Open Thread: 2,154

by Latoya Peterson

I’m just kind of think-talking here, y’all. It’s stayed up late. I’m sleepy.

Obama currently has 2,154 delegates.

The GOP has released their first attack ad – based on the Democratic Primary. (H/T Ta-Nehisi)

I think I’m going to do a series on McCain. I was thinking of calling it “Anyone Who Votes For McCain is an Idiot” and break it into parts, but then I remembered that I only feel that way about Democrats voting for McCain. Do we have any Republican readers?

Trackbacks & Pings

Latest attack ad from the GOP « Ylizaville on 05 Jun 2008 at 12:57 pm

[...] Latest attack ad from the GOP Posted in Opinion, dem primary, oh FFS by yliza on June 5th, 2008 I first saw this on Racialicious: [...]

Comments

Jeff wrote:

Has anyone else noticed a bit of overplay in the media about how much Obama likes basketball? I feel like if you believe everything the NY Times has said, if this whole presidency thing doesn’t work out, his next move will be to show up at tryouts for the Bulls. And one story on the homepage right now contains this line: “He jogs to the stage with the cocky ease of a jock.”

I can’t help but assume there’s a racial component to that. Seems to reinforce stereotypes about how people of certain races like to spend their leisure time, and enforce a dichotomy between Obama and, say, GW Bush, who gets a lot of coverage for being a jogger and a hunter and rancher and all those stereotypically “white” athletic activities (and I use the term “athletic” loosely when talking about hunting… still, it is sport, depending on who you ask).

Maybe its an unintended consequences of the deliberateness with which Obama has been constructed as the anti-Bush or anti-McCain (or anti-HRC for that matter), or maybe it goes deeper than that… what do you all think?

(by the way, I missed most of the coverage of the primaries last night [just moved so I don't have TV or internet at home yet], but I damn near shed a tear at my desk this morning when I saw they were FINALLY calling it for Obama. I haven’t been so happy with a Democratic candidate since… actually, I’ve literally never been so happy about a Democratic candidate, for any race.)

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:26 am ¶
Sarah wrote:

Well, this is one white AND Hispanic feminist chic who is thrilled that Obama has finally clinched it! So much for the Hilary demographics. I’m so happy about this news that I can’t even get properly enraged by the fact that she still hasn’t conceded.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:48 am ¶
Chris wrote:

A bit offtopic, but it may be useful for your McCain series.

I am not voting for McCain simply because he is a warhawk who does not care about veteran’s rights at all.

I’ve been researching his voting record ever since he expressed opposition to Sen. Jim Webb’s updated G.I. Bill, which would cover 100% of the tuition at the most expensive in-state public university plus books, fees, and living expenses, for veterans who have served at least 3 years of active duty. This is about equal to the WWII era G.I. Bill, which covered 100% of tuition, books, and living expenses for any school that would accept you, and pretty much established America’s middle class as we know it today.

McCain’s revised version would bump the current payout from $1100 a month to a paltry $1500 a month (if a servicemember kicks in an extra $600 s/he can get $1300 a month for 36 months with the current G.I. Bill) for veterans who have served a minimum of SIX years (the current G.I. Bill can be used after 3 years and an honorable discharge) and $2000 a month for those who have served twelve years. Considering the youngest age you can join the military is 17, that means a veteran would be 29 before using the G.I. Bill towards his/her education. Not to mention the fact that $2000 a month doesn’t even cover the average tuition at a public university.

The reason behind this revised G.I. Bill? To maintain retention. Not to help out veterans who have realized they have a different calling in life rather than serving in the military. With all this talk about us needing more teachers, nurses, and doctors, McCain would rather have more of America’s children remain in the military. Not to mention the typical infantry troop fighting on the front lines would have little to no human capital once he or she decides to leave the military, unless somehow they can squeeze in a couple of college courses inbetween two-year deployments to the middle of nowhere.

It doesn’t just end there, McCain has consistently voted AGAINST veteran’s healthcare benefits, in addition to voting against a bill that would allow greater amounts of time between troop deployments.

You can find his voting record here: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:49 am ¶
Celeste wrote:

I was actually shocked that he and the other detractors of the new GI Bill would justify themselves by reason of not wanting to encourage people to leave the miliaty. This is supposed to be a volunteer military, right? So why do you need to coerce people to stay in? I guess if you joined the military for lack of options to support yourelf and your family, that should be the same reason why you stay. Nice back door draft they’ve got going on here.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 10:02 am ¶
Chris wrote:

@Celeste: Exactly. The whole thing just wreaks of hipocrisy. McCain was a POW, so he must care about the troops!

He does, but in the same way Bush cared about the troops so much that he gave them such hefty pay raises: he needed retention so he’d have anough people to go to war with.

Veterans? Who cares about them. The WWII G.I. Bill applied to drafted members of the military who had only served 90 days of active duty. Nowadays, if you voluntarily put your life on the line, you get a fraction of the same benefits.

Just an FYI, I’m an Air Force veteran and current reservist, and I’m appalled at all the pro-military hype McCain gets for his military service, in spite of his lack of compassion for those who have served their country honorably. There’s a distinct difference between being pro-war and pro-military, and no matter what people try to tell you, supporting both the war in Iraq and our troops are mutually exclusive.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 10:10 am ¶
Cara wrote:

Well, the add (and others like it) will be effective. Hined site is always 20/20….forgive the cliche’…..I don’t believe Obama’s Dem opponents took him seriously. He was underestimated from the beggining. Maybe it was their since of entitlement (HRC and JE)…or some other reason, but I don’t believe they thought that their base (Jessie-crats, Regan Dems, Conservative Dems/Liberals) would go for all the “We can change/We have changed/We will change” retoric. BUT THEY WERE WRONG. It wasn’t just retoric, it wasn’t just one great speach. Ppl (of all demographics) are hungry for change in the system.

Sooooo they went ahead and said these things believing that their would be no reprocutions b/c their opponent wouldn’t make it to the finish line. Let’s face it he wasn’t a Millionare….he got most of his funding from the American Ppl – not Hollywood as others would have you believe. He created a website that gave everyone a chance to contribute to him personally – who would believe that would work?! – but it did. The American ppl put their $ on the line and supported him. That’s awesome! He’s not a politician (for better or worse)…..he is not a traditional Washington insider…..the just didn’t think he could do it w/o political savvy and text book strategy. So their words are now coming back to haunt the entire party.

I am sure this wont be the last of these types of ads. So apart of McCains stategy has been tied up for him (with a pretty boe on top). The Dems need to be creative and non conventional in their ads against McCain. They can’t play nice – ‘cuz he wont.

I don’t know if including HRC on the ticket will help. But as a Black Femaile……that would be my own ‘lil slice of Heaven, if they coudl pull it off.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:07 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:

sorry, still can’t get over the fact that mccain continues to refer to the vietnamese as “gooks”
how is that acceptable from a presidential candidate, former POW or not???!??!?!

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:28 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Wendi – You know that’s number one!

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:29 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

I was up late too…I started watching MSNBC at 7pm and finally turned off the TV at 3am, pacing like a psycho… (Hillary’s non-concession speech…I’m sure we are going to get to it…had me so angry I couldn’t disengage…)

Since last night was such a study in contrasts in the rhetorical styles of the candidates I want to add something about McCain’s speech.

It was written beautifully. Despite their obvious reticence about McCain the Republican machine is consolidating around him (pay attention Democrats!) and those people can write a speech that will make you taste apple pie in the back of your throat. But… He is not such a great speaker, is he? When he tries to do that W thing of making snide little inside jokes with the audience he sounds so rehearsed it is painful. His natural style does not fit these sort of pandering speeches at all. There was a grandpa-telling-us-about-he war quality to him that ran counter to the fiery thing he was going for. I couldn’t help but be excited imagining McCain debating Obama, a truly brilliant speaker.

Which brings me to my other thought. As I was watching him speak last night I couldn’t help but think: My God, he looks OLD. HD is not going to be his friend. (I don’t even have it and I was playing connect the age-spots on the top of his head anyway) When they show that now-famous picture of Bush and he embracing I am struck by how vigorous W looks in comparison–at the end of his embattled presidency. It looks like the picture on a retirement home brochure (”Dad took care of you, now you can take care of him. Sunset Village”

Don’t the Republicans have a team of people who spiff up the old white guys? The ones who used to shellac Reagan’s hair black? Gave the first Bush his tasteful eye-job, put Huckabee on Slim-Fast? Where are those guys? Is McCain’s message that he is too macho for a little base? Well, not for nothing, but politics aside, they better get his ass under a sunlamp before November. Dude looks like a powdered doughnut.

So my question is–now that Obama is a zen-master of restraint because he never took Hillary’s (race) bait can he pull off the same trick with McCain? Because if he doesn’t he runs the risk of seeming like he is picking on an old (white)man.

And that always goes over big, right?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:37 am ¶
Dan wrote:

Of course there are no Republicans here. A beating heart is required.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:13 pm ¶
sylvie wrote:

@wendi muse: not only that, but he refused to apologize for using the term. my heart will break if asians vote mccain this election, though i know there’s a good number of republicans amongst us.

michelle and barack giving each other dap. that is love.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:14 pm ¶
jed wrote:

“Do we have any Republican readers?”

Why do you assume that everyone is either Democrat or Republican? A very sizable chunk of the electorate is centrist, independent, libertarian (or Libertarian), or something else. In fact, this segment is large enough to have decided virtually every election ever held in the US.

The question for Obama now is how is he going to lower taxes and cut government spending?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶
miss girl wrote:

HRC refusing to concede last night has so far been the greatest event to inform my opinion of her (I’m a bit late, I know). Her refusing to concede shows that she does not care about the American people, but only of herself – she’s simply narcissistic. How can she be a great leader when she cannot even control her fuck-ups of a campaign team, thans to her bloated ego?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶
Winn wrote:

Joseph, you need to quit! I don’t know, maybe I was up too late last night too, but your post had tears rolling down my face. That Sunset Village comment was so wrong, yet so hilariously right! I will post something more intelligent and cogent about the conclusion to the primaries later, but for now, just had to thank you for the chuckle. It was much needed!

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:

@jed: This is pure curiousity…but how is anyone going to lower taxes when we owe so many people so much money? I agree that goverment spending has gotten out of control and is spent on completely the wrong things but I don’t see lowering the goverments income when we have that much national debt. Someone’s eventually gonna have to pay for all that shit we bought.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Jed –

Because McCain isn’t the centrist, libertarian, independent, green, or constitution party candidate. He’s the Republican Candidate and is expected to represent their house. My call to Republicans – if there are any – would be to gain a greater understanding of why they are backing this candidate.

By the way, you’re addressing an Independent.

And cutting government spending is always a difficult subject to tackle because everyone wants to see expenses cut, but no one actually wants it to come out of their budget. In addition, cutting gov spending is only possible when you can out lobby an interest group that’s got an important ear. Have you checked all the no-bid loan scandals lately? Most of that comes about because someone important decides to override the existing checks and balances system. And that’s billions wasted.

But, again, we’ll go into that later.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

Sorry, I know this is OT, but:

Remember the thread about the young woman in Orlando who was shot b/c she refused to give her phone number to a man?

Well, she died this morning….

Damn….damn….damn…..

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 1:34 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:

“sorry, still can’t get over the fact that mccain continues to refer to the vietnamese as “gooks”
how is that acceptable from a presidential candidate, former POW or not???!??!?!”

@Wendi, Latoya, sylvie

Because he was interned and tortured as a POW by the Viet Cong. That’s why he calls them names. Is it right? No, but if you’ve never been a soldier, or have never seen combat, then you wouldn’t know anything about that, and you probably never will. It’s not unusual for war veterans to retain certain attitudes about enemy combatants even after the war has ended. There are many returned Iraq/Afghan War veterans struggling with the same sentiments about people of Middle Eastern descent. So, unless you’re a war veteran, it’s really not your place to judge.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@lowercase tasha – Five of the men in my family are former military. Three are combat veterans. Two of my friends are scheduled to deploy to Iraq. Are somethings understandable, yes.

But then again, none of them are running for President, and they will not have the opportunity to try and take retribution, nor alienate a base of people who live here and have been here.

Get your mind right.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@lowercase tasha

“There are many returned Iraq/Afghan War veterans struggling with the same sentiments about people of Middle Eastern descent. So, unless you’re a war veteran, it’s really not your place to judge.”

…Come again now?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 2:15 pm ¶
Yvette wrote:

It was so incredibly powerful to be able to take my 8-yr-old daughters to hear him speak last night. I thought they would be put off by the long (long, long, long) wait/line, but they both said they loved being there.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 2:37 pm ¶
miss girl wrote:

Actually, it is our place to judge.
Many soldiers are straight out of high school, young, naive, and impressionable. Many come into the war with a racist & ignorant attitude to begin with and are given a joke of an Middle East history lesson by the military right before entering Kuwait. How do I know this?
Observations and memories from my husband, an ex-Marine Corporal who fought three tours in Iraq.
He bears absolutely no grudges or hatred againt any Arab group, and he is working through his PTSD right now.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:

lowercasetasha: What Latoya said. And in addition, I thought we were electing someone to lead/represent the entire nation as POTUS, not just the nation minus people who look like or whose ethnicity is similar to someone bad in the leader’s past.

If he can’t immediately differentiate between his likely-long-dead captors in Vietnam, and my next door neighbors or a city councilman, etc. then he has more issues than whether he should be President. That said, I don’t know from the original quote of McCain whether he really was talking about ALL people of Vietnamese descent, and whether he would stand by that comment today (I’m sure it will come up in the next 5 months).

What I AM concerned with is anyone joking about “bombing” another nation, even one we have tense relations with. Shouldn’t a war veteran who knows the hell of war and how civilians are often the first and last ones to suffer the consequences have a LESS THAN JOKING attitude towards warfare, especially bombs (which do not bother to ask for party affiliation or loyalty to the government or personal beliefs or even the presence of weapons before exploding).

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 2:53 pm ¶
Winn wrote:

lowercase tasha:

With all due respect, I must wonder why exactly you are here? Dissent and disagreement is not a problem; Racialicious has no party line that must be towed and can certainly embrace a variety of viewpoints. But your comments, and believe me, I’ve read many, don’t seem to dovetail with the mission of this blog or the sentiments of many of its readers. So what exactly is your agenda? I don’t know that you’ll convince anyone that Clinton suffered grievously for her gender while Obama sailed through relatively unscathed, with his race neutralized by his maleness. I don’t know that you’ll convince us that what you refer to as the “black blogosphere” was silent or even approving of misogynistic attacks on Clinton, while the feminist blogosphere rushed to decry racist attacks on Obama, or Michelle Obama for that matter, especially after the tide of the primary results began to turn. And I certainly don’t think that you’ll have much success in convincing anyone that a horrible experience in war justifies the dehumanization of an entire group of people. I hope that I will never be a part of a community that excuses such behavior. My uncles are all Vietnam veterans. African American men who risked their lives for their country, and then returned to a place that derided them for participating in an unjust war, and continued to marginalize them and treat them as second class citizens, or barely citizens at all. They had to continue a war at home: a war for social, economic, and political justice, and, particularly living in rural Texas, existed in a perpetual state of siege that I find it amazing they emerged from with any wholeness or sanity. I’m not comparing this to being a POW or victim of torture, and I admire McCain for the bravery and compassion he showed to his fellow POWs by refusing rescue and showing solidarity with the others. But this does not excuse the ugly and dismissive “othering” he engages in when referring to the Vietnamese, and he certainly deserves to be called on it as he aspires to be a world leader. A lot of people have experienced extreme trauma and horrific experiences, but we generally expect some soul-searching and healing out of the people we elect to the highest office in the land. If McCain still refuses to do this after all these years, it says a lot about his leadership abilities and his human values.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶
Jack D. wrote:

Breaking news:
Clinton says she’ll throw her support behind Obama … IF he lets her be president.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:15 pm ¶
Karrie wrote:

Last night, i was watching CNN, Boondocks, and the World Champions of Salsa. Yeah, i know, but not the point. While watching Larry King, a dude named Ed Schultz made a good point. As an avid Obama supporter, he said that if HRC conceded during her speech, it would have been a disservice to all of her supporters. He said that a 48 hour grace period was needed to clear her mind and to move forward.

I must say i was shocked. He gained some major respect from this HRC supporter. While i didn’t really like her speech, i think she handled herself well enough, especially for a woman who isn’t fond of losing. I truly believe that accepting defeat is an artform and she is still learning it. She has to process a lot and people need to respect that. That’s my two cents.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:16 pm ¶
Colin A. B. wrote:

McCain’s speech sucked eggs. Raw. He takes Obama’s frames and calls them his own, he conveniently ignores his ties to the administration and he says Obama is both tied to Bush and tied to the “failed ideas of the past”, implications of a radical socialist agenda that Obama doesn’t have and isn’t proven to be so wrong.

Winn,

Let me beg you to please take care in how you excoriate others. Just because someone sees the world differently, even if wrongly, we should not give preface to another banning from this blog because of it, should we?

lowercase tasha,

I have the right and privilege to judge, I have the prerogative to judge and I will judge. This is not because of my family’s ties to the military, this is not because of my antipathy of aggressive colonial warfare and the attitudes that predate such activity; this is because, dammit, I am a citizen of these United States of America and it’s my unwritten obligation to take to task anyone and everyone who wishes to rule over me. I will do so and have done so with Brother Barack, I did so with Sister Hillary and Father Time will be no different.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:22 pm ¶
Philly Phil wrote:

hmmm… kind of on the fence on this one.

my pops was in vietnam and he came back harboring some prejudice towards the vietnamese. which was understandable. i remember a slur or two coming from his mouth. now, when i once called a filipino friend of mine a “gook” i was chastised for it. he gave me a talking to and reminded me that it just wasn’t nice to call people something derogatory because of their race. how would i like being called a “spic” or “wetback”? thinking back on it now, i think my pops was kinda telling me that, though he may have had reason to be prejudiced, i had none and, thus, i was in the wrong. strange lesson, huh?

on the other hand, i do not want that kind of behavior coming from my president. i admire and respect McCain tremendously for the hellish ordeal he went through but his prejudices cannot come in the way of leadership. hopefully, in the coming months, he can apologize for it and come to terms with this.

unfortunately, i’m still skeptic and cynical about both candidates. i don’t see a leader at all in either one of them, just two politicians wanting power.

november is a long way off.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

I have always been listed as an independent and will die one. By nature, I am not a fan of partisanship. After the antics of those in the HRC camp (not just those on the payroll, but in the ’sphere too), I will never become a Democrat.

Chris, thank you for your thoughts regarding the vets bill. It is appalling, yet so typical.

Joseph, you are killing me. The presidency tears folks up. McCain doesn’t look old, he is old. Definitely a one-termer. Look at Bill, looks like the life-force was sucked out of him….

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶
sylvie wrote:

@lowercase tasha: no, i’m not a veteran. but i am a registered asian american voter, and I’m using my judgment to not vote for a man that uses racial epithets, particularly ones aimed at people that look like me. he may have been referring to his vietnamese captors, but his refusal to acknowledge that the term could be even slightly offensive to many asian/americans, shows me a candidate that does not have regard for all of the citizens of a country that he wishes to lead for 4+ years.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶
Philly Phil wrote:

in addition to the three debates sanctioned by the Presidential Debate Commission, McCain has challenged Obama to a series of town hall style debates a la Lincoln-Douglass.

Obama’s camp is considering it on the condition that it’s less structured and lengthier.

my confidence in both these men has just increased!

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 3:55 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Jack D–”Breaking news:
Clinton says she’ll throw her support behind Obama … IF he lets her be president.”

Wow. Just. Wow.

I’m trying to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt, considering that she’s dealing with the fact that she didn’t get the nomination Though she’s not my candidate, I still have some compassion for her–losing isn’t a good feeling….

…where did she say this, Jack D? I’m at work so I can’t just flip in CNN or MSNBC.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 4:02 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“Look at Bill, looks like the life-force was sucked out of him….”

I was just thinking about that the other day… how much Clinton and Bush seem to have aged… on one hand it’s stress, but by the same token, it’s also 10 years– for Clinton, 20 now. 10-20 years on men who were already pretty old to begin with is usually going to look bad, no matter what.

And on McCain’s previous remarks, I’m going to have to go with Philly Phil & Winn and refuse to defend the indefensible. If he was the McCain of a few years ago and wasn’t doing his best to cozy up to the Religious Right, those remarks would’ve been a major reason that I would have hesitated to pull the lever for him.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

As someone who has actually been called a gook in person by a traumatized Vietnam vet, I sure as hell reserve my right to judge. One person’s suffering does not equal a license to take it out on others through racist abuse.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Winn and gatamala
It’s laugh or cry, know what I mean? Right now I am trying to laugh.

@lowercase tasha
Emotions are running high today. So maybe you posted that before you thought better of it. I have been there. But I still have to say: No, it is not cool to suggest that my family should be vulnerable to the cruelty and violence of people we’ve never met because those people–voluntarily–went to war in a part of the world we are originally from.

Especially given the level of violence directed at Middle Eastern folks since 9/11 (or folks who “look” Middle Eastern –like a Cuban guy I worked with who got stepped to in his Brooklyn neighborhood and had to “explain” he was Latin. “first time that ever got me OUT of a fight” he said to me).

I don’t necessarily think you are ill-intentioned, just maybe not as thoughtful as you could be this time. But since this whole election season has a lot of tough stuff ahead maybe we can try to be a little more gentle with each other?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 4:31 pm ¶
Winn wrote:

Colin A. B.,

If you go back and re-read my post, I believe you’ll see that I in no way called for anyone to be banned from this blog (and it would not be my place to do so anyway, as I am not the owner or editor), and in fact welcomed the dissent and divergent opinions often given voice here. I simply asked lowercase tasha to ask herself why she chooses this particular blog to express herself, when she seems to disagree with the general editorial tone, the majority of the commenters, and the overall mission if this blog. I think the use of the term “excoriate” is a little hyperbolic, don’t you? I know it’s easy to misinterpret what is written when tone of voice and facial expression are absent, but I think I was very respectful, and simply addressed the ideas she has expressed on this blog, and questioned the agenda behind them, not her right to hold or pontificate on them. In fact, I was much gentler than she has been in many of her posts, and I think she’s perfectly capable of defending herself if she feels attacked.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 4:39 pm ¶
Petite Maoiste wrote:

I agree about the basketball issue, on that note, anyone see the photo gallery on the NYTimes on line?

Also, here’s another Latina (Boricua) who is for Obama! Speaking of, somebody needs to school Obama on nomenclature, referring to us as “Hispanic…..Americans” is offensive to most of us as it privileges the White/Spanish/Colonial facet of our multi-cultural/racial heritage.

Did anyone notice how adorable it was that our future First Lady said “I love you” to Obama? (at least that is how it looked to me as an amateur lip reader)

FInally, how shameful that HRC REFUSES to concede. I hope she is not VP. I have lost most if not all respect for her.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:

@Latoya

I have both active and retired (having finished tours in Iraq, Nam, Beruit in 83′ when the embassy was bombed) military in my family as well. Family that also works in veterans hospitals with injured soilders who have returned from battle and struggle with PTSD. You would be astonished at the views many return with and the jargon they use in battle and on the homefront about enemy combatants, but unless you’ve served then you would never understand, and I don’t pretend to or pass judgment without taking their experience or into consideration. My mother works for the DOD. So, I’m not going to not speak up when I feel like their service is being belittled for the sake of making Obama look better, and I wouldn’t be doing it for Hillary either, because some things just aren’t right. That’s the vibe I’m getting, “oh, experience exshmeariance. Is it really relevant?”

@Winn

I’m sorry, and you, are? My agenda? This whole “anyone who disagrees” and doesn’t go along with the majority is a troll and “why are you here?” is really getting old. I don’t agree with those who have probably never have nor ever will see a battlefield, making light of what POW’s and war veterans have sacrificed so we can sit here and blog. McCain has the respect of the armed forces because unlike Obama he shares their experience. Is it right that he has these racist views, no, but none of us can fathom what he underwent. When it was John Kerry’s service being belittled and swift boated, were you as complacent, or are you now only condoning it now because the decorated war veteran is playing for the opposition? Regardless of what candidate you support, what McCain went through for his country, is not to be made light of. Not everything is so black and white.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 5:57 pm ¶
Joan Flores wrote:

If not Hilary, then who should be Obama’s VP?
Would a “dream ticket” be the answer to the disunity in the Democratic Party? Is there another way for Obama to come out unscathed from this primary battle and win the election?

I was reading on Mother Jones the other day and it said his options were to “double down on strengths or he can compensate for weaknesses.” Hilary would fit into the second group, I guess. Some people have called for James Webb, former Republican, Vietnam vet, Reagan administration– but he did defy McCain on the G.I. Bill issue. He did also say that affirmative action was “state-sponsored racism. There’s Bill Richardson, lots of experience, Latino voters. Janet Napolitano, not as well known, but totally kick-ass.
What do you guys think? Will choosing the right VP make a big difference?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 6:13 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@ Lowercase Tasha –

Having those views does not make it right. And one again, your relatives and the people you work with are not running for president.

I want you to take a long step back and really look at what you are saying.

You are defending racist statements on an anti-racist blog.

You are defending the use of anti-asian slurs.

Look at the comment atlasien wrote. Look at the comment Joseph wrote. Look at what Lyonside and Philly Phil wrote.

How fucking dare you?

No one belittled John McCain’s service.

But your comment is way out of fucking line. Beyond the pale.

This election will end, Tasha. The shitty things people do and say – that is going to stay.

One more time, in case you still don’t fucking get it:

You are defending racist statements on an anti-racist blog.

That is not acceptable.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 6:58 pm ¶
A. wrote:

@lowercase tasha.

I didn’t know that we could make excuses for racism. And I wasn’t aware that this was a safe space to do so.

You aren’t the only person here who has had relatives in the military. My cousins, at this very moment, are stationed in Iraq. One is in Baghdad, another is in Fallujah, and a few more somewhere in Al Anbar Province.

I have uncles that have fought in Vietnam, the Korean War, and WWII (in non-combat operations, however, as they were Af-Am), and my stepdad’s brother served on the Demilitarized Zone. One of my best friends served in Haditha.

How dare you begin that crap about “You shouldn’t have an opinion regarding war?” As far as I am concerned, you haven’t served. You’re in the same boat as I am. Your attempt to make the excuse that we can’t judge people who’ve been in war and continue to make racist comments, as WE are people of color, and have to deal with that crap, makes you insane in my book.

You should educate yourself on race relations and try this site again.

Hint hint for you – Jeremiah Wright was also a marine, but do you think the media gave a crap about that?

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 8:43 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:

petite maoist – It’s interesting that you find Hispanic offensive. When I took an African American history class we had a discussion about labels and how the Census Bureau categorizes people to be divisive and my teacher was of the opinion that Latina/o should be the correct term. I have friends who would qualify using that categorization that don’t like it though. So I am under the opinion this is similar to whether using Black or African-Amercian…or Negro is appropriate.

And the ‘evil manipulator’ is supposed to concede by Friday or Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Party will lower the boom on her. We’ll see. She needs to give the speech of her life and APOLOGIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE her misdeeds. Her career and Billy Jeff’s legacy are on the line.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 8:58 pm ¶
Kelly wrote:

I’ve been a lurker here for a long time, and I thought that I should finally stop being a lurker and post something. I love your blog. I’m a white woman who considers herself an activist, and it has been such a refreshing and challenging blog to read. I’ve recommended it to many people.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:04 pm ¶
Kendra wrote:

@ DiosaNegra1967 :

You’re kidding me . . .

Dang, I was really hopping she would recover; that article didn’t provoke any fear about her survival on my end. I really wanted her to make it. I can’t imagine what her family and two friends must be going through; it’s one thing to narrowly escape with one’s life, but to have someone pass as consequence of an attack . . . frightening and traumatizing. We seriously need to discuss the state of violent and terrorist masculinity in America and it’s effect on women widely. We shouldn’t have to fear this.

Hmm, but on this subject, I figured Clinton would be too stubborn. But is she now supporting McCain because she couldn’t secure the Democratic nomination? That is plain cowardly.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:12 pm ¶
Manju wrote:

” Do we have any Republican readers?”

I’m one. One issue–of particular interest to anti-racists–where McCain comes out ahead is globalization, outsourcing, and nafta.

Obama demagogued the issue, especially in Ohio and its no coincidence that his stand intersected nicely with anti-indian and anti-mexican xenophobia. He’s not above benefiting from racism and his mini-southern strategy was made even more egregious by the fact that all the evidence suggests he’s actually pro-nafta and free trade. at least reagan really believed in states rights. the d-punjab comment didn’t help either.

this is arguably the single most important civil rights issue of our time. nothing has liberated POC more in recent years than free market reforms, especially for those residing in emerging markets long enslaved by socialism. hopefully, the cubans will soon follow the path of india and china. obama’s rhetoric is on the wrong side of history on this one.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:23 pm ¶
Winn wrote:

Latoya, I would be much more verbose in my response, except that you succinctly nailed it.

My only rejoinder to lowercase tasha is: “…and you are?” I am a member of this community, who has been participating here since it was Mixed Media Watch. I am a woman of color, who has no patience with the defense of racist slurs and dehumanization in any forum, but particularly on a blog dedicated to anti-racism and the treatment of marginalized and underrepresented communities. You evidently failed to read or comprehend my post, as I was both very respectful of Senator McCain’s service and horrific experience as a POW, and the bravery he showed in enduring that experience. You chose to ignore my reference to veterans in my own family and that of Latoya’s, which we both mentioned in our posts. That is your choice, but you can’t then accuse us of making light of someone’s experience when we explicitly did not do so. I called McCain on his racism, and questioned your presence in an anti-racist community when your own comments call your commitment to that goal into question.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 9:24 pm ¶
Shauna wrote:

@Cruel Secretary: It was a joke.

@wendi muse (and the whole McCain’s comment conversation):

McCain did (evenutally) apologize and say that he would stop using the term (right before the primary in my own very multiracial CA–political choice?).
http://asianweek.com/2000_02_24/feature_mccainapology.html

I still think its an issue even if he did apologize, though.

Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:

I’d like to see Carol Moseley-Braun for VP. Unfortunately, I don’t think she’s in politics anymore…

And while I’m actually posting for once, I have to say that YOUR comments, lowercasetasha, do more disservice to veterans than any of the comments here about McCain. I know many, many men who served in many different wars and every single one of them manages to refrain from saying things like that, not because they aren’t racist but because they recognize that innocent people should not have to suffer for atrocious actions that they didn’t commit. These men struggle constantly with their own racism simply because they are striving to be good people, and good people know that racism is wrong. For you to suggest that it is somehow acceptable for McCain to be racist because of his wartime experience denigrates all of the efforts that all of these men have made to overcome their own racist impulses. And I’m sorry but you cannot compare one veteran’s outstanding service with another veteran’s racism and act like decrying both is in any way similar.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 12:02 am ¶
Karrie wrote:

Latoya,

I respect your opinion and your main point in irrefutable: you can’t defend racism on an anti-racism blog/website. That is plain ridiculous, and lowercase tasha (sorry girl), you end up looking straight like a troll. But anyway, Latoya, you shouldn’t get that upset where you have to curse in order to emphasize your point. It takes away from the importance of your statements. It reads as if you are yelling, trying to make your voice heard by being the loudest (even though this is written, but that’s just my opinion.) All i’m saying is that you are brilliant and don’t need to stoop that low even if you are frustrated.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 12:34 am ¶
Keren wrote:

@ Latoya or anybody else
I’m a British Asian, and I’m just wondering how come in America when you say ‘Asian’ you only mean East and South East Asia?

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 6:36 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

It’s due to differences in population size, Keren. Most Asian Americans are of East and SE Asian heritage. Desis are sometimes referred to as South Asian, because the term “Asian” by itself is generally assumed to mean E/SE Asian.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 7:33 am ¶
Torontonian wrote:

Keren,

I was actually wondering how come in the UK when you say ‘Asian’, you mean South Asians?

Seriously though, ‘Asian’ in North America technically refers to all Asians, but it’s usually associated with East and Southeast Asians because East Asians are more numerous in the United States (I think). In the UK, I guess South Asians are more numerous than other Asians.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 7:41 am ¶
Torontonian wrote:

Also, why does ‘British Asian’ mean British South Asian?

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 7:43 am ¶
juju wrote:

@Karrie

lowercase tasha’s comment was seriously foul and I can think of a whole bunch of other expletives that could have been used. I think Latoya, and all the others that responded to that comment, exercised restraint.

I hear what you’re saying, but I think we should allow people to express themselves in a variety of ways. I don’t think yelling at one another all the time should be sanctioned, but sometimes people get upset. These are emotional issues that told life and death consequences for some. I know that colorful language can be a turnoff, but for me, cursing doesn’t weaken one’s argument.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:09 am ¶
Keren wrote:

Torontonian,
It doesn’t. South Asians are pretty much all lumped under ‘Indian,’ and East Asians- ‘Oriental.’ ‘Neither of which are better, I was simply curious as to how the difference in meaning had occurred in both our English-speaking countries.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:59 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Shauna–thanks for the clarification, friend.

@ Karrie–fuck that. Cussin’s the shit!:-D

Seriously though, Karrie, cusswords have a way of emphasizing what the writer is getting at, including the upset another person or situation caused. Latoya was rightfully and righteously upset about what lowercase tasha said and, saying, among other things, “The shitty things people do and say – that is going to stay,” nailed the sentiment perfectly for me. If Latoya said “bad” for “shitty,” it wouldn’t have conveyed the excreting ugliness of lowercase tasha’s defending McCain’s viciously anti-Asian statement on this blog which, being the Internet, will live on for a long time. (A Rhetoric & Semantics discussion…gawd, I love this blog!)

Other uses for cussword for, say, stating sexual desire or requesting/giving a sexual act in certain situations sounds much more immediate,visceral, and earthy and less like a medical exam. Wait, I think I’m derailing the thread….sorry!:-D

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 10:20 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@TCS – The thread’s been derailed! Carry on…

@Juju – Thanks for the assist.

@Karrie – Thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve explained in a few other posts, I’m 110% pro-Profanity and I generally subscribe to the Wanda Sykes school of thought on that one, which is (paraphrased) “People who don’t like you cursing are just motherfuckahs who want to control how you talk.” I am aware it is a turn off to some, but my preference is to use those words, particularly for the added emphasis they possess.

Generally, the only distinction I make (for commenters and posters alike) is not to curse directly at someone. There is a difference between “this is the dumbest fucking justification I’ve ever heard” and calling someone a stupid fuck. So there’s that.

(By the way, at that point, I was yelling things a lot worse at my screen. What comes out on the internet is generally the *nice* version of what I want to say.)

I hear your point about detracting from an argument, but I also find it amusing that even after I have taken apart someone’s argument and they are still being pigheaded, the cursing is the thing they respond to. It’s kind of a dodge – you’re still not engaging with what others are saying. It’s a last ditch effort to try to win an argument.

I’ll keep your comments in mind though.

(Oh, and TCS, yes, these things do live forever. I followed an old link to another old post on someone else’s blog the other day and was shocked to see a damn near *verbatim* rundown of the last blogosphere blowup – from two years ago! Same people showing their asses. Same ideas being hashed out. It was like a time warp.)

@Keren –

To be honest, I just want people to stop saying “Oriental” or calling everyone “Chinese.” I haven’t even given a thought as to who those labels apply to based on region. May be an interesting post though…

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 10:37 am ¶
Cara wrote:

Yeah, I wholeheartedly reject the idea that using profanity necessarily detracts from brilliance. And I say that not only as someone who loves to say “fuck,” but also as someone who admires the intelligence and work of many other people who do.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
Jeff Lew wrote:

Wow, lots of responses to the whole McCain and his “gooks” comment. Many people have made points that I was planning to make so I will just toss in my 2 cents:

#1 – The term “gook” is dehumanizing, period. It has been applied to Koreans, Chinese, and Vietnamese. It does not only hurt Vietnamese, it hurts all Asians. This is similar to the way “Jap” was used against Vincent Chin before he was murdered. Same dynamic. If McCain would have said “I hate the Vietcong, and I always will”, or “I hate the Communist North Vietnamese, and I always will”, it would have been a different story, but gosh darn it, “Communist North Vietnamese” is just a mouthful and doesn’t have the same appeal to your average redneck that “gook” does.

#2 – The Vietnam war was an unjustified, imperialistic war of agression by the united states against a people of color, i.e. the Vietnamese. Therefore, I hesitate to call anyone who participated in that racist war a “hero”, especially someone who went voluntarily and was not drafted. What constitutes a hero? To me, a hero is someone who sacrifices to help and save others? What, exactly, did McCain to to earn the title of “war hero”?

Let’s see… he was dropping bombs indescriminately on soldiers and civilians from the safety of his cockpit. He was then shot down and captured. Is this what constitutes a hero nowadays? Getting captured by the enemy? Nowadays, it seems like anyone who dies or gets captured in a war is a “hero”. Jessica Lynch is a “hero” for getting captured. Pat Tilman is a “hero” for getting killed by friendly fire. Brave, yes. Heroic? No so much.

You know who’s a hero? Audie Murphy was a hero. Claire Chennault was a hero. Anyone who puts McCain on the level of Murphy or Chennault makes me laugh!

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶
Jen* wrote:

I feel differently about the use of cuss words. I’m actually not impressed with their use in terms of how they’ve been used here, lately. I’m more likely to appreciate them when they’re used in comedy. Otherwise, I believe there are enough other words in our language to convey the rage/hurt/irritation that we feel.

But then, I’m not in charge here. And I am more than ok with that. I read, I comment (on occasion) and I appreciate it.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 1:50 pm ¶
wendi muse wrote:

i wholeheartedly agree with jeff’s comment above
i think that as a presidential candidate, mccain should exercise some restraint. i am sure a LOT of the presidents in the past and even the president candidates have experienced hatred, pain, tension, etc with a racial, ethnic, or national group besides the one to which they claim personal association, but they have been hardpressed to express said negative experiences by using the terms that are hurtful to the populations who happen to remain a vital part of our nation. i think it shows mccain’s lack of consideration for his voters, supporters, and even arizona constituents to continue using such terms in his public addresses and interviews. it’s a shame that he can get away with that without a word or two from the RNC folks. the fact that only the press has been critical of his use of the term, though mildly so, is troubling and speaks volumes of how we excuse public acts of racism in this country despite “how far we’ve come” (supposedly)

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 4:10 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Latoya–”…people showing their asses.” Another “blackism” I dearly love.:-)

@ Jen*–hmmmm…let me see if I can explain my pro-cussing reasoning another way: I’m sure that, if I wanted to call someone’s tired malarky on Racialicious using one word, I could easily say, “Balderdash!” But it just doesn’t have the same bite as saying “Bullshit!” (BTW, my mom taught me the word “balderdash.” Thanks, Moms!)

So, Jenn*, IMO, sometimes a cussword cuts through the, well, bullshit and into the heart of the matter…in Latoya’s case, the matter of lowercase tasha indefensible defense of McCain’s racist slur.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
wendi muse wrote:

not to mention, i find his use of the term to be an embarassment…it looks bad for america if our leaders speak that wayand brings us down to the level of world leaders we oppose. in addition, i think it’s foreshadowing of how mccain will lead our nation if he is elected our next president. in terms of international diplomacy, he’s going to get a big fat F because i have a feeling that if he can dehumanize people continuously at this stage in the game, it’s going to go beyond words in the future (ahem cough war with iran cough cough)

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
jen* wrote:

TCS – I get what you’re saying. And I can see calling BS. Maybe I get more sensitive when the big dog cuss words are out there, but whatever. I am so not the mama of anybody here.

Bleep to your heart’s content and carry on.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 5:39 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:

I love the term “showing their asses” it’s wonderful. As for cursing, I don’t do it much online but offline it’s another story.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 5:53 pm ¶
Mogs wrote:

wow, there’s been lots of complaing about McCain’s use of the word gook
i have three comments:

1) he shouldn’t have said it.

2) it’s important to keep perspective about his terrible experiences in Vietnam, and his service to his country.

3) you don’t have to fight every battle to win the war. maybe the McCain’s gook faux pas isn’t the best battleground right now, especially since he HAS apologized.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 6:32 pm ¶
Karrie wrote:

Hey, for anyone who thinks i’m slightly uptight with the cursing, I’m not. I have a mouth like a sailor, but i try not to use it in arguments because i know it turns some people off. Trust me, i usually don’t have much restraint, but my mother used to be a hardcore journalist (now she’s a shrink) so, ya know. She thinks that yelling and swearing and showing any type of frustration in an argument means you automatically lose, even if your point is better. I try to keep that mentality. But, i guess, fuck it.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 8:50 pm ¶
Winn wrote:

@ Mogs – As I’ve stated previously, most of the commenters here have been very respectful of McCain’s service and POW experience. But he’s not some old guy muttering into his beard at the local VFW. If we are to be sensitive to his experience as a POW, he should be sensitive to this country’s history of anti-Asian bias. The last time I checked, none of the commenters at Racialicious are running for President. But John McCain is. He’s being held to a higher standard, which is as it should be.

Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 9:51 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

LCT~ A white woman was attacked by 2 black teens at a busstop in DC because she is white (this is not a hypo, I have personal knowledge of this).

White woman walks down the street, sees you, professionally dressed, not a teen. PTSD kicks in and she screams “get away from me you fuckin n- bitch”.

It’s just jargon right? She was attacked by black females, so she shouldn’t be judged for calling you (who had nothing to do with the situation) n~.

I agree with Joseph. I think politics is taking a toll on everyone, especially you. Check out the post on un-plugging. Even I have to do that myself when I feel myself sliding into the racism easy chair.

Posted 06 Jun 2008 at 9:11 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:

he apologized?
nevertheless, the man STILL uses it…which is unacceptable. period.

Posted 06 Jun 2008 at 10:47 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

That she and her husband would have moved back into a White House most recently occupied by the son of a former president would have only perpetuated the notion that our nation’s presidency is in danger of becoming a nepotistic trophy.

Check this out:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted 06 Jun 2008 at 2:27 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:

I thought I’d seen it all but “the war made me racist????” Well that’s a new one for me. It’s not like folks went into the war with racist perspectives in the first place. I would love an answer to this but given the (rightly) heavy response to lct, I’m not sure we’ll see her any time soon. Hopefully, she’ll have had the time to think through what it means.

But back to the topic at hand (if it isn’t too late to address it yet)… re: not suspending the race and conceding… Most folks will disagree but from a purely strategic perspective (I know that doesn’t exceed but try and follow me) what pissed me off that Clinton’s campaign didn’t have a clear plan for the next thing… There were a lot of contradictory messages coming out of the camp late Monday and early Tuesday “If Obama reaches the (new) magic number she will concede” Later that same day another campaign manager said “She is not going to concede anything.”

I said all the above to say this, I wanted to see Clinton fight and fight well. I honestly believed the campaign slogan “Ready from day one” because I felt like she has always shown a knack for being able to move strategically through obstacles…. I expected them to have a plan for after the Rules and By-laws meeting*, I wanted to see a plan for the evening and the morning after the last election, but I didn’t get any. Instead I heard what sounded like a deflated speech and denial of what was happening. Yes, I know this sound like blaming the victim but this is a campaign dammit. If you’re willing to use the “3 am phone call” and the “bitter” ad campaigns, you have to be able to plan ahead for what’s next. It just seemed like the same thing that happened to the campaign after they figured out that Obama had won 11 primaries, only kicking in gear when it was obviously too late to effectively compete.

*I’m hoping to have time to write a quick post about the Michigan and Florida rulings as well as the popular vote, but suffice it to say the argument fell flat with superdelegates because
1. Both states violated the rules and had to face the consequences, but the committee had to make a fair ruling i.e. split Michigan, and award all Florida to Clinton since MI chose to move it forward and FL was forced by the Republicans. The decision was the best of all outcomes because to argue full seating for all delegates ignored the fact that the election wasn’t fair (i.e. not every contestant got to campaign effectively) and that a lot of people who would have voted did not because they either didn’t feel like it would count and/or their preferred candidate was not on the ballot.

2. The popular vote wasn’t a viable argument given the fact that some states couldn’t afford a primary and caucused which means that the votes of the people who caucused would be discounted. How could you argue for a popular vote and discount some states?

Ok, I’m done rambling post-mortem post to come soon.

Posted 06 Jun 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶
Mogs wrote:

@Winn- yes, he should be held to a higher standard. i agree with you there. all presidential candidates should be held to a higher standard than the average American citizen.
which is why i’m never going to cast my vote for anyone who hasn’t served his or her country in uniform a t some point. for me, that level of sacrifice and commitment to one’s country trumps all other considerations.
so as for the ” old guy muttering into his beard at the local VFW” that you mentioned? i’d rather have him for president than clinton or obama.

Posted 06 Jun 2008 at 8:52 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:

Or some of what Jenn Fang at Reappropriate said.

Posted 07 Jun 2008 at 1:52 am ¶
Winn wrote:

@Mogs – Vote for whom you like, and prioritize the qualities in a candidate that you prefer. That is a part of our freedom as citizens, ande we all have the right to exercise it. For me, a hawkish candidate who prizes aggressive engagement over diplomacy and trumpets military experience over a nuanced understanding of the economic and social issues facing ordinary citizens is not a preferred option. In particular, one who has used his position in the Senate to vote against the educational and health interests of his fellow veterans, as his Congressional voting record clearly shows. Finally, if that candidate uses his war experience to excuse denigrating and dehumanizing people who are a part of the citizenry he plans to govern, as well as members of the global community he must engage with as Commander in Chief, I’m sorry if I’m a little less than impressed.

Posted 08 Jun 2008 at 11:50 pm ¶

Open Thread: 2,154

Trackbacks & Pings

Comments

« Home

About This Post

Categories

Subscribe to This Blog

Search

About This Blog