The Charlotte News
Friday, November 26, 1954
TWO EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports from London that Communist Chinese radio out of Peiping had broadcast a report that the 13 Americans, 11 Air Force crew members and two civilians who had been captured during the Korean War and sentenced to prison terms as spies, had been given a public trial "at which they admitted having received specialist training in espionage and guerrilla warfare." Both the U.S. and British Governments had denounced the charges as false and a violation of the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war, with the U.S. attempting to arrange an in-person meeting at Geneva with diplomatic representatives to take up the case. The radio broadcast said that the U.S. Air Force colonel, who had commanded a B-29 shot down January 12, 1953 over North Korea, had confessed in court that he was engaged in intelligence work, and was sentenced to ten years. It gave no explanation for the long delay between the capture of the men and their trial, and did not specify the date of trial, saying that it had been held recently and that the men had been sentenced the prior Tuesday. It also said that one of the two civilians employed by the Army, sentenced to life imprisonment, had admitted to being a CIA operative who had received "espionage training, consisting of guerrilla warfare, weapons, small unit tactics, sabotage, the use of explosives, intelligence surveying, radio operating, parachute jumping, unarmed combat, map reading, etc." It further said that he admitted helping the espionage training of nine Chinese sentenced with the Americans.
From Taipei, Formosa, it was reported that the Chinese Communists had sent an assault force against a small Nationalist outpost in the Formosa Strait this date, but there were conflicting reports on whether there was actually an attempted landing. The Nationalist Defense Ministry announced initially that Communist Chinese had landed at Wuchui Island and were driven away, with many Communist soldiers captured, but later issued a communiqué saying that the Communists had only approached the island from three directions and were then repulsed by Nationalist defenders and warplanes, making no reference to a landing or prisoners. It was not clear whether the attack on the island was intended as an invasion, a hit-and-run raid or an effort to see what the U.S. Seventh Fleet might do in response. The island was a guerrilla base, only a mile long and a half-mile wide, located 15 miles from the mainland of China and ten miles from Communist-held Nanjin Island, 63 miles northeast of Nationalist-held Quemoy and 66 miles southeast of Foochow, capital of Fukien Province in mainland China. The Seventh Fleet had been patrolling the strait since June 27, 1950, just after the start of the Korean War, with its task to protect Formosa and the Pescadores islands from invasion, the Eisenhower Administration having adopted a policy of keeping the Communists guessing about what the Fleet might do if one of the outpost Nationalist islands was directly threatened by the Communists.
In Augusta, Ga., the President named George V. Allen, presently Ambassador to India, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Near East, South Asian and African affairs, succeeding Henry Byroade, to become Ambassador to Egypt, succeeding Jefferson Caffery who was retiring. Some reports had suggested that Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, who had lost his bid for re-election to former Vice-President Alben Barkley, might succeed Ambassador Allen in India, but White House press secretary James Hagerty had no comment when asked about the successor to the post. Mr. Allen was originally from Durham, N.C., and had been in the diplomatic service since 1931 and Ambassador to India since March, 1953.
In Lewisburg, Pa., the FBI this date charged a third inmate at the Federal Penitentiary with the murder of William Remington, a former Government economist serving a three-year sentence after conviction of perjury for his denial that he had passed secret documents from his job to admitted former Communist spy Elizabeth Bentley during World War II. An FBI special agent indicated that the third inmate charged in the murder had admitted his participation along with the other two men charged, saying that they had planned to ransack Mr. Remington's room on November 22 and that the assault took place at that time. They were charged with beating Mr. Remington with part of a brick wrapped in a sock, resulting in his death the prior Wednesday after surgery on Tuesday. Alger Hiss, also convicted of perjury, was set to be released from the same prison the following day after serving 3 1/2 years of his five-year sentence, reduced for goodtime credits.
In Burley, Idaho, six persons were burned to death early this date when their parked car was rammed from behind by another car during a dust storm, causing the car to crash into a parked truck and explode. Five persons in the moving car had been hospitalized with undetermined injuries. The local sheriff said that a truck had parked on the side of the road because of poor visibility, with the car which had been rammed from behind having parked behind it. A strong wind had whipped the flames from the fire, but the car which had rammed into the exploding car had not caught fire.
In Cleveland, O., the trial of Dr.
Sam Sheppard, charged with first-degree murder in the bludgeoning
death of his wife, Marilyn, the prior July 4, continued this date,
with 15 photographs, showing a trail of blood spots through the
Sheppard home, having been introduced by the State, four of them over
objection by the defense for either being duplicate close-ups taken
from other pictures or containing matter which was irrelevant. Henry
Dombrowski, a chemist with 12 years of experience in the police
laboratory, identified the photos, pointing out the specks of blood
depicted therein, showing a trail, as detected by luminol, from the basement to the upstairs
bedroom wherein Mrs. Sheppard's body was found. At the start of the session, the
defense attorney had sought to dismiss a juror and continue the trial, presently
ending its sixth week, producing two copies of the Cleveland Press
of the prior two days, contending that the newspaper had made
"prejudicial statements", "striking at the very
foundations of the jury system". The story of November 24 had stated in a large headline, "Sam Called A 'Jekyll-Hyde' By Marilyn, Cousin To Testify", despite no such testimony ever to be presented at trial. The story published on Thanksgiving Day had included a visit by a reporter to the family home of one of the jurors, named in the story, to show how the family dealt with having a member of the family on a jury, including pictures of the juror's home and its interior, her husband, her mother and the children. The court had responded by saying that the story said the named juror was not present at the time, that she was downtown, and so the judge said he did not know what to do about it and denied the motion. Such bizarre and intrusive reporting formed a large part of the reason for the reversal of the eventual conviction on habeas corpus by the Supreme Court in 1966, holding that the avoidable "carnival atmosphere" surrounding the trial had amounted to a denial of due process requiring a fair trial, having a profound impact on the way criminal cases, both pretrial and trial relations between police, prosecutors, courts and the press, were conducted
Dick Young of The News
indicates that vandalism discovered during the morning to equipment
at Independence Park had resulted in damage estimated at $750 to
$1,000, causing the superintendent of the Park and Recreation
Commission to issue an appeal to the public for prevention of such
future incidents. The damage consisted of ovens and tables at three
picnic areas being scattered throughout the park, with bricks removed
from each of the ovens, apparently by use of a crowbar, and inner
flue linings ripped out along with grill grates, which were loose and
twisted. The superintendent believed that the destruction had taken
place Wednesday night, as youngsters in the community had reported
seeing the wreckage the previous day on Thanksgiving. None of the
parts of the equipment destroyed was missing. Pictures
In Bromsgrove, England, a brunette, picked as a semifinalist in a beauty contest a month earlier, had notified the organizers of the contest that she could not appear for the final judging this night, for she was in the hospital awaiting the birth of her first child. The organizers, who had put up the equivalent of $1,400 to go to the winner, decided to send the young woman a $28 consolation prize. Twenty-eight if...
In Sandwich, England, 18 bottles of beer, believed to be about 250 years old, had been washed ashore during the previous week, with an archaeologist having fixed the approximate age of the beer by examining the old hand-made bottles, a type used 250 years earlier. It was believed to have derived from an ancient wreck which had been broken up by the sea. The archaeologist said that people who had tried to sip the brew had said it was horrible.
In Ridgewood, N.J., singer Mary Ford, wife of guitarist Les Paul, gave birth to a baby girl in the hospital the previous day, the couple's first child.
By the way, the caption on one photograph
On the editorial page, "A Legal Aspect of Desegregation: No Skeleton Key for the Doors" finds that the first hint that Washington was trying to soften the impact of desegregation of the public schools had come during the President's press conference the prior Tuesday when he said that he believed the Supreme Court would not be arbitrary in its ruling on how to implement desegregation and that he understood that the Court was seeking to find a decentralized process by which to handle the problem.
It indicates that the South was delighted and extremists held their fire, that if the President intended his unorthodox remark as a trial balloon, he had received the desired results. A day later, Attorney General Herbert Brownell had filed his brief with the Supreme Court in the implementing decision of Brown v. Board of Education, suggesting that desegregation be carried out on the local level by the supervision of the Federal district courts rather than generally by the Supreme Court, with oversight jurisdiction retained for further orders as necessary. To the South, it meant that the Administration was cautiously withdrawing on the matter, not demanding that segregation be ended forthwith, as had been sought by the advocates of desegregation. Mr. Brownell had argued for transition "as expeditiously as the circumstances permit"—not far from the eventual language adopted by the Brown implementing decision the following April, "with all deliberate speed", which some Southern states would take to mean "whenever we damn well please, never if at all possible". "Segregation now, segregation tomarra, segregation fawrevah," would later say Alabama Governor George Wallace, "his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification", at his inauguration in January, 1963, for instance.
The Attorney General's brief had suggested three steps toward desegregation, starting with the Supreme Court decree of the prior May 17, declaring racial segregation unconstitutional and that all laws permitting it were invalid, a return of test cases to the lower courts where they had first been heard for further action consistent with Brown, and entries of orders in the lower courts directing the school boards before the Court to submit within 90 days a plan for desegregation within their districts "as soon as feasible".
Attorneys for the plaintiff parents of the students in the districts before the Court had stated in their brief filed November 15 that they were willing to postpone desegregation only until the beginning of the 1955-56 school year.
The Attorney General's plan was consistent with the briefs submitted by South Carolina, Texas, Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, urging gradualism in implementation, taking into account local conditions, the original plaintiffs in Brown having come from Kansas, with additional cases involving the same question subsumed thereunder from South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia, the latter having been decided on the same basis separately in Bolling v. Sharpe because of it being necessarily legally premised on the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause as Brown, the latter applicable only to the states. (The piece is confused about Texas and Maryland having been directly before the Court in Brown, those states having only submitted amicus briefs advocating gradualism, the confusion deriving from the wording of the previous day's front page story on the subject.)
North Carolina Attorney General Harry McMullan had submitted an amicus brief to the Court per its invitation as a state impacted by the decision, similarly urging gradual implementation based on local conditions, from which the piece quotes. It finds that the North Carolina brief might well be speaking for the entire South, as racial conditions varied throughout the region, state to state and county to county, and that no general order therefore could solve the many different variations. "No one legal skeleton key can unlock all of the difficulties."
It indicates that in the segregation cases, impacting millions of people and thousands of communities, different techniques were required from those employed in the usual case, where a court directed the losing party to comply in a specific manner. Of necessity, there had to be variation in how and over what time compliance would be made, and, it indicates, supervision of that transition ought be in the hands of the local Federal district courts, per Attorney General Brownell's recommendation and the briefs of several of the states before the Court in Brown plus the amicus briefs of other states to be impacted by the decision, where segregation was previously mandated or made optional per a school district's desires by state constitutional or statutory law.
"Paging the Royal Race of Hicks" indicates that for the first time since the Depression, many Charlotte residents were receiving chain letters promising enormous wealth and happiness, with a new twist that letters were being sold personally and not distributed through the mails, while still requiring usually a small down payment. Most of the schemes were illegal, promising great wealth for a two-dollar investment. It explains the process and also explains that it was impossible to know whether a person would cheat and place their name near the top of the list instead of at the bottom. The "Postal Guide" stated that "certain types of endless schemes involving sending and receiving money or other things of value" were in violation of the postal lottery and fraud statutes, with a penalty of a $1,000 fine or five years in prison, or both.
It quotes Horace Greeley as stating, "The darkest hour of any man's life is when he sits down to plan how to get money without earning it." It finds the chain letter to be one form of that effort, violating a fundamental precept that man received that for which he worked, with any deviation violating a worthy system of values without moral legitimacy. The late newspaperman Don Marquis, originator of Archy and Mehitabel, typographical errors transformed to bugs, used to call such people the "royal race of hicks". It concludes: "They buy the guilded bricks of Ascalon, the alley salesman's 'genuine' mink coats and the Brooklyn Bridge. They're always sorry. They always forget."
Query what is the difference between the illegal chain letter and state-sponsored lotteries, which prey on the poor and working-class and inevitable fantasies of getting rich quick to escape the lot consigned by life's raw breaks. It's all the old numbers racket, whether legal or not, strictly for the gullible. But when it's legal, we suppose, the average person can blame the gov'ment for their loss, translating their frustration with their lot into a more generalized hatred of the gov'ment, eventuating in recalcitrance toward anything they regard as gov'ment-sponsored or mandated, including finally even vaccines for their health. As a strangely paradoxical aspect of this phenomenon, the politician who presents him or herself as a person "of the people", not a "professional politician", then somehow wins their confidence by running for professional politics on the basis of the anti-gov'ment platform, with the voters for them never stopping to realize the utter absurdity in the notion of running to take taxpayer dollars in salary that the pol might lower or eliminate government services to the people, being completely contrary to the voters' interests, all engendered in them, of course, by the greed-merchants of radio and tv talkie-talk, who will say anything to gather listeners and viewers to their programming, thus breeding in circular fashion the contempt for anything governmental as necesarily inimical to the people, unless, of course, it happens to coincide with the financial and political interests of the anti-government government faction which promotes, in turn, the talkie-talkers of the radio and television nutworks, even, in many cases, becoming employees thereof when the political gig either becomes dull or is deemed ended by awakened voters, finally realizing the paradoxical circle into which they have been seduced with never materializing promises.
Drew Pearson indicates that people sometimes asked him how many people worked for him, insinuating that he hired a vast army of detectives, indicating that it was untrue, that he had found that the best way to track down a story was by means of the telephone book. Recently in Los Angeles, he had learned that Vice-President Nixon, from Whittier, had been telephoning from Washington to try to influence the local political picture in California, wanting his friend, H. Allen Smith of Glendale to become speaker of the California Assembly. Mr. Pearson, in looking at the Los Angeles phonebook, had found a lot of interesting things about Mr. Smith, first that he had a law office with James Garibaldi, who shared a telephone number, Tucker 4148, with another lawyer, Walter J. Little, of the same address. He also examined "Legislative Advocates", an official publication of the California Assembly, which listed California lobbyists, including Mr. Garibaldi as a lobbyist for the Hollywood Turf Club, a racetrack, as well as Mr. Little as a lobbyist for the Southern Pacific Railroad, the Santa Fe Railroad, the Union Pacific, the Western Pacific, and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. Thus, he found that two lobbyists for two of the most powerful interests in California shared law offices with Mr. Smith, whom Mr. Nixon wanted to become the next speaker of the California Legislature. Mr. Smith had severed his connection with both lobbyists a few weeks earlier, at the point he announced his candidacy for the speakership, but nevertheless had continued that association while a member of the Legislature and at a time when those groups had important matters before it. He thus concludes that it would be interesting to see whether the Vice-President continued to keep tabs on California politics by putting his men in key positions. He notes that one former Speaker of the Assembly, Charles Lyons, had just been convicted of bribery, while another former Speaker, Sam Collins, had recently been indicted on a charge of bribery.
Senator William Jenner of Indiana had acknowledged recently, to the amazement of his colleagues, that Senator McCarthy was elected to the Senate with Communist support, a matter denied by Senator McCarthy, though the Communist handbills supporting him remained in existence and showed clearly that the Communists had backed him completely. That which made Senator Jenner's admission significant was that he had long been a rabid supporter of Senator McCarthy, and headed the Senate Internal Security Committee which had done the most effective job of any committee of Congress in exposing Communists. He had stated also that the Communist bloc had helped defeat Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin because, "after a bitter experience", Senator La Follette had seen through the Communist doubletalk, and so the Communists permitted the election of an unknown Wisconsin judge, Senator McCarthy, whom they believed would be easier to handle than Senator La Follette.
Joseph & Stewart Alsop indicate that it was now possible to build a hydrogen bomb which would surpass "the limit of blowout", to become the true ultimate weapon beyond which no more powerful weapon could be built. The limit of blowout was the point beyond which any increase in power of the bomb was dissipated in the upper atmosphere. Because of air resistance to lateral blast, there was no increase in lateral destruction beyond that limit, which physicists estimated at about 50 megatons, that is, around 25,000 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb of August, 1945.
Within the inner circles of the Government, there continued debate about whether the so-called "super-super" ought be built and tested, as no one could be sure of what it might do. The President had said that the scientists responsible were "surprised and astonished" by the results of the hydrogen bomb tested on Eniwetok the previous spring, having been surprised especially by the radiological fallout from that bomb and the vastness of the area which it had impacted. The scientists worried that the "super-super" would have unpredictably extensive fallout, perhaps endangering life within the United States as well as other countries, such as Japan. Thus, development of that bomb was being seriously debated.
Extrapolating beyond the detonation of one such bomb to the prospect of detonating 500 or 5,000 within a short space of time, which the concept of "massive retaliation" involved, suggested even greater uncertainty of the impact from the device.
In the high-level discussions, genuine concern was being expressed that the Soviets, without going to war, might detonate large numbers of such a "super-super" in series along the Siberian coast as part of a test. The prevailing winds, traveling from west to east, could potentially carry the fallout over the U.S.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had more than hinted that the hydrogen bombs might never be used in war, since an "undue number" would have "very serious effects" on the whole world. Dr. Edgar Adrian, a British Nobel Prize winner, recently had said that "a long war between powers well armed with bombs would certainly produce an order of radioactive contamination which would involve us all, victors as well as vanquished," and potentially "end the human race." There had also been other such statements from equally qualified sources.
The official policy of the U.S. was to put the fallout hazard under classification, or to imply, as stated by Atomic Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss, that it did not exist. One result of the secrecy policy could be seen in the civil defense area. Civil Defense Administration director Val Peterson had been among a minority of officials urging informing the American people of that which was already known to the Russians regarding the danger of nuclear fallout. Unless that basic fact would be officially acknowledged, civil defense could not begin to make sense.
The Alsops conclude that the phenomenon of local fallout made the hydrogen bomb, in effect, an instrument of chemical warfare and could transform it, according to leading experts, from an instrument of offense to one of race suicide.
The Congressional Quarterly looks at universal military training and compulsory reserve duty among veterans in the coming Congress, to start in January. The current Selective Service law was set to expire the following June and a growing official belief was that national security demanded a stronger trained reserve, as sought by the Defense Department, the National Security Training Commission and the American Legion. Also in agreement were the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the U.S., the VFW, and the American Veterans of World War II.
That drive appeared certain to run into significant opposition from major farm, labor, religious, educational and temperance interests, which had fought UMT in the past. Groups in opposition to such a new law would be the CIO, the AFL, the International Association of Machinists, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the General Federation of Womens Clubs, and associated groups.
The argument of those in favor of UMT was that it would provide a stronger reserve and a fairer method of calling men into service, and with the growth of a reserve, the standing army could be reduced and costs cut commensurately. They believed that UMT should be converted to the title of "Reserve Forces Program" or some other name, and that the present draft law and new military training program ought operate simultaneously, with the trainees allowed the greatest possible latitude in picking their service, while training in combat-ready reserves would be compulsory. Advocates of such a plan were rallying around three major alternatives, each of which would be offered in Congress as amendments to the present UMT and Service Act of 1951, which had provided for UMT in principle but called for additional legislation for its implementation. Major differences, however, remained over the type of reserve needed and regarding who should plan the program. The Navy and Air Force, for instance, urged a reserve composed primarily of two-year veterans and there appeared to be sentiment in the Defense Department against having a civilian policy group for UMT.
Led by the Legion, UMT advocates were seeking an educational-lobbying effort, and recently, officials of that organization had contacted the White House and were laying the groundwork in Congress.
Meanwhile, the opponents of UMT contended that its cost would impose a severe strain on the economy and that the period of training, usually suggested as six months, would be inadequate to produce trained specialists for modern warfare in any event. Some also argued that it would tend to establish a "military cult", inimical to democracy.
In mid-1954, according to Selective Service reports, there were about 15.6 million men between the ages of 18 and 26 who were registered for the draft.
Lawrence Podell, a sociologist at the University of Buffalo, in an article abstracted from the New York Times Magazine, seeks to answer what it was in the makeup of college alumni which explained their sponsorship of mass-entertainment spectator sports, suggests that initially it was because they identified themselves with the American middle class, so suggesting a starting point of identifying what within middle-class life prompted the behavior.
He suggests that because the transition from boy-athlete to man-executive within the middle class was rather abrupt, marked by the commencement ceremony as a rite of passage, with a successful career and successful marriage being the current aims in life, the constant striving for success and the compulsion to win all the time brought about difficult strains on the individual. The home situation could not be competitive if it was to be satisfying, and in those situations which were competitive, victory every time was impossible, and so to avoid unpleasant situations of reality, the individual used psychological defenses, one of which was regression, to escape the reality by turning back the clock, at least temporarily, to a more secure time, a time remembered or romanticized from youth, seemingly without the pressures of domestic responsibility and occupational standards of success, which translated into following the sports teams of the alma mater.
While in the home community, the alumnus was a conventional law-abiding adult, within the university stadium, he became a hell-raiser, drinking from his hip flask openly, in defiance of family, church and college authority, communicating, for a short time, the essence of his freedom from the restrictions of reality. That enabled him to outdo the collegians in the crowd as well as making the athletes on the field or court dependent on his contributions to funding for scholarships, though he could not outperform them.
Mr. Podell compares the regression to youth in the athletic realm with the burlesque patron in the sexual sphere, finding similarity in that both represented regressions to a youthful phase of life, with physical and social inhibitions preventing an actual return. They differed in that the cheering alumnus was supposedly just having a good time, while the leering burlesque patron ought really act his age.
To his acquaintances in the community, the alumnus was a representative of his alma mater, and during the football or basketball seasons, he was seen as a man with inside dope, and so he did not retreat to teenage days in high school, instead regressing to college days, in company with his social classmates.
He states generally that when an individual encountered burdensome frustrations in one area of life, the person might transfer the activity to another area in which they were able to continue in a competent manner, a process called compensation. Female domination in middle-class life might be so frustrating to the male that he sought activities not open to females and therefore not dominated by them. Since aggression toward the demanding, controlling female was taboo, the male entered male-centered activities through which he could regain his "'manhood'", becoming a patron of the fraternity and the collegiate manly arts.
On the job, the middle-class executive had to produce, and if happiness at home and on the job was conditioned on continuing success in "'getting on'", the middle-class male had to look for other relationships in which he was respected for his own intrinsic qualities. In the fraternity, he was a brother, and in athletics, he was a member of the team. "In the University, he sang the alma mater with tears in his bloodshot eyes while holding his shaky stein of beer—he belonged."
The professor greatly over-analyzes the situation, assuming, first, that the typical alumnus attending a football game necessarily imbibed alcohol while viewing the contest, as much an exception—even if usually a particularly obtrusive, loudmouthed one—in those times as it had been the rule, now completely verboten for many decades, of course, at least in most places. He also neglects to realize that the sporting event was often a family outing, sometimes the only family outing participated in simultaneously by husband, wife and children, outside perhaps short vacations to the beach or mountains. While it definitely represented a retreat in time for the alumnus, which might encompass both husband and wife, it also provided an opportunity potentially to socialize with old college companions or even extended family members whom one did not see very often anymore. He treats it, therefore, too much as a function of escape and compensation for lost prowess at home and in the workplace, when, in fact, the spouse and the boss at the workplace might be just as likely to do the same thing and be found cheering at the football or basketball game. Moreover, all of that which he attributes to attendance of the collegiate sporting contest applies with equal force, save the drinking, with attendance of any mass entertainment, whether a Broadway play, a movie at a theater, an opera or a symphonic concert, all ultimately designed as escapes from the routinized responsibilities of middle-class life. He seems, in short, especially by his references to drinking at the sporting contest, to treat the spectator too much in a negative light, when, aside from any drinking, it has, vicariously, potentially only a positive impact on the individual's life, while providing in return spirit to the sporting contest—as was made readily apparent for its absence during the college athletics seasons of the 2020-21 school year because of the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, prior to the availability of the vaccine beginning in early 2021.
And, we might add as a postscript, any moron who attends a sporting contest of any type, or any mass gathering without having been first vaccinated, where there is not the wisdom of a check for each patron for proof of vaccination, no more onerous for the event organizers or the admittee than checking identification cards for admission to age-restricted events, shame on you for risking infection, serious illness and even death to others in your midst subsequently who might also not be vaccinated, in your home, your business environment or among the general public. If you are a college graduate and do not know enough to get vaccinated, you need to return your diploma to the school which provided it and realize that you are ultimately stupid and selfish, not worthy of it. Join your new fraternity, Eta Delta Omicron, only for morons. You might as well bring an AR-15, indicative of the mental age of the user, to the sporting contest or other event, whip it out and begin shooting in the air after every touchdown or performance of note.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.