Remember Bisphenol A? Nah that’s so last week. Here’s a new plastic bogeyman for ya: phtalates

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure. […]

[…] The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.

The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

Source:
Why I Left Greenpeace - WSJ.com

Popularity: 15% [?]

Last night for some bizarre reason I watched The National (for those not in Canada The National is the nightly news program from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is the state sponsored media in this country).

I haven’t watched the program in years because quite frankly the whole idea of tax dollars being extorted from Canadians to provide a service that is ably provided by the private sector irks me. However I was between hockey games (another service that could also be provided by the private sector) and an abbreivated version of their news came on. So there I sat as Wendy Mesley breathlessly announced the latest news or more properly “the latest thing we could dig up to scare the living shit out of you”.

Tonight the bogey man was something called: Bisphenol A!!!. Apparently one of CBC’s sister agencies Health Canada has decided that Bisphenol A (which is used to make hard plastic bottles - like the kind you use when you are camping) is going to kill us all. They are the first governement body in the world to issue a warning about the product.

The CBC in it’s kindly maternal fashion decided it would be good to have a chemist go visit a worried Mom to see just how much danger her and her child were in. So we were treated to a scene in the mother’s kitchen where an array of plastic containers were spread out. It looked like the same variety of plastic containers that we all have in our houses. Uh-oh I thought is everything on the table poisonous? Or more importantly: “is my wife watching this”? She had wandered out of the room to get ready for bed earlier and I hoped she hadn’t returned. You see my wife is a worry wart of the first order. If any government body or media outlet says something is bad she pretty much believes it and will go into paroxysms of panic (ok not panic but she does make life miserable for me if she gets it in her mind that something is bad - this is why my lawn is full of weeds because she is convinced that the pesticides used to keep that mono-culture alive and thriving caused the cancer that killed our first dog). I snuck a look over my shoulder damn! she was standing right there and it was too late to change the channel.

So I watched with trepidation as Mr. Chemist delivered his verdict to Worried Mom. Turned out most of the plastic containers she (llke all of us) had in her kitchen were safe (or at least free of Bisphenol A|) the only two containers she had that were manufactured using the dreaded killer were two bottles she used to feed her baby with. Oh NO! Her poor precious baby had been poisoned right?

Nope. Mr. Chemist went on to tell her that unless she was filling the bottles with a liquid and storing them for an extended period of time there was no real problem with Bisphenol A leaching into the liquid and killing her toddler.

So I thought why the fuss? Why lead off with this story?

Why indeed. I went to CBC’s web site this morning where their FAQ on Bisphenol A contains some interesting information:

First of all the FAQ says there is a debate “raging” about Bisphenol A and it’s health effects which is interesting considering there was no evidence of a debate on last night’s program. No one was given any air time to counter the CBC’s claims that Bisphenol A is a dangerous product. The only thing presented that countered Health Canada’s claim was a small block of text that appeared as the story ended saying that the American Plastics Institute (or some such industry body - I can’t remember the name) says that Bisphenol A is one of the most tested products out there and has shown no ill effects on humans.

In fact the story mentioned that the only people who are at risk were young children and people with hormone problems (I think pregnant women). And that is not all, the CBC itself said that these people MIGHT be at risk.

This is pretty much in-line with what the FAQ says, check out some of the language:

recent animal studies theorize the chemical may be linked to obesity, infertility and insulin-resistance in rodents.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said it does not consider normal exposure to BPA to be a hazard. However, on Apr. 14, 2008, the U.S. National Institutes of Health released a report that concludes that there is some concern that fetuses, infants and children exposed to BPA may be at increased risk for early puberty and prostate and breast cancer.

Animal studies suggest that, once ingested, BPA may imitate estrogen and other hormones, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Lots of mights and mays but not much definitive information there. In fact one of the scientists involved in a study that supposedly links Bisphenol A to health problems isn’t ready to condemn the product:

He cautioned that the study, by researchers at Indiana University and University of California at Berkeley, did not indicate products such as bottled water aren’t safe.

“We have only demonstrated a possible mechanism that explains what people have been speculating about for years.” he said. “It doesn’t mean that your bottled water is any less safe today than it was yesterday. It just means that if it isn’t safe, we might be able to explain why.”

Oh and what does Health Canada say on its website?

Analysis and testing conducted by Health Canada in 2000/2001 on plastic baby feeding bottles and other plastic products showed that the levels of bisphenol A in these products were exceedingly low, and did not present a risk to Canadian children,” it said.

“Health Canada’s investigation also showed that although low amounts of bisphenol A could migrate from the plastic into milk, it would do so only under conditions of extreme use.… These results suggest that plastic products do not pose a health risk if used properly.”

BTW if you haven’t figured it out the bolding above is all mine -not from the original quotes.

So there you have it bisphenol A MIGHT cause some problems in children and infants but no one seems 100% sure.

But just to be on the safe side retailers are panicking:

In December 2007, Vancouver-based Mountain Equipment Co-op became the first major Canadian retailer to pull polycarbonate containers from its store shelves.

Because MEC’s core demographic is infants and pregnant mothers. Yeah I always spot them out rock climbing and participating in other extreme sports. Guess I’ll be ordering my Nalgene bottles via the interweb from now on.

One more thought. The FAQ suggests that parents can allay their fears by substituting the hard plastic baby bottles for something else like (wait for it) glass!! Because we all know a glass bottle in a baby’s hands is much safer than a hard plastic bottle which contains a substance that if liquid is stored in for a long time might leach some of that substance which in turn just might cause health problems for the child down the road. Maybe.

Read the CBC FAQ here and watch the actual program here (might not work after 24 hours). And for historical context go here

OK one last thought. Why not just require products containing bisphenol A to have a small warning label like “danger might be harmful to infants or nursing mothers” like they do with alcohol?

Update: A Plastic Ban for Dummies

Popularity: 14% [?]

Seems almost fitting that in a week where I posted a link to Dan Hill’s nauseating ’70s hit “Sometimes When We Touch” that a story hits the stands in Macleans about his son’s and later family’s brush with a group of street thugs.

Kathy (buy her damn book you weenbags) has more on the story here with a bit of a knee to the nuts to Toronto men:

like so many Toronto women, you’ve stuck yourself with a Dan Hill of your own: a spindly careerist wet who considers safe “uncolourful” communities a peculiarly “American” (sniff!) fetish, and who prefers spending hours alone in the editing suite or watching tv or playing computer games or — in Hill’s case — listening to music on headphones to exposing his faintly effeminate, still-adolescent self to the unpredictable messiness of mature family life.

What struck me about the article is that Hill is despite his experience still lodged in that morally muddy morass of liberal guilt. His son like a lot of teenagers became enthralled with the glorified violence and thuggery of “ghetto culture” that is propagated via rap music. Yet Hill still manages to take a swipe at white kids who skateboard and listen to blink-182 (because so many of them are machine gunning skate parks one assumes) and after his son is beaten up by allegedly a white gang who preyed on minority youth in the hi-toned but staunchly NDP neighborhood that Hill lived in he convinces himself that it was an isolated incident of racism rather than anything related to sonny-boy’s own actions.

Let me re-set this for you. Hill’s son was tangled up with a group of violent extortionist gang-bangers. When he was able at one point to pry him away from those gangsters his son was violently assaulted shortly after that. Isn’t it possible that A. It was some kind of retribution. B. it was done by a bunch of kids who had been previously preyed upon by junior and his gangster friends and the chip of the old Hill block wasn’t so tough when he wasn’t surrounded by his posse? Considering Hill admits in the article that at 50 years old he has NEVER been in a fist fight that might not be a bad assumption.

But no Hill remains convinced that there was this gang of racist white boys who roamed the Beaches neighborhood looking for off-colored chaps to pound.

This could be true but let me tell you something. I lived in that neighborhood from 97-2003. It is the most annoyingly liberal neighborhood in Toronto with a staunch record (despite their wealth) of voting NDP at all levels of government. If there was a racist gang operating out of there it would have been front page news on the Star and all over CityTV every night. (editors note: I don’t watch City TV or read the Star that often so if this phenomenon was reported please feel free to correct me). At the very least it would have made great fodder for the local community papers (or certain bloggers who write books about that sort of thing and live in that very neighborhood) , but I heard none of it.

Used to be that the definition of a Conservative was a Liberal who had been robbed (or the victim of some sort of violent crime). Seems that it isn’t so true after all.

Update: I was going to rewrite this post but have been away from the computer for 24 hours and since then Kathy has linked to it so I am leaving it as is with this addendum.

I don’t want to come accross as making light of Mr. Hill’s situation. It certainly is not something that anyone would like to find themselves in. But I think that the lesson here for most people is that you can spot this kind of trouble a long way off if you are willing to look at people as individuals not as members of an identity group. The problem with assuming that certain pathological behaviors are to be excused or understood because of someone’s supposed historic maltreatment at the hands of another (often majority ) group is that it leaves out the fact that no matter what the group or the circumstances, there are psychopaths and sociopaths out there in all races creed and colors. If you treat people as part of an identity group instead of individuals you will excuse sociopathic or psychopathic behavior or hints of this type of behaviour and pretty soon you will be in way too deep. As the Hill family found out.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Check out this gem of a letter published in the Toronto Star recently:

I think “Family Day” is a poor choice when naming our new holiday in Ontario. As I understand it, a new holiday was called for primarily because people need a break at this time of year, a period with the longest gap between holidays and a high rate of depression.

Although it first appears to be an inclusive name, “Family Day” invokes social conservatism and the diminishing nuclear family, and alienates many who have no close or living family. I think calling the new holiday “Happy Day” would promote individual fulfillment, as well as a sense of community.

Mike Evans, Toronto

Emphasis mine.

Family Day invokes social conservatism? Is the very word family now to become politically incorrect? I hate to break it to Mr. Evans but everyone comes from a family of some sort. Even if you don’t like them very much, unless you were cloned in a lab you had a father and a mother and unless you were abandoned or an orphan you had some semblance of a family and guess what? Your father and mother probably had a brother or sister which means you have something called “relatives” which are part of what is termed a “family”. Even if they don’t come over for Christmas dinner.

You get the feeling these days that pretty soon everyone but the most hardcore left progressives are going to be smeared with the “social conservative” smear at some point.

Update: Welcome Small Dead Animals readers.
Update II: From the comments a brilliant idea: let’s change it to “Hooray for Everything Day!”

Popularity: 12% [?]

We all know that a picture is worth 1000 words. I think this one is beyond that. It captures the entire essence of the war on terror and the hypocrisy of the progressive left better than a 1000 or 10,000 word essay ever could.

The photo was snapped in Berkley at the counter protest against the Berkeley council’s treatment of the Marine recruitment centre there.

See more at Zombie time here.

VIA: LGF (and note the photo in their post which also captures the essence of the other side quite nicely.

Update: Well maybe a picture can’t beat a kick ass poem:

28 But of layte have beyn chaunced to see

29 From Edinburgh to London-towne

30 The Musslemans in burnoose gowne

31 Who beat theyr ownselfs with theyr knyves

32 Than goon home and beat theyr wyves

33 And slaye theyr daughtyrs in honour killlynge

34 Howe do we stoppe the bloode fromme spillynge?”

35 The Bishop sipped upon hys tea

36 And sayed, “an open mind must we

37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man

38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan

39 So question not hys Muslim reason

40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion.”

41 Sayth the libertine, “’tis well and goode

42 But sharia goes now where nae it should;

43 I liketh bigge buttes and I cannot lye,

44 You othere faelows can’t denye,

45 But the council closed my wenching pub,

46 To please the Imams, aye thaere’s the rub.”

Popularity: 13% [?]

High winds knocked out power here this morning (it just returned). So no big post today.

I did catch Kathy and Mike on the Michael Coren show last night. It was all very civil and what was surprising was the whole panel agreed that the complaints against Ezra and Mark were contrary to the intent of the HRC’s.

Mike - has gained some weight! Last time I saw him I was teasing him that he looked like a meth addict. Maybe the camera adds 30lbs? Either that or he has been hitting the gym. Although I would recommend a suit or sport coat for future TV appearances. And stop folding your arms it makes you look too defensive.

Kathy looked great and was remarkably restrained. But then again the show did have an exceedingly polite tone to it.

Most impressive was the woman from the Canadian Free Speech or Civil Rights (I forget the name of the organization as I have her name). She was obviously a left winger but her arguments against using the HRC to police speech and thought were as “cogent” (get it? ha ha) and well articulated as any I have heard from the right.

The lawyer guy made completely spurious arguments and examples and didn’t do anything to disprove Kathy’s contention that lawyers are a major part of the problem here.

Unlike some commenter in Mike’s blog I didn’t have to run out an buy a TIVO to get the show. I PVR’d it on my hd box and watched it after the Leafs game. Considering what passes for hockey these days in leaf land it was a pretty decent palate cleanser.

Update: Welcome Five Feet of Fury folks. For the record Kathy I wasn’t lying - but I am not going to sue you for suggesting I was

Popularity: 25% [?]

But Michelle Malkin isn’t going to take it lying down.
YouTube goes dhimmi

Popularity: 4% [?]

Michelle Malkin haters can’t tell the diff between Malkin and some chick in a bikini. Or maybe it’s a bad photo shop?

Read more here:
Michelle Malkin: Malkin Derangement Syndrome

UPDATE: While she never appeared in “Girls Gone Wild” Malkin seems to have made some sort of foot fetish “trampling” video. Fast forward to almost the end for the, umm, “money shot”.

Technorati Tags: Malkin, Wonkette, fauxtography

Popularity: 9% [?]

Remember when GWB was running for election in 2000 and someone asked him who the leader was of some foreign country and Bush didn’t know? Everyone went crazy and the general consensus from the left that Bush was a stupid idiot was born. After all if you are an educated person you would know who the leader of every shithole country is right?

I don’t read his cartoons much but I would assume that Ted Rall is one of those people who ascribes to the “Bush is an idiot” line of thinking.

So it was a great surprise to see his latest cartoon implying that Condi Rice is sleeping with foreign leaders around the world. In it Rall makes the following statement “she’s romantically linked to three prime ministers including most recently Peter McKay of Canada”

Which as we all know is complete rubbish - MacKay is the Foreign Affairs Minister

So if Bush was an idiot way back because he didn’t know the leader of Bigturdistan. What does it make Rall who doesn’t even know the PM of one of the worlds largest economies, the US’ biggest trading partner and the country that all American lefties keep threatening to move to if the Republicans win just one more election?

My guess would be triple double super duper idiot.

Via NewsBusters

UPDATE: Welcome Relapsed Catholic readers. And Damian Penny readers.

Popularity: 20% [?]

If you are wearing a shirt dissing his hero Ernesto”che” Guevera. That is what happened to a blogger from Miami (whose grandfather fought against and actually met the Argentine “Doctor” during the revolucion) when he travelled to LA recently. See he was wearing a “Che is dead, get over it” T-shirt when he spotted Santana eating in a restaurant. …

You can read the whole groovy story here, man.

BTW I caught part of the Che hagiography “The Motorcycle Diaries” yesterday on TV, I had the sound off because I was riding the exercycle and blasting the old-tymie punk rawk in my ears. But did the end credits actually claim that Guevera was “murdered” with the help of the CIA? Gimmie a break.

Via: Babalublog

Technorati Tags: Cuba, Castro, Che, Guevera, Santana,

Popularity: 4% [?]

CBC Watch has an excellent collection of links regarding the sudden allowance of Howard Stern on Canadian airways. In particular a good piece by Andrew Coyne.

I’m not sure I subscribe to the “Harper is a libertarian” so Stern is now allowed theory. My conspiracy antennae are quivering with the idea that perhaps the CBC and CRTC are aware of Stern’s well publicized wars with religious types in the US and figure this to be a stick in the eye of the new govt which they believe to be infested with social conservative rednecks.

Either way my plans to get satellite are suddenly back on front burner again.

Technorati Tags: CBC, CRTC, Canada, Sirius, Howard Stern, Radio, Satellite radio, Stephen Harper,

Popularity: 7% [?]

XM just got hit hard. Wonder what the reason for the change of heart was since Sirius Canada is a partnership between the US company, Standard Broadcasting and the oh so politically correct CBC.

Read: here and here.

Technorati Tags: howard stern, canada, sirius, CBC, Standard Broadcasting, radio, satellite

Popularity: 4% [?]

The great thing about universities is that they are such models of tolerance and diversity and willingness to embrace ideas from all sides of the ideological spectrum:

NOT!! Hecklers Cause Coulter to Cut UConn Speech

But Anne didn’t cut and run she instead engaged the audience in a question and answer session because:

“I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,” Coulter told the 2,600 people at Jorgensen Auditorium

You know I’ve really began to warm up to Coulter. She is over the top sometimes but boy, she is fearless.

But has she said that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

During the question-and-answer session, someone asked Coulter if she really was against a woman’s right to vote.

“Not having women vote is a joke,” she said, reversing comments she has previously made.

Maybe someone out there can find the original source of this?

Popularity: 4% [?]

Prof urges fragging of U.S. officers

When Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren Community College in New Jersey e-mailed faculty announcing a campus program yesterday featuring decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, the response she got from one English professor took her aback.

Daly added that he would ask his students to boycott the event and also vowed “to expose [her] right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like [Rebecca’s] won’t dare show their face on a college campus.”

Ahh, the spirit of tolerance for diverse opinions …..

Via Front Page Mag

Update: The full text of the professor’s email is here.

Hat Tip The Right Angle

Popularity: 4% [?]

While Afghanis were participating in their first legitimate election in their history global village idiot George Galloway was in Canada to condemn our role in liberating that country from the grip of Taliban totalitarianism:

“Canada has sent an army of 1,000 soldiers to occupy the Muslim country of Afghanistan (and ships to the Persian Gulf),” Mr. Galloway said.

“That doesn’t sound very much like neutrality to me,” Mr. Galloway said to a receptive crowd

Ok first of all 1000 soldiers doesn’t constitute and army. 1000 soldiers is at best a Regiment. An army is at least 120,000 soldiers so calling it an army is typical of the type of exaggerative (is that a word or did I just invent one?) and inflammatory speech that comes out of the left. And if Canada were to pull our “army” of 1000 soldiers out of the country I am sure the US could scrape a spare regiment together to replace us.

But Galloway is right to point out that we aren’t peacekeepers - but not for the reasons he thinks. We aren’t peacekeepers because quite frankly we don’t have the resources to be peacekeepers any more. Mark Steyn recently pointed out that we rank 30th in our peacekeeping contribution around the world behind even the US and Britain.

And we aren’t’ neutral. People should stop deluding themselves. We are fighting in Afghanistan and we are active participants in the war on terror (one can debate that we could be more active). Although you have to wonder if Georgie was speaking for the Canadian audience or sending a message to his Al Qaeda minders: “Here is a soft target boys blast away”

The chances of our country being hit by an terrorist attack are greater than we imagine.

Via Security Watchtower

Popularity: 4% [?]

If your workplace voted unanimously to reject a union drive it would mean no union right?

Not in Canada!

Popularity: 5% [?]

Want proof that a disturbing amount of research seems to be less concerned with formulating a hypothesis and then proving or disproving it than forming a conclusion and then building a “study” to confirm it?

“I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle,” said Robb Willer, a sociology doctoral candidate at Cornell.

Read the rest of this bizarre “research” study here

Wonder how men who prefer motorcycles to SUV’s fared?

Popularity: 4% [?]

Via Strongworld and MkBraaten we find that Rabble.ca might be funded by taxpayers (that’s you):

The Catholic Civil Rights League today called on Aileen Carroll, Minister of International Cooperation, to review the funding relationship between CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) and rabble.ca, an e-zine whose current edition features a strongly anti-Catholic cartoon caricature of Pope Benedict XVI. In the animated cartoon, the pope repeatedly marches to a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then gives a Nazi salute with the caption “Heil Mary.”

Rabble.ca, published by well-known Canadian feminist Judy Rebick, is a project of Alternatives, a Montreal-based NGO funded by CIDA. One World Canada, also a project of Alternatives, is a partner of Rabble. However circuitous the route, at least some taxpayers’ money appears to be going to this publication.

In its letter to Mrs. Carroll, CCRL stated, “The league does not believe that any public money should be directed to a publication that freely insults Catholics, or indeed any other identifiable group. No matter how small the amount involved may be, it is unacceptable. We urge you to review this funding relationship.”

To express your concerns to Minister Carroll email: carroa@parl.gc.ca

I went over to rabble.ca’s site to see if there was any mention of this. Of course there wasn’t (at least on the front page) however I did find some information about “one world“. Basically it seems to be a collection of socialist organizations who masquerade as do-gooders: Unions, environmental groups, the Council of Canadians, a couple of rape crisis centers who are “feminist collectives” yada yada yada.

But here’s the interesting part:

OneWorld will not approve partnership applications from the following:

* organizations whose activities significantly contravene OneWorld’s objectives of promoting human rights and sustainable development;
* organizations directly or indirectly involved in the use of violence;
* organizations advocating intolerance on the grounds of ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation or religion; and
* political parties.

Commercial organizations are not specifically excluded, but will be required to demonstrate how their activities will further the shared aims of OneWorld.

OneWorld may also refuse applications on the basis of editorial judgements, including the quality, timeliness, relevance or presentation of information on a prospective partners’ site.

Did you catch that part that I bolded? How is Rabble.ca still a partner if they posted that anti-Catholic cartoon? Surely that is religious intolerance?

I say we start calling/emailing One World to demand to know why an organization that practices religious intolerance is allowed to be a partner.

Here’s the contact info:

OneWorld.ca
3720 Parc Ave. Suite 300
Montréal, Québec
H2X 2J1
Canada
tel: 1.514.982.6606
fax: 1.514.982.6122
e-mail: canada@oneworld.net

Now get busy minions.

Popularity: 5% [?]

You’d think the folks at PETA would have an inkling that Texas is not the place bring their radical protests.

However some of them did and in Brownsville they ran into some not so friendly natives.

They already hit me in McAllen,” said John Olivo, shortly before cranking KFC’s sprinkler system at full blast and soaking the curbside protestors.

“I was already waiting for them here in Brownsville,” he laughed.

The PETA members were also greeted by David Ingersoll, a Los Fresnos beef-eating supporter who showed up with his children to antagonize their protest.

When the chicken crossed the boulevard, he followed.

Armed with a microphone and a hand-held speaker, Ingersoll shot strait at the chicken protestors and outspoke them at one of the busiest intersections in the city in the middle of a hot South Texas afternoon.

“You bunch of crazy animal rights nuts!” he shouted. “You’re not going to win. Not in Brownsville!”

Texans, gotta love ‘em.

Oh and here’s the best quote from the article:

We’re out here today to raise awareness about the chickens,” said Link, a Baltimore native. “All we want them (slaughter houses) to do is gas the chickens instead of killing them.”

Ok.. so don’t kill them just gas them? Does he mean laughing gas?

Via Neale News

Popularity: 4% [?]

I’m too mad to write a response to this f**cking crap right now.

I’ll be in my room saying over and over again “What would Ted Nugent do?” “What would Ted Nugent do?” “What would Ted Nugent do?”

Popularity: 4% [?]