Everyone – regardless of political beliefs – should be bothered by this…
But the police officers are not happy to have their own photographs taken.
Two Isthmus employees — web editor Kristian Knutsen and design artist David Michael Miller — were warned this week that they were “obstructing” police officers while taking pictures in the public space.
David Erwin, Capitol Police chief, would not talk to an Isthmus reporter — he referred questions to a Department of Administration spokesperson and then abruptly hung up the phone. Stephanie Marquis, the Department of Administration spokesperson, did not respond to phone calls or an email on Thursday afternoon seeking comment.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, taking photos and recording video of police officers in public is a constitutional right.
Knutsen was photographing protesters on Wednesday, when he noticed three police officers, one with a video camera, recording the events. He says he began to take photographs of them because it was “a striking scene. It’s visually interesting.”
Other people on the scene also began taking pictures of police. The officer with the video camera responded, Knutsen says, by training his camera on these observers.
While acknowledging that police have as much a right as anyone to take pictures inside the Capitol, Knutsen adds, “When they’re repeatedly pointing a camera at someone’s face, that’s intimidation.”
When Knutsen asked the officer with the camera for his name and badge number, another officer warned that he was “obstructing” their work.
Around the same time on Wednesday, a legal observer with the ACLU was threatened with obstruction for watching police in action and attempting to obtain names and badge numbers of officers. (Watch a video of the observer recounting her experience.)
What’s going on at the Capitol should bother anyone who values our Constitutionally-protected rights to free speech & free assembly. What’s more, the heavy-handed actions and rhetoric coming from Capitol Police officers is simply uncalled for and frankly it’s more along the lines of something I’d expect to find in a two-bit dictatorship.
A two-bit dictatorship is what we have; one that has forsaken the Constitution of the United States. Chalk up this latest atrocity and add it to the list. That list is growing longer all the time.
Is there a panic button anywhere in the Capitol that citizen’s can push whenever Heinrich Erwin violates their civil liberties? Only a sociopathic criminal like Walker could hire an idiot goon like this to head the Capitol Police. I feel sorry for the officers that work for him.
The panic button is at the ballot box. The citizens have pushed it, that is why Scott Walker was elected. Now the budget is balanced, and soon the dissenters will all be arrested and sent to the secret fema camps.
Today the Capitol Police arrested a disabled veteran who hadn’t been holding a sign or banner or anything along those lines, and when she suffered a cardiac incident and collapsed, they mostly just stood around while her friends, who are familiar with her condition, begged them to let them help her, or to at least take the handcuffs off so she could get into a more comfortable position to alleviate the attack. One elderly man who’d tried to help her when he saw her getting woozy was slammed against the wall and arrested for interfering with the police and resisting arrest. They did at least give her a couple of nitro pills, and they finally took off the handcuffs just before the EMTs arrived. Later they “unarrested” her, and they never told her or anyone else why they’d arrested her to begin with. Finally, she was taken to the hospital, where she was treated and released. Story here: http://wcmcoop.com/2012/09/14/capitol-crackdown-sends-disabled-veteran-to-hospital-another-activist-to-jail/ .
She’d made a brief statement in the Rotunda (which was designed to be a public forum) about free speech and her objection to Chief Erwin’s labeling advocates of free-speech as terrorists, and specifically called out what the Capitol Police have been ordered to do to ordinary citizens as itself terroristic.
There is nothing illegal about videotaping or photographing police officers in Wisconsin. As long as you physically don’t interfere with what they are doing you most certainly are legally entitled to that activity. Shove a camera in my face or step in front of me while I’m doing my job and look to get arrested. Any officer who’s afraid of being photographed or videotaped probably doesn’t know their job. Most of us have no issue with it because oftentimes it’s the only proof of what really happened.
But for those of you calling Wisconsin a police state and that there’s no constitution anymore, please comment on the lack of support for free speech (you know the first amendment) for the idiot in California who made the questionable movie about Mohammed. Our president and secretary of state both threw him under the bus. I guess I missed the liberal outrage when piss Christ came out and Mary covered in dung. Oh that’s right Catholics don’t riot, sodomize the ambassador, burn the consulate and behead people. I kind of missed everyone calling for Bill Maher’s movie Religulous to be censored. It spends more than an hour mocking Christianity and then the last half hour mocking Islam. Oh that’s right he liberal he can do no wrong.
The movie, “Innocence of Muslims” does not pass the smell test. It stinks to high heaven of the kind of false flag operation that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is known for. I think that it was created some time ago and held in readiness for this moment in time. A general outbreak of violently anti-American demonstrations throughout the Middle East will predictably presage an escalation of U.S. military actions. What next? Warfare spreads throughout the general area including, of course, Iran and Syria. Methinks the coincidence of this circumstance with the upcoming presidential elections was carefully planned and put in place in order to scare the public into blindly accepting more of the Forever Wars.
That’s quite the conspiracy theory. Did the CIA force them to riot as well?
It’s a shame Gwynn Guenther could not report on this story — because she harrassed and driven out of the Capitol by protestors! Since when did Wisconsin devolve into that?
Christianity should be mocked.
It IS mocked all the time. However, Christians sit by and take it every day. They don’t burn things or kill people when they get upset.
Man up other side, go out and publicly mock Islam, make a video mocking Islam, then post your name and address. Oh your so brave going after Christianity, it’s just that Christians won’t kill you, the followers of the religion of peace will!!!!
John Adams,
I don’t quite get your gist. The official U.S. position was an affirmation of the right to free speech. Denouncing the opinion expressed in the film as not the official position of the United States government is not “throwing under the bus.” Obama and Clinton expressed America’s commitment to free speech and our commitment to religious tolerance while denouncing violence as a response to the mocking and degrading of faith.
Unlike the capitol protestors, the producers of the film you reference were not subject to any punitive measures for exercising their right to free speech. Nor was their video shut down or censored, though I believe it is under investigation for compliance with YouTube’s “terms of use.” To my knowledge the film producers are not under arrest nor fined for releasing their video. I may err in that statement, but there were no crackdowns on the filmmakers in the last updates I read.
Certainly you’re not suggesting a consonance of any kind between the consequences of these two instances? The Anti-Islam film sparked Anti-American riots in 20 countries resulting in the deaths of American citizens and may culminate in the deaths of many others – military personnel defending our embassies and consulates not to mention random retaliatory threats. Our diplomatic efforts are compromised as is our standing around the world. Is shutting down free speech in Madison remotely comparable? You can’t possibly be serious.
Do our rights entail responsibilities? Have we not been taught rights are conjoined with responsibility? And just who is responsible for our rights? Are those individuals who claim their rights derived from our constitution – are they responsible for exercising their rights? Are we as a nation – all of us together – responsible for the rights enshrined in our constitution? Ultimately, yes. Is our government responsible for the immorality of these film producers? Ultimately, yes. Not in agreeing with the opinions expressed but by taking responsibility for the aftermath of radically irresponsible speech. All of America has paid a very painful price to accommodate the free speech of a radically deranged few. Do we have the responsibility of denouncing those filmmakers? Absolutely. Free speech does not mean criticism free – criticism is part of the responsibility embedded in free speech. It is what we accept when we decide to exercise free speech.
Piss Christ the art piece? That piece doesn’t exhibit Mary and dung as far as I know. But I’m not altogether familiar with it or the controversy surrounding the person who vandalized it. I just looked it up now in response to your comment. You might have to help me out in distinguishing your central point because I’m admittedly ignorant of your references. I haven’t seen Religulous in its entirety, but I did find an interview of Maher discussing his film and I did watch 2 clips from the film, one being the conclusion – that’s what I’m working from, so we’re clear. And I didn’t see the Anti-Islam movie in question either, but from what I understand it is intentionally provoking and denigrating.
Maher is a polemic comedian whose decorum leaves much to be desired, but his work never appeared to me hateful or provoking. Is he responsible for what he says? He is, and at times he’s apologized for what he says. Did Religulous inspire an international incident on the scale we’re seeing now? Obviously not. Was it intended to provoke hostility? No. According to Maher, it’s a comedy and an inquiry into doubt. He doesn’t denounce Christianity, rather he praises it. The bit that I saw seemed to me to be very much in alignment with the views of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Neither were mentioned, but Maher made the same kinds of arguments they did on matters of religion. Religulous seems to me a commentary on religiosity itself not a deliberate attack on a particular sect. It’s intent was neither Anti-Islam nor Anti-Christianity.
I also found a clip of a Bill Moyers interview with Sister Wendy discussing Piss Christ. I didn’t sense from her response that she interpreted the painting as degrading Christianity or that Piss Christ even tacitly implied a hostile provocation toward the faith, certainly not that Piss Christ was emblematic of Anti-Christianity. From what I can gather her interpretation was pretty close to the artist’s intent – an exploration into the commercialization of Christian iconography. Sister Wendy’s take on it was a bit more profound than even the artist’s appeared to be. So, I guess I don’t see a matter for outrage in either case.
The Anti-Islam movie, on the other hand, seems to be of a different order, not a philosophical or aesthetic inquiry, but instead a vicious mocking of faith with an intent to incite. I didn’t see it, but if that’s the case, the comparisons between it and Piss Christ and Religulous wouldn’t be judicious.
As to it and free speech – again, those filmmakers’ rights were never curtailed. If you are edging toward the Romney nonsense lie that Obama is apologizing for America – he didn’t and neither did the initial embassy statement issued PRIOR to the riots’ eruption. But, perhaps Obama should apologize in this case. The people of Libya have. The people of Libya had the decency and respect for the United States to hold a Pro-American rally after the Benghazi attack. If you haven’t seen the signs that they were allowed to hold in Benghazi (unlike Americans at the Wisconsin capitol building) you should look for them on the net. They read “We are sorry,” “Sorry people of America this isn’t the Behavior of Our Islam and Our Prophet,” “Christopher Stevens was a friend to all Libyans,” “Terrorists don’t represent us…” Libyans are sorrowful and mournful over how the radical elements in their country took to extremes. Maybe it would be decent for Americans to be sorrowful and mournful over how the radical elements in our country are taking to extremes. Or would that be “apologizing for America?”
Makes one want to hold a sister rally at the capitol building in answer to Benghazi’s heartfelt outreach but unlike in Benghazi, Libya, in Madison, Wisconsin Americans would be forbidden to hold any signs that say “We are sorry too” “Vicious Radicals Don’t Represent Us” or anything else for that matter. Libyans had the decency to reach out to America and in effect say, “Radical Extremists Don’t Represent Who We Are” – but perhaps this nation’s “exceptionalism” is too big, too arrogant to admit that Radical Extremists don’t represent us either. Apparently, the principle of free speech trumps the principles of humility and grace. After all, it’s not like humility and grace have any bearing on Christian thought….
PJ, the official U.S. position? The Obama administration contacted youtube about the video about pulling it. The gist is that they seem to be placing the emphasis on the video rather than the acts of violence and placing blame where it belongs.
Thank you, PJ. Beautifully reasoned,worded and framed.
I’m mocking you, big boy. I continue to be amazed at the thoughtfulness in PJ’s responses. They are a joy to read. While in no way am I minimizing his effort – it is hercluean – I cannot ignore the time spent and how it seems wasted on the likes of John Adams and his and his companion thralls.
I meant to say, “…minimizing the effort…” I do not know PJ’s gender.
PJ,
Very well written response, I agree with some of it, but the central point still is that President Obama asked Youtube to pull the video, sent the LA Sheriff’s to pick up the alleged director of the movie and is still blaming all the unrest in the Mideast on said movie.
So we are to believe that a coordinated series of attacks on 9/11 just happened to occur because of some 14 minute preview of a movie on Youtube, that’s been out for months. As our Secretary of State once said,”this would require a willing suspension of disbelief” for me to buy into that story line.
I’ve never heard the president or other liberals decry piss Christ, or any other mocking of the religious beliefs of Christians. And yes, piss Christ and Maher’s movie were made to mock the Christian faith. So I have a different take based on my religion of gay marriage. But I’m called a bigot, intolerant and hateful. Yet unlike the followers of the religion of peace you know I won’t cut off your head. No one will call out the followers of Islam publicly on their backward 5th century beliefs.
Bill Maher is not hateful or provoking, “Palin is a cunt”. Enough said.
Other side, again please start a blog with your name and address and rip into Islam. Yeah didn’t think so, just a coward. At least PJ puts some thought into his responses. I may not agree, but I’ll be respectful of his opinions.
I have a blog actually and my real name is listed there. I also am a member of this blog, too. Where’s your blog, troll, and what’s your cowardly name.
I have been critical of those who kill in the name of Islam. Check it out at my blog. I just don’t use sweeping generalizations like your ilk.
Btw: small sample of Christian love … how about those who kill doctors simply because they provide legal services.
This has gotten way off point. The actions of the capital police under instructions from the Walkerites is criminal.
Other side, agreed, way off point. As you saw in my post way above arresting people for exercising free speech is wrong. Film away, take photos not a problem. The sweeping generalizations are no different that what I see from the left. Republican war on women being one perfect example.
But Christian’s have killed what maybe 2 or 3 doctors who have performed abortions. No I don’t condone that and they should be imprisioned for life. Jesus would not condone that. I have not heard my Priest ever call for the killing of abortion doctors. I have heard my priest call for the sanctity of life. I don’t believe in abortion except in the most extreme cases, rape and or danger to the mothers life. So running 100′s of hospitals and soup kitchens in the United States are other examples of Christian love that you would ignore.
Please post the name of your blog. I visit both the right and the left, it’s the only way to get a balanced view.
John Adams,
The GOP agenda with respect to women is no sweeping generalization. Off the top of my head I don’t recall the number of bills introduced at state and fed levels (in lieu of crisis legislation at that), but I could find those numbers. The term “The Republican War on Women” could be said to be hyperbolic to some degree, but given the larger context of the GOP agenda, not really too much of a stretch.
Soup kitchens etc: I don’t ignore these forms of Christian charity. Two points:
First, Is it charity if something is expected in return? If the purpose for charity is to provide a forum for evangelism or proselytizing or conversion to a particular sect then it isn’t charity any longer. Charity is giving with no expectation of return.
Second, The GOP tends to rely on Christian charity for the social safety net rather than its proper supplemental role. When Christian charity functions as the official safety net, it is no longer charity and it enters into a dubious role. Already religious “charitable” institutions receive more government subsidy than I would consider appropriate.
JA & FMSN,
I believe I did mention the “terms of use” inquiry in my response to John Adams. That’s a far cry from pulling the video outright. They were not banned or silenced prior to communicating their message nor for their excessively damaging and exceedingly offensive speech – hardly comparable to Scott Walker’s department of administration with its arrests and fines for inoffensive speech spoken in defense of infringed Constitutional rights.
On the alleged producers of the Anti-Islam film: I’m not certain of this because I don’t yet trust everything I read about the filmmakers, but the legality of the video posting may be technically suspect given the status of the producers. If the early reports are correct, then at least one of the producers violated his parole by releasing anything online regardless of content. Yes, he was picked up for that and later released. Honestly, I haven’t read anything about the filmmakers that I yet trust as solid reporting so I’m not willing to weigh in on that matter fully right now.
I haven’t seen any reporting that verifies Obama asked You Tube to pull the video outright. Yet, was it heavy handed to investigate a possible “terms of use” infraction that probably would have gone unnoticed otherwise? Given the scale of impact, maybe not. I would tend to lean toward the “not” end of maybe not. But then again, had the video not incited violence due to crossing all lines of common decency, its creator’s parole transgression might have gone unnoticed. I also haven’t seen any further statements by Obama or Clinton that places more blame on the video than on those who committed the violence in Benghazi. But, I haven’t been scouring the news the last couple of days so if there were statements to that effect after Wednesday or Thursday then I haven’t seen them yet. If there were more comments made assigning blame to the movie, I’d likely agree with them.
I consider consequence of free speech within the realm of responsibility, at least in terms of criticism as I described earlier. I would concur if your point is that the filmmakers are not directly responsible for the violence they’ve inspired, but indirectly responsible? Don’t you think it’s a little unreasonable to think otherwise? They are responsible for unprecedented mayhem. Should that indirect responsibility go unaddressed? Absolutely not. YouTube could remove the video at any time without any pressure from the U.S. government. Would it matter if YouTube made that decision on its own? Heavy handed would be to pull it outright. Is it heavy handed for other countries to ban it? When your streets are filled with rioters maybe not.
You’ll probably be appalled by my next thought, but here it is: I trend toward the idea that the security of the United States trumps any individual’s right to free speech. That’s a position John Adams’s namesake would have taken without doubt, and I’m not, in the main, in precise agreement with John Adam’s namesake on this or most other matters. I take that position with extreme and measured caution. Then again, in the next breath I could just as easily revert to a more rigorous defense of free speech. It would depend on who is safeguarding the right to free speech and the security of the United States, and it would depend on the specific circumstances.
The Obama Administration and the State Department are taking a much lighter hand than I might were I in their position as far as the video goes given the volatility and current threats to our representatives abroad; and it would be quite wrong to say the U.S. government has not placed heavy emphasis on apprehending those responsible for the deaths in Benghazi.
If American lives, if any lives are under imminent threat or if predictable agitation ensues from irresponsible or hateful speech (as in this case), then I might favor removing the cause of that violent agitation – I would support the heavy hand removing the video from YouTube. Again, only in situations of discernible threat from discernible cause which is blatantly obvious in the present situation. I don’t prefer pulling the video, but I value life more than speech. I value Christopher Stevens and all the people killed and injured more than preserving the right of a group of radicalized extremists to antagonize a rival group of radicalized extremists. It doesn’t make sense to me to put more lives at risk as you suggest with your assignment of blame. Your view implies adding more tension and violence. Truthfully, it’s a difficult question – I’m still cogitating on all of it.
Here’s a little hypothetical: If I had a time machine and I could turn back the clock to one of two points in the past and eliminate only one action, which would I choose? Eliminating the video or eliminating the violence it inspired? I’d eliminate the video because the video was the cause, the violence was the effect. The violence would not have occurred were it not for the video. We may not even know how much more violence its venom will produce in the future.
What those filmmakers did was just wrong. They may have the right to do it, but that doesn’t make what they did right. The lion’s share of blame does belong with the makers of that movie. I’m not sympathizing with or condoning the response to the video, but it also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that injecting elevated levels of antagonism into an already contentious and fevered climate will produce a violent reaction. On this point, we’ll probably have to agree to differ. To me, the video was not only objectionable in its contemptuous intent, it was monumentally irresponsible in its ill-measured temper. We, in the United States, have as much of an obligation to ourselves and to the rest of the world for not encouraging extremism as do other nations who suffer the burden of radical extremists.
Also, I think the video preview has been out since July, but was only recently translated into Arabic and launched in the Middle East, and I believe the newly translated release is the entire film, not just the 14 minute preview. I could be wrong about that, as I indicated I’m dissatisfied with the reporting on this issue thus far. There is some suggestion that the Benghazi attack may have occurred in absence of the video. Therein lies my point as well. It added fuel to a potentially smoldering fire and set off a wildfire across dozens of countries spanning at least 3 continents.
As to Piss Christ: I understand you are offended by it, but I don’t see how it pertains to the matters at hand. It doesn’t make sense to expect the president to comment on a piece of art from 1987 and which is no longer in existence because it was destroyed by Christian protestors. We will have to agree to disagree on the intent of Piss Christ. I take the artist at his word regarding the message he intended to convey. From a purely visual standpoint, there are no observable juxtapositions to cause offense. It is only when one learns of the medium that controversy enters into the equation; and the medium is the mode of meaning. I don’t think there’s enough to cause the ire it has inspired, but I am not inclined to condemn artistic expression on grounds of blasphemy. I would be more inclined to regard destruction of religious iconography blasphemous. I notice you’ve declined to comment on the acts of vandalism committed by Christians who took offense to Piss Christ and on more than one occasion and who eventually destroyed it. If you are making a comparison between this and the Anti-Islam movie, I’d say hands down the movie outranks Piss Christ for its level of offensiveness, Again – a movie I didn’t see; I only read second hand accounts. Not a valuable criticism on that score. Unlike Piss Christ the Anti-Islam movie’s intent was hostile not artistic, worse than mockery in its intentional denigration. I don’t understand your defense of the movie, but your outrage at Piss Christ. If Piss Christ enrages you that much, the movie should enrage you more. Or do you only feel for your own faith? – that wasn’t meant to be catty, I mean to ask the question seriously because I really don’t understand your differential outrage.
Maher is satirist. In the very narrowest sense he mocks in demonstrating his case. That’s what comedians do to make a larger point. That’s not at all the same as ridicule to be spiteful or to incite. Even so, Maher’s film was not an Anti-Christian mockery. He didn’t express blind or thoughtless hate. Like Piss Christ his intent was to contemplate Christian belief more deeply from the perspective of the modern world. His point is the tenets of the Christian faith are valuable and laudable, but modern day Christians have veered toward patently unchristian attitudes. Honestly, can you possibly be so averse to questioning that nothing Maher touched on could be viewed as discourse on religiosity in the modern day? I find that astounding because so much of what he touched on was foundational for religiosity even in the 18th Century.
Here’s a follow up question: Did Christopher Marlowe or William Shakespeare express mocking derision in their works? Geoffrey Chaucer? Voltaire? Rabelais? Yes. Were they expressing insightful commentary? Indeed they were. Were they persecuting Christians? Of course not. Neither is Maher. Listen, Right Wing Christians have adopted an unwarranted persecution complex that is, well, pretty offensive all things considered. Thoughtful commentary and satire isn’t persecution. The makers of the Anti-Islam video are persecutive. Christians who would punish those who disagree with them through the legal system are persecutive – those who would legislate Christian morality are persecutive.
How about the Wisconsin Christians who shut down the Reduced Shakespeare Company this summer? Did it warrant the outrage resulting in it being banned? Especially given those who had it banned never saw a performance of it, banned it sight unseen, never even read the script? Would you stand in defense of banning this comedy – not even a critical satire? It was a light romp. It has been performed for church audiences and never once (until last month) in its 20-year run has it received any objection.
I dare say the skin-depth of today’s Christian Right wouldn’t serve very well in the 16th Century or the 17th when the intensity of religious scuffles were elevated to a height far above anything we see today. My, my, my. Perhaps I should find some of those pamphlets and post them for perspective because, in my opinion, the blunting dogmatism of the Christian Right today is hedging closer and closer to the dangerous extremities exhibited then. Extremities, by the way, that the Enlightenment thinkers sought to abolish with freedom of religion and secularity.
Modern day Christians are going down a low and dangerous road with the indignant kerfuffle they use as a pretense for a suite of rather base motivations. Christians are not being persecuted in America and to suggest they are demeans Christians and people of many faiths around the world (and in the past) who have been (and are) actually persecuted for their beliefs.
And no, not enough said regarding Maher’s comment. He apologized for it because it’s an ugly word, but he wasn’t wrong in characterizing her as vulgar and officious. Sarah Palin is a woman with no integrity; she is one who unnecessarily provokes and belittles, and quite frankly, she’s one of the most dishonest people in Conservative politics. She’s as much the opportunistic con artist as Mitt Romney.
As to opposing gay marriage – I’d have to say I consider opposing gay marriage a bigoted, intolerant, and hateful position to take. Try for a moment to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. Do you really find it okay to deny someone equal rights because they don’t share your religious beliefs? Isn’t that position, to put it gently, persecutive?
And are your views on marriage entirely biblical or selectively biblical?
The most prevalent and the most accepted form of marriage in scripture is polygamous marriage. Is it a form of marriage you support? Polygamous marriage with concubines? Levirate marriage? Ooh, pretty unsavory and awfully… backward by today’s standards. Handmaiden marriage? That would mean returning to slavery. Man Slave and his Slave Mate? Again, we’d have to reinstate slavery. Maybe you honor the booty-wife marriage? I mean as in captured loot, prisoner of war kind of wife… or the rapist and his victim? Now was that legitimate rape or forcible rape that sanctified marriage?
Do you take my point(s) or did you only catch a tone of mocking derision? Have I mocked the Christian faith by posing this inquiry? Supposing I did intend to mock, is there nothing within my enquiry to warrant thoughtful discussion? Or is there an unqualified, fill-in-the-blank answer to the question I asked?
Let’s be frank. It isn’t the Islamic coalition seeking to inject Medievalism into our legal system nor is it the Islamic coalition seeking to inject Medievalism into 21st American society. It is the Christian coalition seeking to do that. Religion is a personal concern. It has no business in the public square for any purpose. Secularity isn’t persecution. It is America by design. Why the Christian Right isn’t content with allowing each their own beliefs is beyond my comprehension. Before casting the first stone at 5th Century Islamic beliefs, in my opinion, the Christian Right needs to get a nice silver mirror and gaze long and hard at it. How is it that 5th Century is backward but 1st Century is not? Or for that matter how does it work where 5th Century AD is backward, but 6th Century BC is not?
The Other Side of My Mouth … hence the moniker Other Side. I’ve not written much there of late … mostly at BB.
Frankly, I wasn’t going to respond because I don’t like where I’ve been taking conversations. It’s too easy to lash out and I don’t like it.
Sorry.