taken pictures of a station and a
        • There is a followup to that. They were beaten back on that policy. I visited their site and they do have safety initiatives - http://www.mbta.com/traveling_t/safety_index.asp. I don't see where it says you cannot take pictures today. My guess is that you can, the original article seems to be out to (paid) archive. You may run into someone that thinks they know the law and they don't. I also want to point out that was a local thing that was done by local officials (Democrats in this case).

          As for takin

          • Well I hope it is no longer the policy. I never read it on their website only heard it announced while on the train a few times. The funny part is that most people on the train seemed to think it was ridiculous when they heard it.
            • Yes, your right. If they still have such a policy write a letter to them. When they get a letter it is much more difficult to ignore. I thought it was yet another folly by officials.

              The one thing that I am still offended at is the Statue of Liberty is only open to her feet. It is looking like the park service will never open it all the way up again. I understand a LOT of pressure has been put upon them to open it, no dice. Well people retire, there is hope yet. Then there is the BS from the NYC fire

      • You can still do whatever you want just as you could before

        Not really. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, "free speech zones" are a wonderful oxymoron. Until recently, I could stand anywhere outside an area where the president was giving a speech, and peacefully demonstrate against him, his agenda, his beliefs, or even his personal smell if I wanted to. Now, I must do so in a designated "free speech zone". How this hasn't been destroyed in court baffles me, the First Amendment reads:

        Congress shal
        • Your not behind on your English, just your history I think. You may think I'm somehow defending this administration, I'm not. I'm an equal opportunity basher.

          Attaching a new name - "free speech zone" doesn't mean it never existed before 911 and that is my point. This has been going on all along, to a larger extent in the 1960's.

          What the court has said is that you do have a right to say what you want (and you still do today), you don't have a right to violate other people's rights.

          Having said all of th

          • Attaching a new name - "free speech zone" doesn't mean it never existed before 911 and that is my point. This has been going on all along, to a larger extent in the 1960's.

            Just because something has been done for a long time, in one fashion or another, does not mean that it is right. I agree that there were some large abuses of government power in the 1960's. One needs only look as far as McCarthyism to see that.

            What the court has said is that you do have a right to say what you want (and you still d
            • "I have no doubt that the presendent knows exactly what those protesters wanted to say to him. What was denied them was the right to say it."

              This was not denied at all. They had this right, and the Dems and GOP'pers had their right. By keeping them apart, both of them were assured the maximum right of free speech.

              "That is the problem with allowing the suspending of rights of a class of people based on the possible actions of some of the individuals in tha group"

              The only time rights were denied in this

            • "They may have to talk louder, but there is no right to silence while you are speaking."

              There probably is, and there are noise ordinances, and rightfully so. There is also the right to privacy, and, again, to peacefully assemble. One you are trying to intrude on others, you are not being peacable at all.

              Do you think it is OK if you want to watch TV in the evening, but the sound is drowned out by a crowd of 30 neighbors outside on the street screaming that they do not like your house paint color? This is

            • Just because something has been done for a long time, in one fashion or another, does not mean that it is right. I agree that there were some large abuses of government power in the 1960's. One needs only look as far as McCarthyism to see that.

              The protester enforcement has always been done and it is needed to keep things civil. If anything Bush has acted very well and hasn't flown off the handle. Your later example of the Japanese is a good example of how abuses happened in the past - even by a Democrat

    • They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

      This pretty much sums up many frustration moods in the post 9-11 America.

      Except most felt, that the thus gained safety is not temporary, nor that the given up liberty was essential.

  • "Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gangofwolves ( 875288 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:02PM (#12218584)
    When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

    I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.

    Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.

    Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.

    Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.

    • Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by redswinglinestapler ( 841060 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:06PM (#12218613)
      When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

      This is an interesting thing to say, I find, especially coming from American citizens. I am of the opinion that there are quite a few places, and people, in the world who can say whatever they damn well please.

      ObQuoteSimpsons:
      "Where else but in America - or perhaps Canada - could one do such a thing?"

      There are certainly a large number of countries that are repressive, and limiting to free speech, but the US is hardly a beacon of shining light in this particular area these days. I can say a lot of things in Canada. Or Britain, or Australia, or Demnark, or Spain, or.. you get the point. In fact one could make the argument that I have more freedom in what I say in Canada, just due to the fact that many of the limitations on free speech are imposed by private citizens who control some form of media or forum, and have an axe to grind. Those Muzzle Awards about the kids who wore the NRA/GWB-terrorist shirts to school for instance.. if a kid wore a shirt calling Paul Martin a terrorist, he would likely get invited to join the debate club, in Ontario.

      I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.

      I completely agree, but why are you annoyed? You don't have to listen to them.

      Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.

      The Dixie Chicks learned the 'hard way' that if they voice an unpopular political opinion, their fans will punish them economically, in the only way they can. That is a limit on free speech, albeit a self-imposed one, like I mentioned above. I think you should buy Dixie Chicks albums if you like the music. If you totally hate the thought of listening to music you like, sung by someone critical of a President you like, you should think about why you cannot separate those two ideas in your head.

      Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.

      What an odd thing to say.. we (collectively, Western Civilization 'we') already lost something... a bunch of people who died during the World Wars. They paid. We shouldn't have to lose anything more to exercise our hard-fought rights.

      Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power.

      Absolutely - in a Free Society. If you don't get a chance, or worse, if the citizenry just decides that your particular speech is Bad... that's when it starts to crumble.

      • "I am of the opinion that there are quite a few places, and people, in the world who can say whatever they damn well please. "

        The countries you can do this in (or do a lot of it, if not all) are surprisingly few. Even in Canada, which you named, there is a province with laws to censor your private speech if it is in the wrong language (a strong bit of ethnic-related fascism that remains only a distant possibility in the US, despite the efforts of Pat Buchanan and others on behalf of "English Only")

        "The

        • Even in Canada, which you named, there is a province with laws to censor your private speech if it is in the wrong language

          Which province is this? Quebec's law [wikipedia.org] only requires prominant labelling in French on commercial production, signing and advertising. Private speech is not affected. The federal "Hate Speech" laws are far more controversial from a free expression point of view than Quebec's law. Commercial speech has always been treated differently -- that's why we have truth in advertising laws (b

          • It would be one thing for there to be a requirement that commercial speech meet certain criteria (i.e. language).

            But, the requirement is not what commercial speech has to be, but rather what it may not be in addition. In other words, it isn't enough that a public sign must be in French. There can not be any other lanuage on it.

            The Supreme Court of Canada struck down this law, whereupon the Quebec Speech Nazis invoked the "Notwithstanding" clause in the Constitution to trump the court.

            I do agree, thoug

            • The Supreme Court of Canada struck down this law, whereupon the Quebec Speech Nazis invoked the "Notwithstanding" clause in the Constitution to trump the court.

              Yes, and because of the backlash from using the "notwithstanding" clause, the Quebec government backed down, and adopted the suggestions the supreme court made (namely the requirement that French be more prominant on the signs). Today, a sign can be in any language, but it must also be in French, and the French text must be more prominant. It's

              • " Today, a sign can be in any language, but it must also be in French, and the French text must be more prominant. It's not great, but it is better than it was."

                If it is not a government sign, why is it the government's business? There is nothing more ludicrous than the idea of going into Chinatown and finding it full of non-Chinese signs.

                The only bright spot to this is that this fascistic control of private expression is not really enfornced (according to another Slashdotter who is in Quebec). The law

          • "Which province is this? Quebec's law only requires prominant labelling in French on commercial production, signing and advertising. Private speech is not affected"

            You are forgetting the part that actually involves censoring English signs. That is private, personal speech which is not the government's. Besides, shouln't you be allowed to use the language you want in your own affairs?

      • I once had a discussion with my daughter on a public street in Whitby, Ontario about why people have to wait for health care services and can't just pay instead of waiting for the "free" service.

        I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for uttering offensive speech.

        While the charge may have very well been bogus, the effect was chilling on our subsequent conversation.

        My daughter's comment was, "Gee, I can say anything in the U.S. if it was true. When can we go back daddy? I don't want to wait to see a doctor."

        • I think the thing which is usually missed in all of the "US vs. Them" discussions about free speech is that, we're all fucked to some degree. No matter where you go, to which "free" western contry your travel, there will be things which you are not allowed to say.
          • US: Threats against the president or other public figures.
          • France/Germany: Support for the Nazi ideas
          • Canada: From the parent's antecdote, it would seem that questioning the healthcare system is a no-no.
          • Spain: Not sure on this one, but I would
          • "Canada: From the parent's antecdote, it would seem that questioning the healthcare system is a no-no. "

            There is also the one province that censors private (i.e. non-government) communication for being in the wrong language. That is s major piece of diescrimination based on ethnicity.

            • Not only that, but the Quebec language law, Bill 101, was struck down by the Canadian Supreme Court.

              Not to worry, the Quebec government invoked the "Notwithstanding Clause" of the Canadian constitution to override the court!

              Yes, the federal and provincial governments can, constitutionally, override the highest court in the land.

              Mob rule, anyone?

              Would you trust a government that could, legally, by its own constitution, throw you into the gas chamber, but promised to never do such a thing?

              This is wh

              • "Canada is a nation of murderers and wimps and needs to be exposed for the fascist hell it is"

                Now now, is Canada really that bad? One of the most honest measures of whether a country is a hell or not is: "are people fleeing or trying to get in?". This standard exposes Cuba for the fascist hell it is (and they even shoot you in the back as you try to escape!). I had understood that Canada is one of those countries that people are lining up to get into.

                • Yes, it is that bad. Just because people are flocking to get in does not mean it isn't horrible, just that it's better, or perceived to be better, than where one currently is.

                  I bemoan taxing people to promise health care which is not then delivered as state-sanctioned murder, but even that is, admitedly, better than active, murderous persecution.

                  Also, Canada has an extremely liberal immigration policy: it's a lot easier to get in than the U.S. I might prefer Canada over Afghanistan or Iraq, but not over

                  • "Also, Canada has an extremely liberal immigration policy: it's a lot easier to get in than the U.S. "

                    As long as you are screening for terrorists and criminals, is this a problem?

                    "I know many Americans think Canada is a panacea. However, almost all of the ones I've met base their opinion on what the government promises."

                    My friends who live in Canada near the border have a disabled child. The government-controlled health care system basically forgets her. They have to rely on U.S. services which they p

                    • "Also, Canada has an extremely liberal immigration policy: it's a lot easier to get in than the U.S. "

                      As long as you are screening for terrorists and criminals, is this a problem?

                      Well, yes. A country can absorb people only so fast. Furthermore, it isn't fair that one can just waltz into a place and benefit from the existing infrastructure without having contributed toward its building. OTOH, the U.S. INS is notoriously slow in letting desirables settle in the U.S.

                      "I know many Americans think Canada i

                    • "Well, yes. A country can absorb people only so fast. Furthermore, it isn't fair that one can just waltz into a place and benefit from the existing infrastructure without having contributed toward its building. OTOH, the U.S. INS is notoriously slow in letting desirables settle in the U.S."

                      The "isn't fair" is a matter of welfare reform so you don't have immigrants coming in just to laze on the hammock. As for desirables, most of the illegal immigrants coming into the US work, and they do contribute "towar

                    • My Canadian friends own their own house. If Canada was truly so socialist, the government would own it instead. In other words: you exaggerate some...

                      Funny, when I bought a house in Ontario in 2003, I had no proof of title. Instead, there was a record in some government database, that I owned it. If the government wanted to make that record "go away", it certainly could, and I'd have no proof recognizable by a court of law that I indeed was the rightful owner of the property.

                      If that isn't making private

                    • Wow,
                      You are seriously mentally ill. Seriously. You sound quite paranoid. You should really get some help.

                      Seriously, I'm not trolling.

    • Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

      This does not appear to be true. According to the Reporters Without Borders organisation, the USA ranks joint 22nd in terms of journalistic freedom [rsf.org]. France and Germany, often criticised for their lack of free speech here on Slashdot, rank 19th and 11th, respectively. If you are talking about the USA-controlled areas of Iraq, over

      • "[When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.] This does not appear to be true."

        Depends on what you mean by "few". A significant majority of the countries are worse than the United States on this list, and all the rest of the countries with really large population rank worse than the United States.

    • Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by menace3society ( 768451 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @11:27PM (#12220173)
      The issue with the Dixie Chicks is not that people were upset that they made such remarks--the Jefferson Muzzle doesn't blame the fans who burned their Dixie Chicks CDs, etc--but rather the reaction of the State Legislature. Consider: what if you made those remarks. Does it make sense that government be allowed to tell you that you have to go to a foreign and dangerous country and give a free performance to soldiers as penance? No? Then it's a violation of equal protection (not to mention cruel and unusual punishment, but that's wrt the soldiers...)

      And, under no circumstances should the State gov't have told them they have to apologize. Free speech means never having to recant your beliefs. Ever. I find it as annoying as you do that all these celebrities go around taking advantage of their fame to get a free pulpit for expounding their views. But I'm not about to go around telling people they don't get first amendment rights just because they're famous.
      • the reaction of the State Legislature
        Does it make sense that government be allowed to tell you that you have to go to a foreign and dangerous country and give a free performance to soldiers as penance?
        under no circumstances should the State gov't have told them they have to apologize.

        Not to defend the idiots in that State legislature, but unless I'm mistaken they did not do what you said. They passed a dumb-ass resolution with absolutely no force in law and which did not tell them they had to do anything.
        • You're towing a dangerous line, there. It is, for example, also technically "optional" to file income tax returns. However, since it is not optional to pay taxes, if you don't, you might yourself into big trouble.

          I recognize that what the legislature did lacked the force of law, but it's still the voice of government telling someone what to do, which brings up a whole host of issues (e.g., they could easily create the impression that the resolution was a law).

    • Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @05:43AM (#12221649) Homepage
      Ahh, so to summarize: The US is the best and the biggest and true free expression is only possible here.

      To then continue

      But those Fonda and Streisand bimbos (you forgot Sean Penn, but he's not a bimbo) shall just shut the fuck up, since they are prominent.

      You sir, are the shining example of a hypocrite.

      There is no need to thank me.

    • Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.

      Thanks, Dad.

      The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said.

  • No Michael Sims? (Score:3, Funny)

    by keesh ( 202812 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @08:05PM (#12218611) Homepage
    I think it's a shame Michael Sims was passed over this time around.
  • For just a second there, I thought this might be about muzzle loaders, gun enthusiasts, etc.

  • Tariq Ramadan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MC68000 ( 825546 ) <brodskie@NoSpAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @09:55PM (#12219493)
    One of their muzzles concerns Tariq Ramadan. There are two sides to every story, and the article is just a whitewash.

    The group that his grandfather founded is the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that not only spawned offshoots in many countries, but assassinated Anwar Sadat of Egypt for making peace with Israel among other less notorious acts.

    There are many allegations of extremist statements such as: Osama Bin Laden was not behind 9/11, 9/11 was an "intervention", the praise of the genocidal Hasan Al-Turabi (the head of the Sudanese government), and more. He was also barred from entering France for suspicion of collaboration with Algerian Islamists.

    So to recap, he has close familial ties with the oldest terrorist organization in the mid-east, he has made many extremeist political statements, and he was barred from entry into foreign country not known for being pro-US before. Couple that with the fact that denying someone a visa does not require the same level of proof as convicting someone of a crime, and I would have to say at least that it is not miscarriage of justice to deny this man a visa.

    • Re:Tariq Ramadan (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      The Bush family has close ties with the Saudi Royal Family, including Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean GW is a terrorist? The sins of the father do not pass down to the child in western civilization. Why should we apply a different standard elsewhere?

      He's made anti-american statements. He's never said "Death to the Infidels," he's just said in more colorful language that the US needs to get out of the middle east. By this point, who hasn't made anti-american statements? Quite frankly, his colorful met
  • My wife noticed something when I read her the bit about NASCAR - the reason he probably was penalized as harshly as he was, was because he essentially said that winning 5 races at Talladega was no big deal. Her thought was that NASCAR was more than a little pissed that he essentially said that winning 5 races was not that tough, which lessens NASCAR.

    Just a thought.

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?

Close