Ken, formerly of It Comes in Pints? fame, just got some bad news about his genealogy.  Seems he is a distant cousin of one Joseph R. Biden, Jr.  Yeah, that Joe Biden.

I know, I know.  But I think he'd be taking this better if he could get into the family business himself.  So I thought I'd get him a little something to help......

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:34 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Shamelessly ripped off from Jimbo of the Great Farookin' Hair™

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:28 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

caltechgirl it's not about IDEOLOGY, you fucking turd it's about breaking poor people's backs. Gas goes up $0.14/ gallon INSTANTLY

caltechgirl Sales tax OVER 10%, and then increases in income tax and car fees. Do you want people to MOVE OUT FASTER?

caltechgirl I wish I hated my house and I could afford to sell it. I'd leave CA tomorrow.

caltechgirl I can't afford to stay.

caltechgirl FTR, the fucking turd in question was some stupid ass liberal state senator who evidently only represents RICH PEOPLE

caltechgirl I
think if you find yourself in a hole this deep, the first question you
should be asking is not how do we fill the hole, but rather...

caltechgirl ... how did we get here? What are the bad decisions that led us here. And then don't repeat them.

caltechgirl Because you can only blame "the economy" so much.

caltechgirl I
thought the democrats were the champions of poor people. I guess that's
true only until they need them to bear the brunt of their mistakes.

The above was in response to some opportunist idiot on the TV taking advantage of the camera in his face to make the budget mess all about Democrats vs. Republicans.

That's just ignorant.  What it's about is how much are we going to take and who's listening.  Have you heard the man-on-the street interviews in the media?  NO ONE wants you to solve the problem by choking us to death with taxes.  NO ONE.  Yes, some tax increases are necessary, but how are we spending the money?  Isn't there something that can be done without shoving it, quite literally, on to the backs of your constituents?

I've heard both sides point out that this economy is based on spending.  Great.  Explain to me, then, how people can get the economy going by spending when it costs them more NOT ONLY to buy items, but also TO GET TO THE STORE. And more of their income goes back to the state to begin with.  These people are barely spending, and you're threatening to put a BIGGER hurt on their wallet?

You don't improve this state by taking money from people. You encourage them to give the state more than you would take by giving them incentives to buy.

As much as I hate the sheer size of the "porkulus" package that the President will sign tomorrow, I have to point out that it is based on INCENTIVES.  And maybe that's why people were willing to pass it.  Because the help is obvious.  It's money going to people.  Not coming out of their pockets.  At least not today.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 6 kb.

Ted Nugent is hunting a new animal these days, The Porkasaurus!

I'm on the track of one, a bigger more dangerous critter than I've ever hunted before: the Obama-Pelosi Porkosaurus.

The Porkosaurus is plenty dangerous by itself. It subsidizes unemployment by increasing unemployment benefits. And, as the man said, when you subsidize something you get more of it. It doesn't spend anything -- not one thin dime -- on the one thing that economists say is guaranteed to stimulate the economy, defense spending. And its whole purpose is to feed Fedzilla and make it grow even bigger, swallowing our economy whole.

If you've never read Ted before, you're in for a treat.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Scots-Irish.  But I digress.  Seems O'bama is too.  In fact, according to the Corrigans, there's no one as Irish as Barack O'bama. I thought this was hilarious.

h/t the always awesome Helen who is getting pretty tired of hearing this in the UK

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Republican rhetoric coming from The One, that is:

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 4 kb.

Just a few reflections on the Inauguration...

Funniest moment? Heard on C-Span open mike, Joe Biden arriving at the top of the stairs to walk down to the main platform: "Well, I made it."

Least expected moment? Rick Warren's prayer.  I am not a fan of public prayer.  For two reasons. One, prayer is (according to scripture) to be a personal, secret act.  Two, public praying tends to become a sideshow: quoting, telling God all kinds of shit he already knows, showboating by the pray-er.  You know what I mean.  Warren's prayer followed a more humble structure: he praised God's greatness, he humbled himself, he asked for intercesion, and ended with the Lord's Prayer.  Nice, actually.

Best moment? The Williams Quartet with YoYo Ma and Itzak Perlman.  Amazing.  And yes, I am a sucker for both Ma and Perlman.  Especially Perlman, whose playing regularly moves me to tears.

Most surreal moment: Again, captured by the C-Span open mike: At the end of Obama's oath, the crowd began chanting "CHANGE!" a la Randy Marsh.

By the time The One spoke, I was getting sleepy.  I noted that the first half of the speech sounded like a Republican (personal responsibility, huh?).  And then I crashed.

I could have done without Aretha.  Hang it up sister.  Your voice is going away, as it does to all divas at your age.  Let us remember you at your finest.  She did have a killer hat on, though.

Finally, poor Chief Justice.  His nerves got the best of him and he flubbed the Oath.  Here's hoping he gets it right in four years.

What say you?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:36 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I didn't watch. I am a head-burying ostrich Also, I'm at work.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at January 20, 2009 01:21 PM (PvqFn)

2 I had to work and didn't watch. Then again I wouldn't have watched even I wasn't working. I've never watched one in the past and really, I had no desire to start now.

Posted by: Contagion at January 20, 2009 04:06 PM (Jfxjt)

3 I hadn't planned to watch, but my new bosses had the tv on the entire day, and invited me to come watch the inauguration. So, despite what I said about it, apparently you COULD pay me to watch. I'm pissed to now know the names of both daughters. My goal for the next 4 was to never know their names. Thanks to Warren praying their names, I know them. Grrrr. I loved Aretha's hat, not her song. Loved Yo Yo Ma and Itzak Pearlman! My bosses had no clue who they were as I gushed. We're from very different backgrounds.

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at January 20, 2009 07:12 PM (0Pi1o)

4 Just tell me what's NOT racist about "when white will embrace what is right." Seriously.

Posted by: caltechgirl at January 20, 2009 11:30 PM (IfXtw)

5 Ah, I see. I thought originally you were talking about the color referencing -- I didn't realize you took offense only about the comment about white people. Yeah, that wasn't very PC, but I think you're personalizing it. It was said in hyperbole, referencing a long history of one ethnic group having power and control and not always having moral justification. It would be absurd if he meant that all white people today are bigoted racists. In fact, the text of that part of the benediction was about exercising racial caution. I didn't feel it was racist, but I guess I can see how some people would be sensitive to it -- my white husband didn't get offended and neither did most of my other white friends, as they focused on the spirit of what he said. But I am surprised that you would take offense to it, as then it would make a lot of things that you, your DH, and I have said into non-PC/racist stuff and certainly on our blogs.

Posted by: SBC at January 21, 2009 11:39 AM (L2+uQ)

6 i hated it all. the street fair mentality; what the moonbats did to president bush when he came in; michelle's clothes; lowery and his hateful self; even aretha's voice was disappointing. (i did like her hat somewhat though... very spiffy) rick warren i didn't mind too much. i know michelle's feet were positively bleeding after walking in the parade --- those heels looked like they were pinching bigtime. mostly, i hated the idea that W wasn't in the white house anymore. damn.

Posted by: kate at January 21, 2009 11:05 PM (8rwgl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yes, I am going to watch the festivities tomorrow.

I am going to watch the O-bots cheer as their messiah of the new raises his right hand and takes the same oath George Washington did, using the bible of Abraham Lincoln.

Folks, like it or not this is our new President.  Hail the peaceful transition of power so rare elsewhere, and common enough here that we take it for granted, don't ignore it like it will go away.

It's not going away for four more years.   I for one can't hold my breath that long under the sand.

I am going to watch and rant and yell obscenities at the TV, at the idiots who don't remember the past as they bow down and worship The One.  I am also going to cheer the new President and enjoy the presentations of the Inaugural Parade.

Because really folks, this is it.  It's our history, like it or not, and we can be there for it, or we can pretend it didn't happen.  I'm of the opinion that the revolution WILL be televised.  And YouTubed.  And I'd prefer to be able to talk about it firsthand anyway.

I don't blame those of you on media blackout.  I get it.  I feel you.  But I just can't help but think it's another form of denial.  And I can't be in denial for 4 more years.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:22 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm one of those on blackout. And yes, I'm embracing my denial... but it won't last long, trust me.

Posted by: pam at January 20, 2009 09:34 AM (l6NIn)

2 Your pictures are amazing! I also fell in love with Morocco and now live in Marrakech. Please feel free to visit my website: Morocco Property Wishing you all the best Salim

Posted by: Salim Arkadan at January 21, 2009 05:08 PM (ddgTx)

3 I was with you - watched it all... Good grief. I think I said - "holy crap we're fucked!" 3 times... Yeesh...

Posted by: Richmond at January 21, 2009 05:59 PM (77JrH)

4 I am all about fairness. I didn't watch Bush or any other president's inauguration. Plus, I have to work to pay my taxes!

Posted by: Amy at January 22, 2009 03:32 AM (R8Y8+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If the Presidential fraternity in the sky could advise Barack Obama they'd send... Richard Nixon.

"Honestly," Nixon began, "there are a number of racists among the group. I am not one of them. Slavery was and racism is the great moral failing of America. I don't want to see you fail."

Nixon appeared to take a deep breath and he turned away from Obama and looked out the window towards the Washington Monument. "I don't want to see you fail. I failed because of my own hubris. My failings were avoidable if I hadn't been blind to what I was doing. You and I became president at a unique time in America's history. Deeply unpopular wars were underway abroad. Deep discord infected everything at home. I had a chance for greatness. You have a chance for greatness. You and I share times more similar than you think. I can help you if you want my help. If you don't... Well, I can go back and leave you be."

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point.  Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER.  The ballots have been counted.  The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you.  It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic.  Which, as we LA folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it.  Wipe your tears.  Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way.  The SMART way.  Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you.  That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night.  Seriously.  Do you WANT to play to stereotypes?  Do you think that's anyway to bring people to your cause?  Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable from a "bunch of whiny sissies"...

You have plenty of recourse beyond crying in the street: go to court now, although I doubt you'll get far with that (for two reasons*), AND put it back on the ballot as soon as you can.  And in the meantime, conduct yourselves so as to make people feel more favorable toward gay marriage outside of CA's two big urban centers.

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad.  In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street.  Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE.  Not whiny, childish, idiots.  There's a lot of stereotype to get past.  This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election.  But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general.  By everyone.  We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another.  Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. only bigots vote yes on . People will vote their conscience.  Help them understand what they fear.

Welcome Instapundit fans! Thanks for dropping by! Feel fee to click around and come back if you see something you like!

** Two reasons (in my completely non-legal opinion) below the fold:
more...

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:32 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 5 kb.

I went to sleep around midnight, after gorging myself on the scant hour of local returns coverage we got, courtesy of overzealous networks that wanted to rehash the historic events of yesterday.

On waking this morning I found myself very reflective. How am I going to respond to what happened yesterday.  Instinctively, I reach for Pollyanna: everything will work out great! But I know better.

The truth is, I would like to spend the next four years nitpicking and slamming and treating Barack Obama with all of the disrespect that was lavished on George W Bush for the last 8 years, and for the same non-reasons.  But I can't do that.  The man IS the President-elect, and let's be honest, he ran a hell of a campaign.  I'm not saying it wasn't dirty, or race-baiting (hell, all you have to do is turn on a TV and see a crying black person exalting about "we're" in the White House to know that), or that it was the best campaign ever.  I'm just saying he did more, had a better strategy, and all around out-foxed the other guy and his people.

Last night's speeches were probably the best of the campaign, particularly McCain's heartfelt concession, which I thought was the ultimate in class.

President Bush's speech this morning was also thoughtful and classy, and it struck me as one of the best from him in a long time.

He and Senator McCain must be so relieved this morning.  That it's over!

I honestly don't know what's going to happen.  My own prediction is that the Democrats will soon be victims of their own success.  With such large legislative majorities, they can't blame it on the Republican whipping boy anymore.  Combine that with the deep divide in the party that began with ultra-liberal vs moderate democrats and grew over the race between Barry and Hillary.  Which creates an opportunity for the GOP to remind people what they are all about, without the looming "spectre" of George Bush and Dick Cheney as the faces of the party.

The pendulum swings, and this time it has swung towards something entirely different and unknown.  All of the TV talking heads made this point last night, a question I have raised before, as well: WHO is Barack Obama? What will his policies be?  How will he lead this country?  The campaign always focused on Obama the man, not Obama the leader.  Even the most enlightened political insiders are unsure of what's next.

Which brings me to my last point.  Listen, I appreciate that racism is a visceral thing for many blacks.  That the memory of discrimination is palpable.  But this isn't 1968.  Racism isn't what you think.  It does not exist the way that you remember.  White people don't automatically see black folks as less.  I've seen so many black people on TV saying that NOW (only NOW???) they were going to tell their children to dream big dreams.  WHAT???  Why aren't you teaching your children to dream big dreams already?  Why can't they succeed?  Maybe because you're teaching them that they can't?

AUUUGH.  It grates.  That black folks are "proud to be an American again" that black children "now have a chance"  GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES.  This amazing country is a place where ANY child has the opportunity to become ANYTHING.  Nowhere else do children born in poverty have the opportunity to rise to the heights of fortune and fame.  And you take it for granted and piss it all away because you think, THINK, that someone will try to take it away from you because your keratocytes take up more melanin.

This ladies and gentlemen is the culture of victimhood.  That because we've never had a black president, you couldn't let your children dream of being the president.  How the fuck are we ever going to get there if we don't think of it first?

So I will congratulate Barry Obama.  He won, seemingly fair and square.  Sure, I could point out that the black dude won so nobody's bitching, but that would be counterproductive and petty.  I will congratulate him, and at the same time let him know that we are all watching.  And we will hold him to his promise to hear our voices.  And we will hold him accountable.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:09 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Excellent post! Couldn't have said it better myself. And didn't.

Posted by: pam at November 05, 2008 09:24 AM (l6NIn)

2 Clap. Almost rocket science.

Posted by: Two Dogs at November 05, 2008 10:25 AM (ZiMYt)

3 If what Michelle was wearing last night is any hint of future-fashion, we're in for a bumpy ride. But I'm more concerned with his upcoming Supreme Court nominations, and expect to see the return of some very ugly policies like the Fairness Doctrine and another AWB. We're so screwed.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 05, 2008 10:32 AM (VNM5w)

4 Excellent post CTG. And I felt better after reading this today... http://chizumatic.mee.nu/not_the_end_of_the_world It is what it is...

Posted by: Richmond at November 05, 2008 10:42 AM (XW9e/)

5 Excellent! You articulated so well what we were batting around here in the wee hours...

Posted by: Marie at November 05, 2008 11:10 AM (UunPp)

6 awesome sam. well said -- especially the racism aspects. it grieves me to no end that 1/2 the country basically voted for socialism.

Posted by: kate at November 05, 2008 11:27 AM (Zq135)

7 I have to echo something you said on this post...it drives me batty sometimes about how the African American community claims so much success because of Barack Obama's stunning campaign. I get a little annoyed because it was his white mother and white grandparents that raised him, and if I recall at the start of the primary, there were accusations that he wasn't "black" enough. It annoys me too. As a person of color, its great to see this one wall shatter (though I disagree that systematic racism has been obliterated), and I actually do understand the whole "dreaming" thing with the kids. It's not so much that they couldn't let their children dream about reaching the highest office in the land...it's more about not tempering it with realism. Let's face it -- the exceptional break the walls for the rest of us, and sometimes they can't do it because of where society is at the time. I think of it being akin to parents talking to their kids about being actors. Yeah, sure you could become a huge actor/actress, but you know, you probably should have a fall back degree or job because it doesn't really happen and you shouldn't expect it (seriously, how many non-gorgeous actresses are successful on the big screen). At least when *I* read about it, that's what I think. Sure, things are possible but now there is some empirical evidence. I don't like the culture of victimhood either but when I step back and look at the big picture, this is what I'm seeing. But I didn't vote for Obama twice (primary and general) because he's black or because he would break racial walls. I voted for him because he is closer aligned to my value system than the other candidates...and, and I'll admit this: I voted for him because he was an intellectual. I want someone *very* smart (not just above average) in the office...I want someone who will bring in other smart people and listen to opposing opinions before he makes decisions as opposed to only bringing in your friends or people who share your own values. I am freaking giddy about this actually. And maybe some people didn't think he was that smart...and I don't know if I would have said he was two years ago...but he is the only man to beat the Clinton machine AND the RNC. That takes balls and brains. Call me elitist, I don't care. In summary: Anyone who says I voted for Obama-Biden because of race will get a serious tongue lashing from me. And mind you, I am waiting for my party to fuck it up royally. They always do. I'm just hoping it will take a little longer this time. I just want him to keep it in his pants... (BTW, why do you refer to him Barry? Not just in this post, but in others. Even if that is what his family and friends called him, it's not like you're his close friend. I would seriously be upset with you if you referred to me by something other than my professional name in public...not that I think you even know my family name, but nonetheless, I would be very pissy. Then again, I didn't like the media referring to Senator Clinton as Hillary either, so maybe it just means more to me.)

Posted by: SBC at November 05, 2008 12:52 PM (5S9Yt)

8 Well, President Barry is better than President YoMama for sure! But I'm find it interesting that you think by him using his full name was more politically expedient than Barry and his mother's maiden name. I wonder how much the Barry thing affected him growing up. You know, when we moved from Jersey City to SJ when I was younger, my sister had to take this Americanized abbreviation of her name. She didn't want to, but the teachers refused to learn her name and it just stuck. So for years she wasn't called by her professional name...and that's how most people knew her as growing up. But she HATED it. In fact, when she went to Caltech, she made it a point that everyone call her by her full name. To my understanding, when Obama really entered the professional field, he embraced his full name like my sister. I, on the other hand during the move, in the second grade had audacity to not let my teachers off the hook. Apparently, I said something on the first day to extent of, "I will teach you to say my name right until you learn it." And every year, I had to go through the same thing, "it would just be easier" or "well we could shorten it up"...by the time I was in HS I really was just so angry about the issue that they backed down within 30s. But I am truly unique to have developed this at such a young age. Most other people I know with similar issues just took whatever American bastardization of the name that school kids or teachers made and they seemed to resent it. So either way, I guess the name thing is a bit important to me. I want people to recognize me fully so I try really hard to recognize them fully...you know actually referring to the Chinese by their Chinese name instead of their American one. ::shrug:: It's one of my things I realize... So, is your cousin seriously thinking about running for office or was that just an example you were giving?

Posted by: SBC at November 05, 2008 02:58 PM (5S9Yt)

9 Hmmm... Here I thought that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Great post, CTG.

Posted by: Conservative Belle at November 05, 2008 03:14 PM (xlHsB)

10 My sentiments exactly. Of course, I took all of four lines to say it so it didn't sound nearly as thoughtful or eloquent as yours.

Posted by: Lauren at November 05, 2008 03:25 PM (Pt1kf)

11 SBC, Thank you for giving me another perspective to look at.

Posted by: Lauren at November 05, 2008 03:27 PM (Pt1kf)

12 I think that electing BHO has now taken racism, as an excuse to fail, off the board. "The Man" isn't holding anyone down now. He isn't going to pay off your mortgage either. The honeymoon will be short.

Posted by: Baddog at November 05, 2008 07:28 PM (t/pEj)

13 Hi, I'm Hazel Jones and I work in a company interested in blog advertising. I found your blog engaging and I'm contacting you to ask if you are interested in blog post sponsorship. If you are interested, kindly mail back at k5sino@bigstring.com, indicating your blog for reference, and I'll send you back pricing details, guidelines and processes. Looking forward to doing business with you. Sincerely, Hazel Jones

Posted by: Hazel Jones at November 05, 2008 10:40 PM (XY940)

14 Note that I have gone by Joseph at work and school for the past five years, so much so that (1) I actually find it weird to sign off emails and be referred to as Joe now, and (2) I get cranky when ppl at work suddenly start calling me Joe despite what I write in my email. Similarly -- "Billy" Clinton? "Ricky" Nixon? "Johnnie" Kennedy? Hm, well there was Jimmy Carter to be sure, and there's a case for Ronnie Reagan, but by and large Prez candidates go for the more 'serious', professional-sounding version of their name. And do NOT tell me the conservatives and others wouldn't have accused him of running away from his 'true' self (and lent credence to the 'secret Muslim' bullcrap) if he'd insisted on being billed as Barry. Indeed, I think it was a combo of the professional full name and the preemptive 'yeah, it's Barack' than the 'hey liberals who will already like voting for a stable black man, I'm multi cultural too!'

Posted by: Joe at November 06, 2008 09:54 AM (wKdud)

15 actually, it was Bill Clinton (rather than William) and Dick Nixon (rather than Richard). Eisenhower preferred "Ike", Truman was Harry, and Ford was usually called "Jerry". Hell, LBJ preferred his initials, hence why we still call him that 40 years later. So I don't see the hang up over Barry vs Barack. But as I said to someone yesterday in meatspace, if it really is about a professional redirection, I'll happily drop the Barry thing. But I doubt it.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 06, 2008 10:59 AM (IfXtw)

16 Not to nitpick, because I really enjoyed your thoughtful and eloquent post, but he actually "distanced himself" from being called Barry when he went to Columbia - twenty years or more ago. Came via Margi's place, and I just wanted to echo your last line. We're on common ground on at least one point: as an Obama supporter, I will be holding him accountable, too.

Posted by: Jennifer at November 06, 2008 06:41 PM (s7/kM)

17 Jennifer, many thanks for the fyi on when he shifted to Barry! Any chance this is documented online, for confirmation? Eh, I bet it can be found via simple googling... but I'm just so *lazy*. :-) And as an ostensibly unbiased journalist by training, I'm hoping the members of the media will also hold Obama, his admimistration, the Dems new and old, AND the Republicans all accountable as well. If I get me a proper j-job, I promise I will.

Posted by: Joe at November 07, 2008 08:03 AM (wKdud)

18 It's in his books. Also covered in the first paragraph of this Newsweek article from March 2008.

Posted by: Jennifer at November 07, 2008 11:48 AM (1aLkV)

19 Ooh, is that my ill-informed showing? Thanks, Jennifer. As for other presidents' names, I concede Ike and Harry, of course, but I'd split hairs saying Bill isn't as casual as Barry, LBJ certainly isn't a casual name, Ford wasn't elected POTUS, and the rest weren't elected under their more casually known first names. Even if you count Bill & Jerry, it's 12-6 in favor of formal since Teddy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/chronological.html Yay totally pointless statistics! :-D

Posted by: Joe at November 07, 2008 08:19 PM (JLqd9)

20 I think that I have a plan for the future, if you are interested. The Republican future.

Posted by: Two Dogs at November 08, 2008 12:11 AM (6qN3R)

21 Just took a quick glance Jennifer at the Newsweek article, and thanks for pointing it out. It actually does seem to echo a little bit of what my sister went through and since it seems like he changed it in Columbia, well before he was a politicians, its not about him changing it 2 or 4 years ago for political ambitions. And CTG, its not a hangup -- I didn't mean to make it such a large part of the posting, I really was just curious why you kept on using it. As I said before, *I* probably have a thing about names, dealing with my own identity issues growing up in this society. I take names and titles pretty seriously and I make it a point to try and be respectful whenever I came (say always referring you to as Dr. G******** instead of your first name to your students). You can ask Joe, I never call our current president W, always his last name or full name or President Bush. If he's going by Barack Obama, I call him Barack Obama. If Bill Clinton is going by Bill Clinton as opposed to William, I'll call him that too (though I always say Richard Nixon instead of Dick). But again this is just ME, I personally find it an issue of respect, but by no means, meant it to be some hang up.

Posted by: SBC at November 08, 2008 08:48 AM (JLqd9)

22 well, after that campaign he'll have to EARN my respect.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 08, 2008 09:37 PM (IfXtw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That argument doesn't hold water anymore.  This country just elected a black man as President.

It's gonna be an interesting two years.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:04 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, it's over for me anyway.  As of 7:15 this morning.

Our polling place is at a little church a block or so away, and we thought the lines would be small this morning, so we decided to chance it.

Arriving at just before 6:45, this is what we found:

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been thinking a lot about Prop 8.  It's the only ballot measure I haven't yet decided on.

My head tells me to vote yes and tell activist liberal judges to get a fucking clue.  That CA's registered Domestic Partnership law provides the same rights to gay couples who register as marriage does to straight couples.  That marriage is a construct not of the state, but of the church, and really the RDP law should apply to gays and straights both as a "civil union," a mere contract.  That "marriage" is solemnized and consecrated by your belief system, whatever that is, and abides by those rules.  God's rules.  Or gods' rules.  Whatever you believe.  Not the state's rules. 

I worry about the consequences for churches and ministers who are against marrying gay couples, for whatever reason.  Will they be breaking the law if they refuse?  Will they lose their 501 status? Will anyone be allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong or state that belief?  It may be bigoted, but in this country, people have a right to believe as they choose.  We call it Freedom of Religion.

And you know, I just am so tired of all the in-your-faceness of the Prop 8 fight.  I just want to vote no to say HA!  Keep your "whether you like it or not" and all your Gay PDA on TV (for the record, all PDA on TV makes me sick, we've just seen a lot of it with this Prop 8 thing).  It makes me want to be perverse and give all the Prop 8 opponents the finger.

But my heart tells me differently.

As I've mentioned many times on this blog, one of my dearest friends is gay, and he married his partner about 5 years ago in one of the most beautiful, heartfelt weddings I have ever seen.  I was proud to be a "bridesmaid" and stand up for them, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.  I remember feeling so clearly the love between them, and seeing how precious they were to each other.  I could never take away from them the things that DH and I have, the comfort of knowing we are each other's first and last resort, that we make each other's life and death decisions, that we share the rights and responsibilities of our life together for better and for worse.

I received this today, via email.  I hope my friend won't mind me sharing it with you in part, and with the names redacted, of course.

Hi Everyone,

As you know, we're barely a day away from the most historic election of our time. But as you are also probably well aware, there's a lot more at stake than the Presidency.

Here in California, one of the most important -- and one of the closest -- issues you can vote on is Prop 8.

Prop 8 seeks to eliminate fundamental rights for one group of people. If passed, Prop 8 would take away something very close to Nick and me: our marriage. I trust you agree that eliminating fundamental rights -- from anyone -- is unfair and wrong.

...

If you want to help but don't have much time, here's something simple you can do:

The simplest thing you can do is to call everyone you know when you have a few free minutes on Tuesday and bug them to go vote if they haven't. Even if they say in advance that they'll vote, call them on Election Day to make sure they've voted. Even if it looks like the Presidential contest is over nationally by 5 or 6 pm our time, it's still critical that everyone goes to the polls to vote NO on 8. And even if it's raining, and even if the lines are long ... that shouldn't matter.

Finally, please modify and pass along this e-mail to everyone you know in California.

(And, no, you don't need to call N or me on Election Day -- we have both already voted by absentee ballot.)

Thanks so much for all your support!

Love,
A (& N)

Posted by: caltechgirl at 02:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 779 words, total size 5 kb.

You are all a bunch of fucking hypocrites.  That's right.  I said hypocrites.  I call BS on you and, as they say in South Park, I declare shenanigans!

Some idiot with bad taste and a worse sense of humor hangs a Sarah Palin doll from a noose and you don't respond?  Dare I even suggest that you think it's funny because she's running against your Obamessiah?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 10 years ago you all were so mad about a BEAR in a noose that you forced USC to abandon a decades old student tradition of hanging bruins (the UCLA mascot) from tiny nooses.  LITTLE TINY TEDDY BEARS. In UCLA shirts.  You said it was racist.  You said that it was reminiscent of the lynching of black men by the KKK.  You said you were offended.  So we stopped hanging TEDDY BEARS.

I get your point, though.  Hanging people is not a joke.  It's MURDER.  And that's never funny.

And now, these people have NOT A BEAR, but a life-size mannequin of a woman, dressed as Sarah Palin, hanging from a noose in their yard and you say not one word.  Why?

I'll bet my house that if it was Barry Obama swinging from the yardarm you'd have had 3 press conferences already, and called the police out to arrest these homeowners for a hate crime.  Perhaps for racial intimidation.

And yet you say nothing about this.  I'm offended by it, and I'm clearly not black.  Not as a conservative, or because I am a woman, but because I think it's disgusting.  Hanging a bear, or a skeleton, or something clearly not representing a particular person is one thing, demonstrating by your Halloween display that you wish someone a painful death is quite another.

And I still want to hear your outrage.  If you all could muster that kind of vitriol for a few teddy bears, I bet you can come out and preach it about this Sarah Palin mannequin.

I'll be sure to be there to support you when you do.

Regards,
CTG

h/t Flap

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:08 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Of course they won't say anything. Just like that display someone had of McCain doing the KKK thing chasing BO. They are all hypocrites. BTW, I love it when you're so mad you curse.

Posted by: Stacy at October 27, 2008 08:16 AM (92p8H)

2 I can't believe the outrageous crap these idiots have been pulling! I'll be sooo glad when this election is over... except when I said that to my husband this morning he said: "even when it's over it won't be over". Spoilsport.

Posted by: pam at October 27, 2008 08:18 AM (l6NIn)

3 Just down the road from me a guy had a ghost hanging from a tree with Obama printed on it; everyone was up in arms, wanting to burn the racist's house, etc etc...good gawd people, get a grip! I agree, if this had been a black, male mannequin there would have been hell to pay, I bet!

Posted by: Michele at October 27, 2008 08:27 AM (Jplxy)

4 This is so disgusting that I am sick to my stomach. It's absolute BS to say its ok because its Halloween. Absolute BS. I'm sure people on both sides think this is disgusting.

Posted by: SBC at October 27, 2008 09:10 AM (5s6Ga)

5 Totally wrong. Only a fool can defend murdering and lynching effigies.

Posted by: Joe C. at October 27, 2008 09:53 AM (wKdud)

6 OMG, I am totally in love with your blog. Love your writing style. I must come back. I agree with you on this post, what is wrong with people? I have no answers, only further questions. It makes me sick.

Posted by: Leslie at October 27, 2008 03:30 PM (ovRlN)

7 Un-fucking-believable!

Posted by: Lauren at October 27, 2008 04:17 PM (Pt1kf)

8 He may not be your favorite person, but Keith Olbermann just named this idiot who made the effigy art the "Worst Person in the World" today. He repudiated it his show which I'm sure you can see eventually up.

Posted by: SBC at October 27, 2008 06:03 PM (JLqd9)

9 I'm sure you got their attention. Uh-huh.

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at October 27, 2008 08:40 PM (Q3iRb)

10 It's sick and disgusting to the nth degree, but not at all surprising. These idiots are so bigoted, racist, and downright stupid, I'm never surprised by how low they will stoop in pursuit of their goal. No matter which candidate it had been - yes even Obama or Biden hung in effigy - it's wrong. It's not art and it's not cute. We don't see this being done by the other side and if it were done, it would be roundly condemned. But at least we know the "enemy". We have seen what they accept without a blink. Remember this, know what you're fighting so you are never taken off guard or think they have anything resembling "feelings".

Posted by: Teresa at October 28, 2008 03:50 PM (mMa3+)

11 I think between the attack hoax in Pittsburgh and the recent ATF bust of skinheads plotting to assasinate Obama and a number of African Americans, there's plenty of crap coming from the conservative side too. These are the outliers that tarnish the political process that makes this country great. But pray tell, please inform me of who the "enemy" is. And how should a good American respond to such "enemies." Just curious. Really.

Posted by: SBC at October 28, 2008 08:03 PM (JLqd9)

12 I totally agree - it's an offensive display. How is it that women somehow escaped the "hate crimes" definition? I'm sure that many violent crimes are committed against women because someone hated their gender and wanted to exert control.

Posted by: Conservative Belle at October 29, 2008 03:29 AM (r0SN0)

13 You're right, see this: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081029/world/obama_effigy_6

Posted by: Contagion at October 30, 2008 04:42 PM (V7qLP)

14 Contagion beat me to posting the opposing story of someone doing the same thing with Obama's image.

Posted by: Amy at November 01, 2008 11:05 AM (IGC2m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Finally, I rant on the election (in stream of consciousness at 1am, so please excuse the grammar and typos and occasional lack of punctuation):

First up, John McCain.  I'm going to set aside any personality issues I have with him, and even issues with why he is the candidate, and grant, up front, that he is the candidate for the republicans.  He's tough, smart, clearly qualified for the job, and probably ready for it.  He's also plenty healthy or he wouldn't be jumping around the country like a 12 year old, so fuck off to all you twits who say that he can't live out the term.  I really have little else to say about John, except that I can't believe his temper hasn't got the better of him yet, and I wish we had a better candidate, rather than the default guy (Fred!  I miss you!  You would have stuck it to Obama every chance you got instead of smiling like a pansy!)

Which brings me to Sarah Palin.  You have all underestimated her.  All of you naysayers, Republicans and Democrats alike.  The woman is NOT stupid.  I repeat, NOT STUPID.  She is very bright, and like many clearly bright people, is counting on her intelligence to pull her through an experience she was NOT prepared for.  What you see is a classy chick trying to hold up her end of the bargain and do the job she KNOWS she can do as VP, even though maybe she wasn't clear on what this campaign would be like.

I have no doubt that she would be a good VP, and even, God forbid, a good President.  There's nothing wrong with her that can't be said of the 3 dudes on the tickets.  And seriously, all this hoohah over $150,000 for clothes and makeup?  Are you kidding me?  How much did Hillary or Barry spend on the same things?  I know he wears makeup; I can see it on the TV.  And how much were Biden's teeth and hairplugs?  I mean come ON. If you're going there, I can too. 

How fucking scared are the Democrats when all they can pull on her is that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant (but remember that according to them this is pregnancy #2 and she delivered Trig while knocked up with this baby) and her supporters spent a lot of money so she could look nice.  Give me a motherfucking break.  What about Obama and Bill Ayers?  What about the ex- Fannie Mae CEO that ran Fannie into the ground and left in disgrace (but $90 mil RICHER) before Obama asked him for advice.  Can we please put this in perspective?

Why does she scare you people so?  Is it because you can't remember how to deal with people like the Palins?  Or maybe that she's smarter than you?  Or (gasp) that voters see her as real, approachable, and sensible in the ways that your candidate is not?  And we're talking about the potential VP here, not the POTUS candidate.

Honestly, if Sarah Palin was really as much of a non-entity, in that milquetoast-vanilla-Dan Quayle way, as the liberals are foaming at the mouth to portray her, would it be WORTH all the effort?  I mean let's face it.  Dan Quayle was a fucking farce. A joke.  From DAY 1.  DAY 1. And Bush, Sr. knew it.  But he got away with it because Dukakis was a joke as a candidate too.  Sarah Palin is no joke.

Verily, I am amused at the sheer panic, the slavering, the need to get a dig in at her.  To make people feel bad about supporting her.  Why do that if she's Dan Quayle all over again?  Seriously, if she's a joke just let her shoot herself in the foot.

Let's step over to another Sarah issue: Trooper-gate.  This might have some teeth, and could be a real issue, but you notice no one in the media is pushing this very hard, even though hearings are taking place.  Why?  Because there is NO there there.  The person who asked for the initial inquiry isn't even the guy who was fired.  It's the sour grapes guy who lost to Sarah in the gubernatorial election.  Don't believe me?  Do the Google search yourself.  Look at the articles in the Anchorage paper and the verified supporting documents posted all over the internet.  The evidence is all out there.

I think the real problem with Sarah Palin is that a lot of smart people like to think they succeeded in life because they are smart, and they automatically assume that all the fuck-ups in this world are the not-smart ones.  People like President Bush, and Sarah Palin, who present themselves to the world as less than uber-intelligent, and succeed ANYWAY, threaten that world view. 

I can see some of you squirming.  I know you.  I went to school with you.  I work with you.  Hell, I AM you from time to time.  I know what I am talking about and there's no denying it.  I freely admit to having an occasional elitist moment.  Smart people often have a certain world view about intelligence and ignorance: tolerance and acceptance is intelligent, rejection and exception are not; Environmentalism is intelligent, questioning or denying global warming is ignorant; Getting a college education is intelligent, going without shows your ignorance.... I could go on and on.  Smart people are (or at least THINK they are) informed and tolerant, they want to give back and save the world and make everybody equal.  And if you don't agree with those simple, wonderful things, you're ignorant, too.

Well, then kiss my ignorant PhD-covered ass.  Because I don't agree. 

People are amazing, and intelligent without a college degree or a fancy job or shared beliefs.  That's the whole principle of Academic Freedom.  We learn from each other by sharing our diverse ideas.  Not by censoring, or dismissing out of hand the ones we think are ignorant.  Ignorance is bliss after all.  And the paradigm shifts born of ignorance have generally changed our world for the better.

Sarah Palin and George Bush clearly don't fit the paradigm.  And well, we fear that which we do not understand.

And another thing about this election, a question I am DYING to ask my students (but which would reveal my own political leanings, something I am careful NOT to do.  They pay me to teach Biology, not politics), or any democratic voter, is WHY do people love Barry Obama so much?  Do you know what he stands for?  Or are you only voting for him because of his position on the War?  Do you even understand the implications of THAT?  Are you voting for him simply because he's the Democrat?  Because he's not George Bush?  What did Bush do to you anyway?  Do you understand what that means (in a real sense, not linguistically)?  Do you even know what the Republican platform says?  Hell, what the Democratic platform says? When Obama says change, what does that mean to you?  How do you think that will work?  What can he change, how will that help you?  How exactly has Obama demonstrated to you by his actions that he is ready to be President?

As an informed voter, I can answer all of those questions with regard to why I am voting for McCain.  I would guess many McCain supporters can, but that may be a personal bias.  what the fuck, though, it's my blog, my opinion.

I would also guess that many Obama supporters can NOT.

Look, I think it's great Obama is running.  I love that our country has become so colorblind that any person of color could run for any office.  And yet, Obama's supporters focus on the negative: that racism is the only reason keeping people from voting for him.  Give me a fucking break.  Could it be that we disagree with him?  Are black conservatives racist, too, because they choose to vote for McCain?  I figure it this way if Obama wins, no one can ever pull the race card again.  I mean, is there any greater measure of how far we've come than to elect a black man as our President?  I mean holy shit, a black man and a woman running against each other! (yeah, yeah, I know, but you can excuse the conflation of the tickets to make my point)

I wish people wouldn't bring up race.  We'll always have racism until we stop talking about it.  My words included.

I wish I understood people's motivations better.  Hence the questions, above.  Maybe then I wouldn't be so angry at the political discourse that seems so full of invective.  More this year than I can ever remember.  Except for one occasion when I saw a young lady wearing a t-shirt that still haunts me.  But that's a rant for another post on why the electoral college is important.

I have a number of friends who are voting for Obama.  I am proud that some of them can actually answer the questions I have posed, and I respect them for making an informed decision, and politely disagree.  I just wonder what percentage of voters on both sides actually can.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:18 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1554 words, total size 9 kb.

1 I love reading what the smart girl has to say. Bravo!!!

Posted by: Greta Perry at October 23, 2008 03:20 AM (Xl4tG)

2 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/720xgfha.asp Loathing Sarah Palin Months Hate of feminists. by Joseph Epstein 10/27/2008, Volume 014, Issue 07 The liberal women I know--and most of the women I seem to know are liberal--loathe Sarah Palin. They don't merely dislike her, the way one tends to dislike politicians whose views are not one's own, they actively detest her. When her name comes up--and it is they who tend to bring it up--their complexions take on a slightly purplish tinge, their eyes cross in rage. "Moron" is their most frequently used noun, though "idiot" comes up a fair number of times; "that woman" is yet another choice. A wide variety of adjectives, differing only slightly in their violence, usually precede these epithets. Liberal men don't show the same fervent distaste for Governor Palin. They are more likely to say she doesn't come close to being qualified for the job of vice president and is frightening to contemplate as president. They might add that his choice of Sarah Palin is a serious sign of John McCain's flawed judgment, or of his political opportunism. The standard phrase "a heartbeat away" may come up. But then they let it go. They don't take Sarah Palin so personally, so passionately, as their liberal female counterparts do; the element of anger isn't there. During his presidential campaign Mike Huckabee expressed a set of opinions not strikingly different from Sarah Palin's, yet my guess is that if he were John McCain's running mate these same women would not despise him with the same vehemence they do Sarah Palin. Some of this is due to snobbery, some possibly to envy. Governor Palin is, after all, a good-looking woman with what appears to be a happy family life who has achieved a great deal in a relatively brief time. But above all Sarah Palin's opinions, because they are held by her, a woman, suggest betrayal. One might think that liberal women would have some admiration for Governor Palin's appearing to have solved the working mother problem that bedevils most contemporary American women. She is very feminine yet doesn't regard herself as a victim, and seems to be entirely at ease with men. Here is a woman raising five children who is able not only to have an active hand in the life of her community but actually win the highest political office in her state. As the governor of Alaska, moreover, she took on the corrupt elements in her own party, which requires courage of a kind liberated women especially, one would think, might admire. Perhaps Sarah Palin's having a pregnant teenage daughter permits these same women to feel that she hasn't really solved the working mother problem after all. Yet teenage pregnancy is something that anyone who has a daughter or a granddaughter lives in terror of, for it can happen, as they say, in the best of families. Yet Sarah Palin seems to be handling this, too, with a measure of dignified calm and tolerance that most of us, in similar circumstances, probably couldn't bring to it. But she gets no credit for this either, at least not from the women I know who so relentlessly contemn her. Strongly liberal women get most agitated over the issue--though of course to them it is no issue but a long since resolved matter--of abortion. Abortion, to be sure, is the great third-rail subject in American politics. But when a male politician is against abortion, these women can write that off as the ignorance of a standard politician, if not himself a Christian fundamentalist, then another Republican cynically going after the fundamentalist vote. A woman not in favor of abortion is something quite different. And it is all the more strikingly different when the same woman not only holds this opinion on abortion but acts on it and knowingly bears a child with Down syndrome, a child that most liberal women would have thought reason required aborting. What else, after all, is abortion for? A few months ago Vanity Fair ran an article about the discovery that the playwright Arthur Miller, with his third wife, the photographer Inge Morath, 40 or so years ago had a Down syndrome son. Miller promptly clapped the boy into an institution--according to the article, not a first class one either--and never saw the child again. Most people would have taken this for a heartless act, one should have thought, especially on the part of a man known for excoriating the putative cruelties of capitalism and the endless barbarities of his own country's governments, whether Democratic or Republican. Yet, so far as one can tell, Arthur Miller's treatment of his own child has not put the least dent in his reputation, while Sarah Palin's having, keeping, and loving her Down syndrome child is somehow, by the standard of the liberal woman of our day, not so secretly thought the act of an obviously backward and ignorant woman, an affront to womanhood. "Her greatest hypocrisy," proclaimed Wendy Doniger, one of the leading feminist lights at the University of Chicago, "is her pretense that she is a woman." The daughter of a dear friend of mine used to say of her mother, "I sense her rage." Of course when the daughter said this, my friend's rage would only increase. Suggesting that liberal women feel rage over Sarah Palin is, similarly, likely only to enrage them all the more. But rage in their reaction to Governor Palin is emphatically what I do sense on the part of liberal women--that and delight in any attempt to humiliate her. (Tina Fey, take a bow, and, hey, let's watch that Katie Couric YouTube interview one more time!) I wonder if the women who loathe Sarah Palin with such intensity oughtn't perhaps to reexamine the source of their strongly illiberal feelings. Joseph Epstein, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is the author most recently of Fred Astaire.

Posted by: CS at October 23, 2008 04:54 AM (wsSLm)

3 "People are amazing, and intelligent without a college degree or a fancy job or shared beliefs. That's the whole principle of Academic Freedom. We learn from each other by sharing our diverse ideas. Not by censoring, or dismissing out of hand the ones we think are ignorant." I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Michele at October 23, 2008 05:52 AM (basue)

4 I love it, every blessed word!

Posted by: pam at October 23, 2008 06:44 AM (l6NIn)

5 Beautifully stated!!

Posted by: Michele at October 23, 2008 06:59 AM (Jplxy)

6 You, my friend, should run for president! ;-)

Posted by: Amanda at October 23, 2008 07:11 AM (ay+rD)

7 sam i so agree. well said. i especially identify with this part... 'I can see some of you squirming. I know you. I went to school with you. I work with you. Hell, I AM you from time to time. I know what I am talking about and there's no denying it. I freely admit to having an occasional elitist moment' smart chicks rock.

Posted by: kate at October 23, 2008 08:38 AM (Zq135)

8 You hit all the points perfectly. All the questions I've been wanting to pose to those who think slogans are enough on which to base a vote (for either candidate). Bravo!

Posted by: Da Goddess at October 23, 2008 10:02 AM (3OqvP)

9 This is of course if you want to hear what a liberal Democrat has to say. You raised a lot of questions here but I only have time to first address Sarah Palin. As for the environment, that can be a longer more scientific discussion given that our education is strikingly similar. There are two things that are striking of what you say. I certainly think 1) she is smart or she wouldn’t have gotten as far as she has in such a short time and 2) I think the American people and the Democratic party overestimated given her huge flips of positive and negative ratios over time and how strong the Democratic party had to work against her. I don’t think the DNC fears her at all…in fact, I think they’re salivating over the fact that McCain chose her now (much like I think Republicans did at first when Palin was chosen after Obama did not pick Clinton as a VP). I’ll tell you why I could never vote for Palin (or McCain for that matter). I don’t agree with her on any issue that matters to me: taxes, healthcare, research funding/earmarks, abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, creationism in school, gun control, and I would say international/foreign policy but I don’t think she’s clearly formed a stance on that but whatever she has said I’ve disagreed for the most part. Again, it’s not that I think she’s not smart…but I think she’s given off the impression that she’s not smart enough over time. When she spoke at the RNC, frankly I was pretty blown away. I found her charismatic and strong. I think she made a very telling, positive first impression to the American people. But the dust settled. You had mentioned previously that you didn’t think she should *have* to do the major network interviews. I watched (and still watching the Williams-Pailn interview obviously) every single one of those interviews. There were no “gotcha” questions. There were bad answers. Katie Couric, the queen of “soft news,” did not make her look bad or stupid. Palin did that to herself. And if you think she did well, I really don’t think you’re looking at her objectively anymore. The campaign did a BIG mistake by shielding her from the press because those interviews are scary, stressful, and tough and she needed practice. She floundered. And I feel this is what made the American public turn on her… Here’s the way I can best describe the letdown of her performance in a nice lab metaphor. Say someone came up to you for a postdoc position in your lab. The person wants to work at your level and in your field but doesn’t have specific training to your projects. But there’s some serious potential…say the person was a rising star as a graduate student. Well, definitely in science you give that person a chance. So the person comes to your lab and after a month the person not only can’t do a Western but couldn’t tell you the difference between HRP or AP as a substrate. Or hasn’t successful made their own clones, or still couldn’t troubleshoot a picky PCR reaction. You would reconsider your initial thoughts, I’m sure. You would probably yell at the person to get their shit together. So, you have lab meeting two weeks later. The results are a little better but when you ask the person why the PCR reaction is still having problems and it’s revealed that the person doesn’t understand what Tms are and that’s why he/she can’t troubleshoot it. At this point, your opinion of the person would be lowered greatly…hell you might have even kicked the person out of your lab at this point because why should you waste your NIH money on someone who can’t get their shit together. For this geeky metaphor, I think this is what people are feeling. And the VP role is a much bigger deal than a postdoc in a competitive lab. Frankly, I feel bad for her. It’s not that she couldn’t have learned the material she needed to know to show understanding and competency, she was just unable to do it in such a short amount of time. Again, it’s not that she’s not smart, but it now feels that she wasn’t smart enough (in the short time frame). As for the makeup/clothing thing – first of all, people did JUMP on Edwards for his $400 that he could AFFORD HIMSELF pointing to a potential hypocrisy of trying to be a populist candidate when you spend that much on a haircut. So, don’t think that the MSM is only jumping on Palin for that. And I’m sure Clinton and Obama put money in to present themselves…they should, as should Palin. I think the problem is that when you take GOP donor money to dress yourself up in Ferragamo and walk around as if you’re “Joe-Six-Pack.” Hell, I pay money to the Obama campaign and the DNC and get pissed off with how they spend it. If I donated to the RNC and I found out that 150K was spent on clothing and makeup (not just for her, but for her children) I would be pissed too when you’re down in the polls. I would be pissed that my money went to dress what is now being thought to be the #1 anchor for John McCain’s presidency. Even if I LIKED her, I would be pissed that the money wasn’t spent on, I dunno, OHIO. As for Troopergate, it wasn’t the scandal itself, but the “coverup.” First there was let’s have transparency and then it was a democratic conspiracy. And I’ve done the Google searches too. She was only found of putting unfair pressure on Monnegan and that’s against Alaskan law. In itself, not a big deal. It was, again, the way she handled it. It feels from my perspective that she had a promising start and she’s going to at best have a mediocre finish. I will not accept mediocrity (even from own party) for such an important job. But you know, you say it’s the democrats who are scared (which again, all I know is that we’re freaking happy that its become clear that McCain was pandering either to his base or trying to get disgruntled Clinton supporters as opposed to putting “country first” in his pick), I am curious to what you would call Kathleen Parker, George Will, and Christopher Buckley. These are conservative Repubilcans, with long track records, who risked their own party forsaking them while they stood up for their views. What would you say of them? And I feel I must say this: if you’re going to do that thing where you tie try and tie Bill Ayers to Obama – fine, but then do this. Call out the CONSERVATIVE Annenberg group for putting him on the committee with Obama for EDUCATION, also supported by a Republican governor. It was for a freaking education group and the “relationship” was minimal at best. But if you’re going to go there, then don’t forget McCain and G. Gordon Liddy. McCain has said said he was "proud" of Liddy, and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great at the beginning of his 2000 campaign. Does that include Watergate then? Does that include his admiration of Hitler? Does that include telling people to kill ATF with head shots? Is it stupid to bring this up because there’s no way John McCain supports any of that ugly shit? Of course it is. Frankly, I am surprised you would lower your argument to this shit. It detracts from other points you could be making.

Posted by: SBC at October 23, 2008 10:03 AM (q1M21)

10 I'm unhappy with Palin, because she could be Fred. She could be better than Fred. But she keeps going back to a populist approach. And that's pissing me off. Oh, I'm still going to vote for Palin and McCain. I just wish she'd be the person I want her to be. (Yes, said with tongue in cheek). So, I think there are two issues with Palin, for the Democrats, that you sort of hit on. First, they are elitist. People really think that only people who go to Ivy League schools are smart. Or really smart. Or whatever. And she didn't, and Obama did. Now the same people can't step back and say that Bush is smart -- he must have cheated. Their logic makes no sense. But anyway, the left is credentialist. They will believe anyone with the credentials (Gore with a Nobel) because they don't actually think things out. They appeal to authority (Paul Krugman) instead of reading different sides and making any sense out of it. Also, people don't understand that there are more than three levels of intelligence. They see "dumb", "regular" and "smart". Not "smart", "really smart", "super smart" etc. in a nice happy little bell curve distribution with *many* happy standard deviations of smartness. So people who call themselves smart frequently don't understand there are levels of smartness above them. (See: gifted education They don't understand it either). THey are so used to thinking that when someone doesn't agree with them, it's because they are of lower intelligence. Because, frankly, if you're smart, there are a lot of people stupider than you. But a lot of moderately smart people have been told they're smart, and think that they're pretty much it, and there isn't smart above them. Surprise! There is! Now, I'm not saying Palin is super intelligent or not, I have no idea. I do not doubt she's at least a little smart. But I think a lot of Dems think that anyone they disagree with is stupid.

Posted by: silvermine at October 23, 2008 10:30 AM (qsBMy)

11 Ok, someone needs to explain to me the elitist argument to me. Why is it because that if someone excels at academics they are elitist? Are CTG and I elitist because we to Caltech? Why is that Obama, who actually went to Oxy first and then transferred to Columbia, elitist? Is Bush elitist for going to Yale? And as for Bush "cheating" in Yale...I don't think he cheated at Yale because even at Yale where the average GPA is pretty high he didn't do all that well (which btw, Kerry had a similar GPA to Bush's but guess who was called elitist). So, let me say this loud and clear -- just getting a degree doesn't make you smart (particularly at the Ivy's where they clearly reward the children of alumni). It's how you went about earning it and what you did with it. And that's where a lot of the criticism comes from. Instead of going, holy crap, Obama got into Oxy did well enough to transfer to Columbia and then he got into Harvard Law and was the first African-American to be editor of the Law Review is IMPRESSIVE in an academic sense, I keep on seeing this damn elitist word. This has NOTHING to do with being president -- plenty of smart people shouldn't be president, but why is it that if someone excels academically AND their liberal, they are elitist? Maybe its that stupid ass arugula comment Obama made a while back. Are you going to CTG elitist because she gets a lot of her food at Trader Joe's? Is McCain elitist because he wants to make a "commission of the smartest people" to tackle Social Security? My friends, he did not say ordinary people, he did not say Joe-six-packs, he did not say plumbers, he said smartest people. Is he elitist then, or is he just being smart and thinking about what might be best for the country? When someone points to me when someone is actually being elitist, I will call them on it. Damn right I will. Because I have had people think they are better than me for a variety of reasons, I feel that sting. But from anything else, how many of the undecided voters, how many of those independent voters, are elitist now because they might go blue? This elitism word is just the new "sexism" and "racism" card on both sides. I'm just tired of it.

Posted by: SBC at October 23, 2008 11:45 AM (q1M21)

12 To me, elitist is an attitude that some people have based on their blessings and not being grateful for them. I suspect some people might see you and I as elitist because we went to Caltech, and Obama the same for going to Oxy AND Columbia. But the thing is, and you know it, we're not all like that, but many are. And they look down their nose at people like Sarah Palin, and people who LIKE Sarah Palin, as if the ignorance they perceive is as catching as cooties. I reject that, and I abhor that. Because it's dismissive. And ignorant.

Posted by: caltechgirl at October 23, 2008 12:07 PM (IfXtw)

13 WOW! Good rant. Am I an elitist if I went to Fresno State?

Posted by: Alan at October 24, 2008 03:16 PM (kloCp)

14 "People like President Bush, and Sarah Palin, who present themselves to the world as less than uber-intelligent, and succeed ANYWAY, threaten that world view." I don't think anybody needs to look that hard to see plenty of people in various fields that have suceeded without overt "uber-intelligence" or formal higher education, and they're often actually praised for it. I'd suggest however that many would question actively recruiting somebody stupid to hold the highest political offices of a country. I'm British, but I'd suggest Sarah Palin (or her British equivalent) would not make it within a mile of 10 Downing Street, not because of elitism, but because of meritocracy. The need to ascend through the parliamentary ranks, and hold ministerial (or shadow) posts means that candidates are tested, and compete before their peers and the country. Those unable to name ANY newspaper, talk in coherent sentences, or demonstrate understanding of fundamental issues of the day just don't cut it. I guess we just expect more of them. I'm not sure what success you're talking about in the context of GWB. I suspect that he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents the US has had, and possibly the one that presided over the transition of the US from pre-eminence to also ran. Good luck on Nov 5th. I hope it's not too painful a day. No doubt you will put "country first" and support whoever wins.......

Posted by: Spectator at October 24, 2008 11:27 PM (cfSni)

15 "So how can Bush be as bad as Harding? Or Grant? Van Buren? Buchanan? How 'bout Nixon or Carter, anyone?" Greatest economic crisis since the great depression, largest national debt in history, largest government in history, response to katrina/ike, two wars, gitmo, spying on Americans before getting proper permission, spying on army staffers having phone sex, cronyism in epic proportions, firing of justice department employees based on political beliefs, loss of standing on the international stage, substandard health care for veterans, excessive no bid contracts, government agents having sex and drugs with oil companies, and I'm sure I can think of many more... That's more than a couple warts. But of course I am thankful we haven't had another attack on US soil. But there have been plenty of people, including GWB's father, who have managed to protect our soil without sinking our prestige and prosperity too.

Posted by: SBC at October 25, 2008 05:55 PM (JLqd9)

16 This is long, but I want to give you a clear picture of what I believe the liberal and moderate response to Obama is, and pose some reasonable questions to your own commentary. Who do I think Obama is? At root, an inspirational figure at a time when this country dearly needs to believe in itself despite recent failures -- whether those failures are truly our own or were out of our control. Is he as awesome as he tries to seem? No. But he's going to try to be, and he fills out the inspirational role pretty well in my opinion. I'd say the same about JFK and RFK -- not perfect men by any means, but they tried to give us something to look up to and inspire us to be better, in positive ways, and I want that in a leader. Change? If it means getting more of his campaign money from individuals, then yeah, that's change. Ditto for stomping on corporate execs and businesses earning millions for skinning American wallets and selling jobs down the river -- both things Bush and his Republican Congress turned a blind eye to, despite their talk. Do I think Obama will win all those fights, or even fight relentlessly for them? No. But it'll be an improvement on what I think McCain will do. Obama will go to war if needed, but not without considering and planning for every contingency. He is more likely to catch bin Laden than McCain because by pulling out of Iraq he'll have the forces and funds available, and maybe even develop a few Arab (and European) allies as we go. Got plenty more, but I'll just move on to this: I don't need my Prez or VP to be approachable to me. Why do you? I want him to kick my ass in chess, then Global Thermonuclear War, and then beat Deep Blue and WOPR with one hand tied behind his back right before he suckers the Russians and the French into agreeing to pay us to store our nuclear waste. I want a charismatic brainiac (emphasis on the latter) that's on my side and will FUCK the next idiot to screw with us, who will take advantage of anyone on my behalf and WIN WIN WIN. I have seen reasons to believe Obama is on my side, and lots of reasons to believe he's fucking brilliant -- for one thing, he BEAT the Clinton machine! As for elitism, what does he need to do to show you he recognizes his blessings? In his stump speeches, Obama invariably brings up his grandparents and everything they did for him, and emphasizes how in no other country is his life story even possible. "Thinking they're better than me." Grrr. How is the Republican drumbeat on "heartland values" NOT exactly that? All I ever hear from the Reps is how the "heartland" has such better values, etc than the country's largest cities -- though they are home to our financial engines, our centers of learning, and so much more that it boggles the mind that any politicians can manage to insult millions of Americans time and again. Even if it's indirect ("I was praising them, not insulting you"), it's more blatant and constant than anything the liberal politicians do, that I'm aware of. (Yes, "cling to guns and religion" etc -- but that's not remotely as constant.) "I know he wears makeup; I can see it on the TV." Is this a serious concern? Makeup is in the nature of TV -- when McCain skipped out on Letterman for a spot with Katie Couric, Letterman cut to a live feed of McCain getting worked over by the makeup person. It's standard; to not wear makeup is stupid. Even Angelina Jolie looks iffy sans makeup on TV. On to Palin: If you think the only thing the Dems are bothered by is Palin's preggo daughter and wasteful spending on clothes, I'm simply baffled. Dems don't like her because of her stances on the issues. And if Bill Ayers is an honest issue, I'm a Republican. In this vein, is the Fannie Mae CEO thing an issue? Yes, and I do wish it was covered more in depth. But so are McCain's deregulatory votes and adviser, etc. Palin's misuse of language, hiding from the press, cronyism in Alaska, etc. I believe Americans want our leaders to be smarter and at least less obvious about hiding their mistakes. And the only people slathering to "get at" her are the comedians -- because she IS a joke. She is an easier target than shooting Quayles in a barrel. Ask Leno. And if you haven't seen her shooting herself in the foot time and again, then you're ignoring what she has had to say. Your defense of Palin seems more relevant to four weeks ago than to today. "And the paradigm shifts born of ignorance have generally changed our world for the better." Name two. Maybe I simply don't understand what you're trying to say here, but I'll give you a few counterexamples: Nazi paranoia about Jews; the Red Scare; internment camps for Japanese Americans; the first jackasses that landed in Africa and said, "hey, let's enslave these fuckers, they don't have guns".... "Sarah Palin and George Bush clearly don't fit the paradigm. And well, we fear that which we do not understand." I think you misunderstand the concerns many Americans have about Bush and Palin. For one, both act as unreflective "true believers" who refuse to acknowledge mistakes that were and will be made -- and therefore they will keep making them. They avoid the press and dissenting opinions, and hide actions and decision-making that should be public. This is wrong behavior, no matter who is doing it. For another, stupid is as stupid does -- and not anticipating the Sunni-Shia conflict that would erupt after Hussein's removal was STUPID. So many other examples, but that's probably the worst. "I would also guess that many Obama supporters can NOT." re: knowing platforms and believing crazy shit about their opponents. I have no idea why you think McCain supporters actually know more about Obama than vice versa. That's not my experience. I've seen a horrifying number of McCain supporters whose grasp of reality and truth is almost as hazy as a terrorist's -- and no American has an excuse for that. Obama is a Muslim? An Arab? I'm not even going to expect so much of these people that they understand it's bullshit to package an entire religion or race as Evil. I just want them to know truth that is so easy to find it's ridiculous. Maybe the press just covers the conservative crazies and not the liberal nuts. But even members of my own family have shared that unacceptable ignorance. And I've not seen the same level of blindness among Dems; thinking McCain will continue the war indefinitely is the most extreme belief I've seen there, excepting "The Man" conspiracies. Oh, some liberals do seem to think Obama will fix "everything" -- that's silly. As for the Rep hoaxer in Pennsylvania, let's call her a total outlier. "I figure it this way if Obama wins, no one can ever pull the race card again." Seriously? So if Obama wins, all the racist fucks I've met in my life will no longer discriminate? We'll never see a black man pulled over for driving while black? A white man can walk without fear through the heart of Compton? No one will see Latinos standing on a corner and treat them like they're illegals? WOW. He IS the Messiah! So glad you pointed this out!!! That had to be a joke, just as my response to it was a joke as well. Aaaand I'll just leave this at that rather than go on and on and on even more.

Posted by: Joe C. at October 25, 2008 06:34 PM (JLqd9)

17 Whoa, that's quite a rant, and a great one at that! I've said it before -- the gender bigotry and ageism exhibited by the Libs is disgusting and hypocritical.

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at October 25, 2008 10:52 PM (v5yjs)

18 Joe, did you seriously read that as "no one will ever be racist again?" that's the opposite of what I meant. What I was trying to say is that no one can ever again claim that the "system" is racist and that people of color are automatically at a disadvantage. How could that argument carry any weight in a US with a Black President? And really, I think you maybe saw too much of yourself in that, seeing as how you overreacted. I mean the Barry makeup thing was complete hyperbole, simply designed to point out that he has a clothing and makeup budget, too, Just no one ever asks how much he's spending.

Posted by: caltechgirl at October 26, 2008 03:56 PM (IfXtw)

19 In Joe's defense, I really could't tell when you're talking in hyperbole in this post and when you're being serious. It's harder obviously when we see text as opposed to talking to you in our living room. When we're in the same room its easier to know when you're making a joke or what you're placing emphasis on. I recalled you making some pretty spirited negative remarks about John Edwards wearing makeup before so even *I* thought you were making comments about the makeup issue (even though I'm pretty sure when you brought it up you were just going on about how much you dislike about Edwards). Clearly you weren't after you explained. But I would like you to elaborate a little further on what you think "the system" is because I'm feeling that both of you are missing each other's point. I think what you're saying is (and please correct me) that because a man of color reached the highest office of the land the system can't be accused of being racially unfair. If that's the case, I think you're being too broad. There are clearly a few big corporations where CEOs are of color but it is DISPROPORTIONATELY white. Or there are how many female scientists with professor positions but the number of female science professors versus the male counterparts are not close to equal. We BOTH know how sexist science and academia can be despite women having top positions. I think if Obama wins it will help erode racism a lot, but I don't think him being elected will automatically take the race card out of the deck. You mentioned that racism would stop when we stop talking about it. I think people stop talking about when there are different races at every level of society in an approximately proportionate number...not when one is only at the top and bottom. And I would like to see specific numbers out too on the what the DNC spent for makeup/hair if that matters. It's been noted that nothing on clothes have been spent but makeup and hair has but I haven't heard specific numbers either. I actually think its unfortunate for Palin and a stupid decision by the RNC. Like I said earlier, its not so much that the money was spent as in the context it was spent in, but in the mean time it detracts from real issues and frankly tarnishes Palin's image even more for no reason.

Posted by: SBC at October 26, 2008 06:32 PM (JLqd9)

20 Encore! Encore! Hot Damn Girl! YOU ARE ON FIRE! Well said. Well said.

Posted by: Lauren at October 27, 2008 04:25 PM (Pt1kf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hugo-award-winning author Orson Scott Card, a lifelong democrat, presents a challenge to the MSM to restore their honor.  You've probably seen it everywhere by now, but it is masterful, and bears repeating.  I excerpt here the last section of the piece (at length, sorry, but it's worth it), but the whole thing is worth a thorough and thoughtful read.

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

[...]What really scares me is the 2008 election. The Democratic Party is hopeless -- only clowns seem to be able to rise to prominence there these days, while they boot out the only Democrats serious about keeping America's future safe. But the Republicans are almost equally foolish, trying to find somebody who is farther right than Bush -- somebody who will follow the conservative line far better than the moderate Bush has ever attempted -- and somebody who will "kick butt" in foreign policy.

So if we get one of the leading Democrats as our new President in 2009, we'll be on the road to pusillanimous withdrawal and the resulting chaos in the world.

While if we elect any of the Republicans who are extremist enough to please the Hannity wing of the party, our resulting belligerence will likely provoke Islam into unifying behind one of the tyrants, which is every bit as terrifying an outcome.

I hope somebody emerges in one of the parties, at least, who commits himself or herself to continuing Bush's careful, wise, moderate, and so-far-successful policies in the War on Terror.

Meanwhile, we have this election. You have your vote. For the sake of our children's future -- and for the sake of all good people in the world who don't get to vote in the only election that matters to their future, too -- vote for no Congressional candidate who even hints at withdrawing from Iraq or opposing Bush's leadership in the war. And vote for no candidate who will hand control of the House of Representatives to those who are sworn to undo Bush's restrained but steadfast foreign policy in this time of war.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1044 words, total size 7 kb.

If I see one more fucking commercial for another proposition I will rip out my eyes. Particularly that fucking Jamie Lee Curtis Prop 3 commercial. You are SO not conducting those kids, get off it.

And that fucking Gavin Newsom quote anti-Prop 8 commercial on the radio. It's highly effective. I hate him so much I'm thinking of voting yes just to spite him. Says the girl who stood up at the wedding of her(gay)dear friends. Legislating marriage is bad law, and I was thinking of voting yes for that reason, anyway.

And seriously, I notice that it's only the McCain/Palin signs and "Yes on 8" signs that are getting stolen and defaced. I thought it was the LEFT who were supposed to be the peaceful, non-violent, tolerant ones.

yeah, right. Just fucking kill me. Or at least put me in a coma for 14 days.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 06:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

If the whole campaign was just a giant roast, it would be no contest.

And maybe we wouldn't get so tired of election years.....This is frigging hilarious. McCain brought down the house, and Obama was a hoot, too, though he was clearly less comfortable with the comedy.

John McCain:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Barack Obama:
Part 1:

1 Thanks for putting them all together; the only one I've seen so far is the first McCain but now I can watch all four...!

Posted by: pam at October 18, 2008 04:07 AM (l6NIn)

Posted by: Richmond at October 18, 2008 01:45 PM (IJotx)

Posted by: That 1 Guy at October 18, 2008 05:35 PM (ZHgID)

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at October 20, 2008 06:24 PM (Q3iRb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment