Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 7, 2008

EVEN GEORGE WILL.... We've past the point at which this can reasonably be described as foolish. Now, conservative apoplexy about the non-existent drive to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," is just annoying. George Will, who one might expect to know better, devoted 740 words in a nationally syndicated column to railing against a legislative initiative that no one seriously wants or expects to pass.

Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. [...]

If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine. Having so sullied liberalism's name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.

I haven't the foggiest idea what compelled George Will to write such nonsense. It's not only ridiculous, it neglects to mention to the reader that no one is seriously trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

TNR's Marin Cogan recently wrote a great piece, noting that she couldn't find anyone on the left who really wants to reinstate the policy. Cogan explained, "The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity."

In fact, Will ignores the point, because it would make his column appear ridiculous, but let's keep in mind that Barack Obama doesn't want to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back, and both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have said this isn't going anywhere in either chamber of Congress. We're talking about a liberal campaign that exists only in the overactive imaginations of paranoid conservatives.

To reiterate a point from last week, far-right activists mislead people about progressive policy ideas all the time, but as Yglesias recently noted, "I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact."

George Will ought to be embarrassed.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (54)

Bookmark and Share

Dr. George F. Will also opposes the Card Check bill because he 'imagines' that union thugs will force wimpy little workers to join a union without any evidence this has ever happened, while ignoring mounds of empirical evidence that companies imitimidate workers during secret ballot votes.

He also 'imagines' that early voting is bad because supposedly early voters are lazy couch potatos who just don't want to stand in line and be 'good citizens' despite the empirical evidence that the early and absentee voters are more considered voters able to research issues presented on the ballot, an option rarely afforded someone being a 'good citizen' by standing in a line on the first Tuesday of November. If further proof of the superiority of early and absentee voting is needed, note that Ted Stevens was winning in Alaska based on Election Day counting, and only lost once the early and absentee votes were counted.

Or perhaps Will thinks that a convicted criminal ought to have been returned to the Senate?

And finally, just to demonstrate exactly how a Buckleyite conservative thinks, Dr. George F. Will believes that proper writing requires the writer to draft his first thoughts on paper with a fountain pen. All other writing methods are inferior. How does he come to this conclusion? Quite simply, this is how he writes.

Conservatives don't really have First Principles, from which they can derive their beliefs. They just do stuff because they have always done it that way, and then concote reasons to justify it, or so they imagine.

The Fairness Doctrine existed during the heigh day of Liberalism, thus, of course, the most Liberal President Ever must want it back. No emperical evidence against this belief, no just asking President Elect Obama can penetrate their groundless belief system.

Besides, it so riles up the base...

Posted by: Lance on December 7, 2008 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

The big lie about Obama, by the radical right, must be embellished daily to gain momentum. Will is doing his part.

Just so you know Lance, Will uses a goose feather quill he cuts himself not a fountain pen.

Posted by: jeff on December 7, 2008 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

After several of these posts from you and others, I feel compelled to say that, while I do not expect the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated, and the Dem leadership is in no way talking this up, the two Dem FCC commissioners do regularly talk about it. I personally advocate for something like it (especially in the context of publicly funded elections and equal access to the media, debates, et cetera). To continually say that "no one"seriously wants this is disingenuous, and I would add bad policy to boot.

Posted by: jhm on December 7, 2008 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

"George Will" and "embarrassed" in the same concluding sentence. Heh.

Posted by: Pongo Twistleton on December 7, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

George Will, who one might expect to know better

Well, unless one hasn't been paying attention.

Posted by: ed on December 7, 2008 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK


Can you cite some examples? When people say that no one is seriously pushing for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, they mean no one of any consequence. It means that it's not about to happen. What's disingenuous is suggesting that a reinstatement is a realistic possibility because a few random people (who have no legislative authority) would like it to happen.

Posted by: DH Walker on December 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

Count me among those who think Fox News and CNN should be registered as 527's.

Posted by: Danp on December 7, 2008 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Can we get a betting pool going on when Red State et al start trumpeting about how they so successfully thwarted Barack HusseinMarxHitlerandsoforth Obama's concerted effort to reestablish the Fairness Doctrine?

Posted by: ed on December 7, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

I love it when conservatives spend time and energy on their own paranoia.

ARGville: nibble, nibble

Posted by: VictorM on December 7, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Ah - but that's what you would say.

Posted by: Maineiac on December 7, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

I call myself conservative, and the conservative Will and I think and act freely thanks to liberalism.

As far as his recent article quoted above, what is Will smoking implying such a thing as a living breathing "reactionary liberal?"

Posted by: kevo on December 7, 2008 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Hoped somebody would notice this, because it's a work of perfection. Presumably after years of trying, Will has written a completely fact-free column. That newspapers choose to print this without comment says a lot about their commitment to truth and accuracy (I read it in my local paper yesterday, as if they couldn't wait to get their fingers on it), but I think it's time Will retired. He's reached his pinnacle. It's simply impossible to get more truthless.

Not only is no one interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (apparently the whole right faux-panic was brought on by Nancy Pelosi's reply to a constituent that "maybe we should think about looking into this sometime," a ringing call to action), it doesn't matter anymore. The Fairness Doctrine came from an era of a limited number of AM radio stations, virtually no FM and three or four TV stations per city. We now have hundreds of cable channels (mostly crap, but I digress) and satellite radio with an even wider breadth of choice. AM radio listeners are the oldest, thus fastest dying demographic in communications. Who really cares anymore who listens to Rush Limbaugh and his imitators? The truth is the left needs guys like Rush and Bill O'Reilly desperately, as a source of humor and an example of what not to believe in public and personal life. In this context, Will's column may be seen as a plea: Why aren't you taking me seriously anymore?

The most important means of communication today is the internet, which depends for its influence entirely on a lack of regulation. For the left, the important movement is not a return to the Fairness Doctrine, but net neutrality. We lost when communication was artificially limited; we just won big through free speech. So why would we want to limit it? Watching Will and his friends make fools of themselves is both fun and profitable. It's the American way.

Posted by: ericfree on December 7, 2008 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

It's not only ridiculous, it neglects to mention to the reader that no one is seriously trying...

C'mon, Steve, this is a Booger-bear, nothing more. Conservative scribblers get paid to talk smack about "the Left", so they do. If there's a Conservative bandwagon leaving the station, they all pile on.

Besides, it so riles up the base...

There ya go...

Posted by: Meanie-meanie, tickle a person on December 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK


This is the business model of right-wing punditry: (1) invent completely nonexistent threat; (2) fear-monger endlessly about it; (3) nonexistent threat somehow fails to materialize; (4) claim victory; (5) profit.

I really wonder how much money O'Reilly and others have raked in over their "war on Christmas" scam (just to name one). Considering how absolutely gullible their audiences are, it's a sustainable industry.

Posted by: DH Walker on December 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Can someone with more time than I do kindly make up a sign on a stick and march in front of their local Fox affiliate screaming "What do we want? Fairness Doctrine! When do we want it? NOW!"

Just one guy.

Bet they run the footage nationwide.

C'mon. It'll be fun!

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on December 7, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

To be absolutely fair, conservatives were paranoid and self-pitying when they were in the majority aslo.

Posted by: Daddy Love on December 7, 2008 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Having so sullied liberalism's name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives

And then there's this. Will thinks that liberals make "liberal" a dirty word? No one can be that stupid.

Posted by: RSA on December 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, this article is absurd on two levels. The main point Steve makes that no one of any legislative significance is pushing for the fairness doctrine is the most obvious. But I would point out that his arguments concerning suppression of ideological rivals are equally absurd.

Look if some local talk radio host maligns some person or organization dear to me, it would be a small technological challenge for me to set up an antenna and transmit my rebuttal on the same frequency the talk radio host used, thus answering his charges to the same audience who heard them. The problem for me would be that the FCC, that is the Federal Communications Commission (that would be the government to any conservatives out there) would shut me down in a hurry. We see then that the government provides the talk radio host exclusive use of a given frequency. This is a service which can really only be provided by the government and which is absolutely essential for the talk radio host to have his show. So part of Will's argument is to characterize this absolutely exclusive use of a frequency as somehow completely neutral ideologically, but requiring that if the talk show host is to free from any interference on the frequency most of the time he must give people a chance to rebut him some of the time, this is suppression of ideological rivals. Will's position is absurd.

The point of the fairness doctrine is, as I indicate above, to give one the chance to rebut misrepresentations of you or your organization to the same audience that heard them. Being able to do so is hardly unreasonable. The existence of other means of communicating a message doesn't address the reasonable desire to respond to charges against you to the same audience that heard them. While the government would have no business in requiring that your blog say provide such an opportunity for rebuttal, as your blog is produced by you alone. A broadcast network is a means of communication built entirely upon a government service.

Now having written the above you can probably conclude that I would be among those most interested in restoring the fairness doctrine, and you would be right. However, to reinforce Steve's point though my reaction to the idea is pretty much "Nay, it's not worth the bother."

Posted by: Michael Robinson on December 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

The Fairness Doctrine business is attractive to wingers because-- 1) they can get their partisans riled up (and get the direct-mail contributions needed to pay salaries, rent, etc.) without risking a political defeat 2) they are sure to 'win' the 'battle'.

The disadvantages, e.g., drifting further off into the gamma quadrant and ridicule from dirty fucking hippies, are minor annoyances.

Posted by: MattF on December 7, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of the ancient right-wing chain mail that the FCC is about to ban all religious broadcasting.

Posted by: DonBoy on December 7, 2008 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

And the conservatives were hugely successful in preventing the religious broadcasting ban, as they will be hugely successful in thwarting the liberal reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

/ channeling Al

Posted by: coldhotel on December 7, 2008 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Will and his wing-nut allies can't credibly write on the economy.....They've got to earn their pay by writing SOMETHING.

Posted by: brat on December 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with those who take issue with "Even" in the title of this post--i.e., Even George Will. This kind of crap, as other have pointed out, is classic George Will, not some kind of aberration.

Posted by: jcasey on December 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

George Will deserves to have his crayon broken.

Thanks for reading his articles for me, I stopped long ago.

Posted by: effluvientOne on December 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

what compelled will to write such nonsense?

dude, that's what he does. it's all he does.

Posted by: mellowjohn on December 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Give thanks for a special gift.

The fairness doctrine can remedy what they claim is the bias of the "Liberal Media". This can provide some fine first amendment ammo aimed at the media's purchased puppets.

Posted by: St Heathen on December 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

There is too much about this to be simply conservative paranoia. They're up to something and it behooves Democrats and liberals to figure out exactly what it is.

Posted by: Paul in NC on December 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

The so-called Liberal effort to reinstate the "Fairness doctrine" is not something that exists in congress, nor is it a big deal among most conservatives. It's a conservative radio PR stunt.

The return of the "Fairness doctrine" is a "threat" ginned up by the few individuals who run right-wing radio. It is a PR stunt intended to keep their radio shows visible and maintain their audiences now that the election is over. It is being ginned up to fill the period of emotional letdown after the election is over.

The PR stunt of attacking the non-existent return of the "Fairness Doctrine" has no purpose except to keep their audiences sitting by the radio and thus keep their advertisements during what otherwise would be an emotional dead period after the election and over the holidays.

The radio powers are leaning on their conservative allies like George Will to keep the drums beating in the distance as a threat to activate their audiences. George was looking for a subject to write about (have to fill that opinion hole and meet the deadline) and he no doubt noticed several emails in his in-box. He's also down to the dregs for subjects (there's only so much he can write about Obama's transition), so he wrote an opinion piece.

As soon as Congress returns from the holidays, the conservapundits will drop the issue. The radio execs won't need it to sell advertisements any more and George Will will have found better issues to write about.

Posted by: Rick B on December 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

You quote George Will: "The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. [...]"

Oh, George. Have you forgotten about "original intent"? What happened to "judicial restraint"?

You are no longer even trying.

Posted by: CMcC on December 7, 2008 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Michael Robinson:"The point of the fairness doctrine is, as I indicate above, to give one the chance to rebut misrepresentations of you or your organization to the same audience that heard them. Being able to do so is hardly unreasonable."

Agreed. You know, I don't understand the conservative mind. I really don't. And once again I experience the sense of irony and astonishment. Conservatives are eager to rail against the idea of "fairness"? "We're against telling the whole truth?" is a battlecry that will rouse the base?

Posted by: PTate in MN on December 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

"Well of course liberals want to (fill in the blank) because that is what we would do if we were in their position!"

How many times do we have to be accused of what they are...

Posted by: emd on December 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

What do you want to bet that within 10 years these same conservatives will be clamoring for a re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine for one reason or another? For more examples, see their recent flip flop on fillibustering.

Posted by: Tim W. on December 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Haven't read all the other comments so others may have said this as well. That is, that this is not a serious subject. It's a straw man issue for rightwing bloggers and pundits. Set it up, knowing it will not happen, and then claim credit for scaring "liberals" off of it. It's just posturing.

Posted by: digitusmedius on December 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Of course the rabidly anti-democratic left (redundant) will attempt to impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine - the left is always, as in always, in favor of suppressing dissenting views from its anti-American/anti-democratic world view.

And if anyone doesn't think that the unions will use the "card" issue to intimidate and threaten workers then you know nothing of the history of the so-called union movement in America.

Posted by: fred t on December 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

unions: America's home-grown terrorists.

Posted by: mike wilder on December 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

George Will should stick to something that he knows something about... like baseball.

Posted by: Ken on December 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Please don't pretend that reinstatement of the fairness doctrine is not on the agenda of Democratic leadership. Please see the attached clip from house speaker Nancy Pelosi.


Her views mirror those of many progressives. To state otherwise nvolves intentional deception, and/or ignorance of the issue.

Posted by: RockwoodJohn on December 7, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

What could be more conservative than the Book of Proverbs? See Chapter 23, verse 1:

The wicked flee when no man pursueth; But the righteous are bold as a lion.

Posted by: Tom Parmenter on December 7, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think some of far lefties like Kucinich should make some token moves in that direction and then be shot down.

That and the birth certificate farce will keep the righties too busy to do much more. Let's give them a few crumbs to keep them on their bridge to nowhere.

Posted by: MNPundit on December 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

The wingnuts maintain that the "reimposition" of the Fairness Doctrine is a form of "censorship". Asked to explain how the addition of points of view that contrast with wingnut codswallop could constitute censorship, the intellectually-rigorous gasbags on the right are oddly silent. It's almost as if we don't know what they are talking about any more than they do.

Posted by: Timpanist on December 7, 2008 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Neal Gabler opined that Joe McCarthy was the founder of modern conservatism not Goldwater. Red scare, press scare, they have nothing to offer the public but fear itself.

Posted by: aline on December 7, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon guys. Straw man. At some point the wingnuts will declare victory and move on. In the meantime they have something to gas off about as Obama makes fools of them.

George Will embarrassed? Now there's an exercise in imagination.

Posted by: LJR on December 7, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

A very informative article. Since nobody nowadays supports the Fairness Doctrine, we now know that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Dianne Feinstein are nobody.



Posted by: Somebody on December 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think George Will is lacking the embarrassment gene.

Posted by: Cal Gal on December 7, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to shout, Steve, but since I've been saying this every damned time this issue comes up, I'm gonna shout and not feel guilty about it.

Fercryinoutloud, what do you mean, "EVEN" George Will?

Who do you think STARTED this particular crap?

George Will is the originator of the current wave of Fairness Doctrine Paranoia.

Got that?

George Will's columns of August 17 and September 18 are what got the ball rolling.

George Will, August 17:

Two Democratic priorities in the next Congress would placate two factions that hold the party's leash -- organized labor and the far left. One is abolition of workers' right to secret ballots in unionization elections. The other is restoration of the "fairness doctrine" in order to kill talk radio, on which liberals cannot compete. The doctrine would expose broadcasters to endless threats of litigation over government rules about how many views must be presented, on which issues, by whom, for how long and in what manner.

George Will, September 18:

Unless McCain is president, the government will reinstate the equally misnamed "fairness doctrine." Until Ronald Reagan eliminated it in 1987, that regulation discouraged freewheeling political programming by the threat of litigation over inherently vague standards of "fairness" in presenting "balanced" political views. In 1980 there were fewer than 100 radio talk shows nationwide. Today there are more than 1,400 stations entirely devoted to talk formats. Liberals, not satisfied with their domination of academia, Hollywood and most of the mainstream media, want to kill talk radio, where liberals have been unable to dent conservatives' dominance.

It's incredibly boring to have to keep bringing this up, but can we finally set the record straight? The wingnuts picked up on George Will's Fairness Doctrine BS, not the other way around.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on December 7, 2008 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Will and Broder are shills, pundits of Republican twaddle. It's always best to just ignore them. Until the trad media gives equal time to progressive voices, I'd not lose any sleep over this bullshit. They're always trying to stir things up. The Republican agenda seems to be ardent opposition to any form of gun control or restriction of free speech, but let them square that with adult porn on the internet, and safety in our national parks. Let them run with that social conservative agenda shit while progressives deal with serious issues of consequence.

Posted by: ezdidit on December 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

It's called a STRAWMAN. Sheesh.

Posted by: anonymous guy on the internet on December 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

George Will, who one might expect to know better

I stopped expecting Will to be anything other than a bloviating wingnut some time ago.

Posted by: Steve J. on December 7, 2008 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Might Sen. Charles Schumer represent the left? He indicated reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine was desirable with an (odd) argument that one couldn't be in favor of government keeping pornography off the public airwaves and complain about it imposing the fairness doctrine. Here is the clip:

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_uhI2a2NH0

As for card check, it is an opportunity for coercion and reprisal. At least that is George McGovern's view, who having worked for the right of unions to organize protected by secret ballot at home and abroad, has a platform to speak from.

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yVC2VLF99w

Posted by: K on December 7, 2008 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with you that the Fairness Doctrine is unlikely to be revived.

However, Pelosi has publically signaled her support of the measure. No. 3 behind the President and a hard charging liberal endorses the idea.

This gives credence to the point behind the article . . .

Posted by: Grozet on December 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Well, they can be after you even if you are paranoid.

Speaker Pelosi supports the Unfairness Doctrine. The whole discussion went to several paragraphs, but the money quote was:

""Do you personally support revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation."


Senator Schumer supports the Unfairness Doctrine. He says that pornography on the radio should be limited, and that since the government should be able to limit pornography on the radio, the principle of the government limiting "commercial enterprise" is thereby established for talk radio. Schumer thinks that network TV is not a commercial enterprise? Read it, convoluted as only Schumer can make a simple idea:

"The very same people who don?t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that,? Schumer told Fox News on Tuesday. ?I think pornography should be limited. But you can?t say, ?government hands off in one area? to a commercial enterprise, but you?re allowed to intervene in another. That?s not consistent."


Kerry and Kucinich support the Unfairness Doctrine.

"Senator John Kerry is calling for reimposition of the fairness doctrine."

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has called for the (Unfairness) doctrine's return ... "


The Unfairness Doctrine will not come back at all unless the Senate is able to override a filibuster and the Supremes rule just so. The Marxists are working on both contingencies.

But then the citizens must surrender their First and Second Amendment Rights to the people who want to be subjects. If you wanted to be a subject you could have been a subject under Great Britain or you could have joined the Soviet Union when you had the chance. You are too late to be a subject now in the United States of America.

Posted by: Draconis on December 8, 2008 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Sure, Nancy Pelosi doesn't mind if something happens to reinstate it. But it's a get-around to it someday, sometime after the revival of the economy, ending the war, and maybe buying Sasha and Malia a pony.

The real threat to AM radio comes from the fact that as whole generations have become accustomed to listening FM, and a new generation is getting accustomed to satellite and internet radio, the audience for AM rightie crap is shrinking.
Who under 50 listens to Rush Limbaugh or agrees with him? Under 30?

Not only that, but who knows how many radio stations will also crater with the economy to be reborn as local or liberal stations? I think that's what George Will's syndicators fear-radio stations falling out of the rightie orbit.

Posted by: Carol Duhart on December 8, 2008 at 6:28 AM | PERMALINK

Colossally full of beans: George Will. When he's bad, he's really bad. If only he didn't write a good article now and again, people might not pay intention to his more insane ramblings like this one...

Posted by: edsbowlingshoe on December 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

The Right Wing Nut Jobs are a threat to our national security! They remains me of Germany in 1930 when Hilter and his occult friends came to power.
If Rush, Sean and the rest are left to do their Nazi preaching it will cause "The back wood white racist" or American Nazi Party, to take a pot shot at our President.
What do you think about those apples.

Posted by: John Wayne Cahill on December 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly