Nuts and Bolts

Ross Ross

It's a few days after the election, and I've had time to calm down. I'm sorry Buckethead's offended by what I wrote. I regret the tone of the piece, but it accurately reflects what I was feeling at the time. I am bitterly disappointed. I'll try to be as clear as possible as to why.

Based on my examination of the issues in this campaign and the track records of the candidates, I felt that Kerry represented the best choice. The policy documents on his web site contained solid ideas to address a number of problems in the country, and were for the most part in line with my own ideas to repair the situation.

Fundamentally, you can vote your heart, or you can vote your head. Sometimes, when you're lucky, you get to vote both.

I am essentially a two-issue person: I am concerned with the financial structure and mechanisms of the federal government, and with war. As readers here know, I know a reasonable amount about the first, and little about the second.
No credible support of Bush's first term financial policy exists. A good number of the expert, fiscally conservative Republicans publicly departed the party over this issue. The only economists left on the supply-side bandwagon are spending what remains of their credibility at a tremendous rate. I have pleaded, time and again, for any substantive discourse on this topic. What I unfailingly receive are declarations that "taxes are lower", or some such. On who? By how much? And at what cost? A one-dimensional analysis of Bush's two tax cuts yields the not-quite-astonishing fact that a lot of people paid slightly less in tax, and a very few people paid a lot less in tax.

If I offered to pay you $300 now on the condition that I also get to put $2000 on your credit card balance (and I get the cash), would you take the deal? No rational person would.

This administration (and rose-glassed Republicans) have argued that "deficits don't matter". Deficits do matter, when the difference between deficit growth and economic growth becomes too great. There are numerous examples throughout the world (and in American history) of what happens when governments go bankrupt.

This administration has the worst record on spending in modern times. They increased discretionary spending at a record 7% per year, and that does not include huge expenditures on the military, primarily due to Iraq, which will inflate the true deficit by hundreds of billions more.

Republicans defend Bush's policies with two arguments: First, tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to economic growth, which will make up for the spending. The second is "numbers don't matter".

I have repeatedly addressed the first, here on Perfidy. I have done so with facts, and with numbers, and with references. In return I have seen nothing other than a repetition of supply-side mantras, usually prefixed by "everybody knows that...". Well, it just ain't so. Supply-side economists are the laughingstock of the profession for a very simple reason: The predictive quality of their models hovers around zero. When you put forward a theory that theory will make predictions, based on observations and actions, of outcomes. The relatively tame predictions of the supply-side economists have suffered greatly at the hands of reality. The outlandish claims and predictions of the political class with respect to the same ideas have no identifiable relationship to reality.

The "numbers don't matter" argument is unnerving, to say the least. If numbers don't matter, why bother altering the taxes at all? Hell, why bother paying taxes at all? Why don't we just drive the deficit up into the stratosphere? Economic growth will take of it, right?

It is very rare to encounter someone of either party that believes that we can run a federal government without any taxation at all, if the government is to continue performing its current set of functions. So the numbers do matter after all, and we are in agreement. What we're really arguing are where the lines are. What constitutes acceptable taxation, spending, and deficit? The deficit-as-percentage-of-GDP argument simply does not hold; by that measure we are a year or two away from record debt. A continuation of Bush's massive spending increases guarantees that it will occur. Further tax cuts will exacerbate the problem.

But this isn't really a place where I'm going to argue the numbers because I've done it before. And from what I can see, speaking to my Republican friends, you're not interested. I am perplexed as to the source of your continued support for supply-side fiscal policy, tilted towards the very wealthy. I wish it were otherwise.

The war in Iraq is an extraordinarily complex creature. Let me simplify to this: Polls have found that 75% of registered Republicans believed, in the runup to the election, that Saddam Hussein was responsible at least in part, for 9/11. It follows that if you believe that, a war in Iraq makes sense. Amongst the other 25%, the prevailing attitude seems to be that although the public reasoning given for the war was proven wrong, there were other perfectly good reasons for the war. I place value on the public statements of a politician, in the political process; I hold them to those statements. If we do not, where is the incentive to govern in the light?

The best available information on the Iraq-9/11 link at this time was and is the report of the 9/11 commission, which dimissed the possibility. The Bush Administration did not take the country to war directly on the issue of Saddam's role in 9/11. That role was continuously intimated, though -- and a trusting GOP party base took their leader's subtext at face value. The claimed direct support for the war was weapons of mass destruction.

I was a fence-sitter on the decision to go to war. The public evidence simply did not support war on the WMD issue. But...there was the President and his top advisors on television, advocating forcefully for war, and using phrases like "we know he has them". In a democracy you need to put some trust in elected leaders, and that led me to assume that Bush must have been in possession of evidence that had to stay secret. It was the only thing that made sense at the time -- intelligence must have shown proof positive that there some incredibly bad things going on there, and it was time to go in.

What we know now is that no such hard evidence ever existed, or was ever presented to the President. What weak evidence remained has since been demolished by internal collapse, or by the reality of what we have found in the country, now that we "own" it.

The President gambled that he would find WMD in Iraq. If we assume that he placed faith in his top advisors and only they were in possession of the details that would have led to a different decision, we must conclude that the President has a poor ability to pick solid people for his team. A lot of liberals (come on, let's admit it) have accused the President of being a liar. I do not. I feel utterly comfortable with calling him a gambler, though.

On the financial issue, the President engaged a tax cut policy with no likely positive outcome for anyone other than the wealthiest citizens in the country. The tax cut did come with serious, destructive side effects; these risks were well-known, in advance.

So on the two issues that matter the most to me, this President engaged policy that came with massive, dangerous, and well-known risks. He did so to achieve a very limited up-side outcome; to achieve even that limited outcome required dozens of known problems to break in the President's favor. They did not.

We can argue all day long about Iraq and whether long-term success is possible there. What we should not be arguing about is this: The outcome in Iraq is not what the President and his core team expected. As combat opened in Iraq, the working plan, authorized by the President, was to have force levels drawn down to below 60,000 troops within 90 days.

I will not make the argument that the outcome on tax cuts was not what the President expected, because I do not believe the President expected anything remotely resembling the outlandish claims of various GOP politicians to come true.

Let me return to the disappointment of democrats, and to the disappointment of this liberal. Bush's victory has been a bitter pill. Why? Based on my view of policies and supporting evidence, it reveals a fundamental flaw in this democracy's ability to make rational decisions. On the two issues I have highlighted here, I simply cannot find any rational, factual support for his decisions, now or at the time he made them. And that, friends, is disappointing as hell.

Most liberals looked at this election with hope and faith. They were not looking at their party, and they were not looking at their candidate when they felt these things. They were looking at their entire system of government. Surely now, in the face of such poor decision-making, such obvious division, such disparity between predicated and actual outcomes, the rationality of democracy would exert itself. We were confident that enough Republican moderates (and I consider Mr. and Mrs. Buckethead to be two of them) would look at the same facts, the same speeches, and come to something close to the same conclusions. All across the country, the serious, moderate Republican columnists (who also appeal to moderate Democrats) made substantial criticisms of the Bush administration, and many of them publicy declared their intention to vote for Kerry, based on Bush's performance.

We were waiting, held breath, for the relief that would come as the elections would yield a basic assurance that most of us saw the same facts and reasoned the same way.

It has been devastating to watch "liberal" goals be discarded, one after the other, by this Administration. I refuse to call them conservative, because they are not. At least, they are not conservative in any positive sense I care to associate with the word.

We really care about the environment; Bush threw Kyoto and the EPA in the trash and never came up with an alternative. We care about equality; Bush voters believe that racial equality and the equality of homosexuals are disjoint issues. We believe that the best foreign policy and outcome comes from cooperation and trust; Bush has alienated virtually the entire world with a bullying attitude, squandered lives and vast resources on a pointless exercise of cultural engineering. We care deeply about freedom; Bush's embrace of religion and his integration of it into the secular decision making process and apparatus scares us, because the past and the present show us where highly public religion leads. We care about the fiscal stability of our government; Bush has recklessly gone where no budget has gone before, while inexplicably proclaiming that he has done the opposite. We think that the future our children will inherit will involve the environment, religion, equality, globalization and fiscal stability; Bush has jeopardized virtually all of it, for no discernible reason.

Nowhere in Buckethead's missive has he put forward reasons for a Bush vote. In the absence of such I can only speculate, and my honest speculation goes something like this:

1. Terrorism is the greatest problem facing the country. Bush is "better on terror", because he will take the fight to the enemy and prevent future disasters; Kerry would focus more at home, and with him as President there will be a higher probability of a terrorist attack.

2. Fighting Arabs/Iraqis in Baghdad is better than fighting them here.

2. "Activist" judges are destroying the American Way of Life. Tolerating certain behaviors is fine; giving deviants official recognition is unacceptable. Kerry would force homosexuality into everyday lives, and homosexuals would "take control".

3. Higher medical costs are due to a tort system out of control. Bush would reign in medical malpractice; Kerry would make the problem worse because of "trial lawyer support", or socialize medicine in some way, which would mean a drastic reduction in service and availability.

4. Tax cuts for the wealthy help the economy, spur job growth, and "raise all boats"; Kerry would roll back the tax cut and choke off the economy.

5. A "liberal elite" has dominated the political scene. This liberal elite "despises" regular Americans and is trying to socially engineer the country . George Bush brings regular-guy, common sense to the job; Kerry is a card-carrying member of the liberal elite.

6. The "liberal media" lies about almost everything. George Bush can be trusted to tell the truth.

7. Republicans run a tight ship; Democrats would tax and spend.

8. Bush has had four years experience in the job, in tough times. Kerry has no experience as a leader.

9. A President with solid "moral values", and public Christianity is the best measure of this; a vote for Kerry is a vote for immorality.

10. Environmental science is bogus, and full of crazy predictions from liberal scientists who just want to make money. George Bush is right to roll back environmental controls, Kerry would wreck the economy with regulations to protect us from problems that don't really exist.

Am I somewhere close to correct with this? These particular ten points strike me as rationally demonstrable to be false; that argument is not relevant at this time.

I think Dan Drezner put it best, when he declared his intention, as a lifelong Republican, to vote for Kerry. He said that he just couldn't understand Bush's decision-making process, and while he disagreed with some of John Kerry's policies, he could understand how he made them.

We are dismayed because we do not understand how George Bush and his administration make decisions. We despair when a majority in this country support something we do not understand, and offer no additional reasoning for that support. We despair when, as in this year of issues that seemed dramatically simplified and obvious, far more so than in decades past, that our policies and beliefs are so mercilessly discarded by the tyranny of a majority that is actively hostile towards the personal freedom, collective responsibility and tolerance that we cherish. We are additionally left with the ugly aftertaste of intolerance, knowing that intolerance for sexual preference tipped the balance in this election.

You claim the existence of a massed heartland of reasoned conservatism. I have perhaps claimed something similar, a wide bastion of reasoned liberalism.

I despair because neither exists. I do not understand how this electorate makes decisions. Countless conversations with dozens of Republicans have come to naught; careful shared discussion of facts and policy which often led to fragile consensus on courses of action are discarded in a matter of seconds before a raised fist of misdirected anger, as tribal urges render that discourse meaningless, powerless in a new tangled context of emotion-driven, faith-driven political power.

Have I not been open to other views? I believe that I have been. I have admitted when I have been wrong, and if I have been demanding in the nature of discourse, it has not been to create a separate standard for myself.

I find it telling that in years of discussions on recent Republican policy with dozens of those on the other side, none has ever sought to convince me of their correctness; it was for me to be informed of that correctness. Perhaps I am not worth the investment. More likely, it is that some form of faith lies at the heart of these policies, and my good friends have simply been humoring me, knowing that unless that faith was present in me, no conversion could take place.

A missionary spends years in the field; good, enjoyable years of toil bringing truth, a desire to help, and the will to leave the world a better place than he found it. If his works are "writ in water" and without effect, does he not doubt? When does a man decide to turn inward, and for what reason?

I claim a right to decide it, when and where I choose.

Posted by Ross Ross on   |   § 12

§ 12 Comments

2

Ross, the purpose of my post wasn't to give a rationale for voting for Bush - it was simply to discuss the reaction of the left to the fact of his election.

I was amazed, frankly at the reaction. It is curious that so many who claim to have no understanding of the thinking of the far religious right mirror it in believing that Bush's election foreshadows some sort of secular apocalypse. This post is more reasonable, but you still show signs of believing that this recent election marks a kind of rubicon, where we have crossed over into insanity and there is no chance of going back. In a democracy, there is always a next time. All you have to do is convince around four million people that you are right, and the reins of government are yours.

In the meantime, the fact that someone disagrees with you - or more to the point has a different weighting of assumptions about what constitutes good in a soceity - is not prima facia evidence of irrationality. The fact that people oppose your ideas for what is best does not mean that there is hatred in their hearts. You claim homophobia on the right, but many could accuse the left - and you - of a debilitating fear of christianity.

It's just an election, Ross.

Buckethead Buckethead

3

Ross:

I never thought I'd find myself saying this: You have exhibited a tendency toward closed-minded preachiness for as long as I've read your stuff. I hung around, because you clearly capable of better, though I've never seen it.

You've proven your long-held closed-mindedness in this post, because you think that, relative to the discussion at hand, anyone gives a running shit what your political views are. And then, you deign to lay them out again for us. Speaking only for myself, I don't need to see your views again, you're teaching me nothing, and most importantly, that's definitely not what this thread of discussion is about. It's about your condescension.

Good luck with that, by the way. I'll not be among those who notice, once you get it under some semblance of control.

Patton Patton

4

This post was more reasonable because I was trying to answer your question, buried in the last post, which was basically "why are liberals being dicks?"

The point of this post, which came late in it, was that a lot of liberals viewed this election as a test of the democratic structure itself. To their minds, it failed miserably, and when you have those kind of stakes attached to the outcome, it takes a while to adjust to it.

"Close-minded preachiness"? Ouch. I'll split that into two parts. There are empirical measures, and on those I'll just say screw you, math doesn't preach. It just _is_. Deal with it, now or later. It's up to you. On the second part, though...I am disturbed by how easy it is to slip into the political equivalent of racial profiling. I know that a couple of my recent posts have leaned into it.

We all carry stereotypes around with us. When it comes to Steve and Belinda, I personally feel that they _really aren't_ like a lot of other Republicans. I can't imagine Belinda saying "Liberals are so fucking stupid about taxes. They're not even qualified to vote." Somebody she and I both know said that to me about six weeks ago. Or how about, "We just need to round up all the Arabs and kick them out of the country. It's the only way to be sure." That was just last week. "The goddamn homos just keep trying to take over everything. If Kerry gets in, they're going to be in everyone's face."

Neither Steve nor Belinda would ever say these things, but they get said, in front of me, and there's a _lot_ of it out there. Every party has its wackos; and don't tell me that in 59 million votes, there aren't quite a few. Republicans spend most of their time whining about the "radical left" and Democrats about "racists", and "homophobes".

Still, it's a game of averages, and the _ease_ with which we all seem to slip into labeling is amazing. We also like to take our footballs and go home...right, Patton?

"After the election's over, if the current looney left version of the Democratic Socialist Committee gets thrown out on its collective ass, perhaps we can return to something approaching reasonable political discourse. This all presumes, of course, that the bastards don't destroy the underpinnings of democracy in the US before then."

Maybe you got yours out before the election, Patton. Didn't know you had a blog, dude...or I'd have been reading, out of courtesy.

"Steeled as I was for the Democratic Convention by all the inanity of the past several weeks, the rampant bucketsfull of stupidity currently emanating from Boston have taken my breath away.

The fact, for instance, that anyone takes Jimmy Carter seriously enough even to let him in the room, let alone propound on the proper way to run a country, is astonishing to me. His cozying up to Michael "Super-Size Me" Moore is no better than his past 25 years spent cozying up to every tinhorn thieving/communist/socialist nitwit in the world, which makes him, at best, a thieving/communist/socialist nitwit himself. At worst and in fact, he's a doddering old fool who may have been a good peanut farmer, but was the least competent president of the 20th century, bar none, and who attempted to blame the American peoples' "malaise" for his pea-nutty nitwittery. By comparison, Bill Clinton came off as completely believable in everything he said, even though he said nothing that was both meaningful and true and the rest of his chest-puffing was mendacious, self-congratulatory, and illogical. Notwithstanding Mr. Clinton's immense gift for communication, any comparison that makes him look credible under the cicrumstances is no mean trick. A newly wrinkle-free Hillary sounded a bit less like a fingernail running over a blackboard than normal, yet was still not worth listening to, and only got a speaking slot by slinging her weight around."

I think I'm getting a feel for where the personalization benchmark is, man.

Ross Ross

6

I think that if you've picked your starting side, you can find your fill of condescension, either way. Each side perceives itself to be more "open", and each side thinks the other demonizes them.

If you can recognize that, you realize that you have to set it aside as a basis for your politics. Somebody is always going to be pissed off at your choices, and call you names because of it.

Miz B is _right_ on the verge of telling us what her top two or three or four issues are... ;)

Ross Ross

7

I described the "in the room" situation to a few friends, and they, to a person, considered it to be rude and mean.

I think "failure" comes from thoughts something like this: Some Democrats feel that, at this point, it is _impossible_ to be elected President of this country if you do not publicly state that you're a "moral values" candidate, Christian, declare yourself to be a protector of traditional values, be anti-abortion and so forth. That's very loose, of course, but the hard part for the D crowd is that those are the primary tests for a huge part of the electorate. No other issue can trump those. If one candidate is perceived to have those four issues, it is virtually impossible for someone else to be elected. The coutnry can be completely falling apart and those issues will still trump everything else.

It's not universally true, of course -- Clinton declared faith and was able (with the help of Ross Perot) to get elected. Without the Perot factor, though...not a chance.

This election _could_ have gone the other way. A less brilliant Rove, a more clued-in DNC, and it would have.

Still, the _feeling_ remains, that a future Democratic candidate will have to compromise the strictly secular view of government of many Democrats in order to get elected.

Ross Ross

8

I agree with you, Ross, that the election could have gone a different way with a more clued-in DNC. However, I do feel that more credit is being given to religion for the election outcome than is merited. The press is jumping all over it because it's such a contentious issue already, and fortunately for them, there is no lack of loonies to argue the issue; but I think that they are overstating the case. I know plenty of people who are religious, but don't expect or want that in a political party. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not, you have every right to expect NOT to be condescended to, automatically pigeonholed, or branded as stupid for your beliefs, including (Dare I say it?) those beliefs of a religious nature.

You can't just excuse the loss by blaming religion. I say excuse, because there are many things the Dems could do to get people on their "side." What about condescension and the general disdain the Dems appeared to have for anyone who doesn't tow the party line? I think the condescension factor was a big one for the centrists who ended up voting for Bush, and I don't believe that's all projection on my part. From what I've read of the centrist bloggers who voted Bush, that's at the top of the list.

Many people on the right disagree with each other on certain things. Many people on the left disagree with each other too. Perhaps I'm not qualified to say this since I'm not a centrist, but at least on the right I feel as though my dissentions are given credit for the thought that I put into them. My cohorts may not agree, but they at least try to understand why or how I could take that position. I am not made to feel that I HAVE to agree on X issue or be branded stupid/brainwashed/traiter/whatever.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen on the right, but it seems more intense and widespread on the left. You can write off an extreme faction that says you're going to hell if you don't agree with them, but you can't write off a whole political party that says that. That "sinner, rot in hell" mentality really comes through in the Dems dealings with other parties as well as in their internal dealings with each other. And no, it's not an accident that I use a religious metaphor to explain that point.

I don't want a one-party system. That's unhealthy. But the Democratic party in general needs to wake up and stop trying to "beat" people into submission. To paraphrase another blogger (whose post I believe Steve is going to link to once he's done raking the leaves out back): the Democratic party gave a lot of black eyes in this election. Many of those black eyes were given to potential Kerry voters. Not the smartest thing to do, wouldn't you agree?

Getting a black eye and not going back for more is not a sign of stupidity. (Stupidity being one of the most-cited reasons for loss amongst the Dems I know). It means you actually have a self-preservation instinct, and, as Martha would say, that's a good thing.

Mrs. Buckethead Mrs. Buckethead

9

Patton, I didn't read the entire entry so I didn't get the reference. I was just pointing out that he didn't make "Super Size Me," a DVD that I accidentally left at Buckethead's on Friday night. Just a weird convergence this weekend.

geez. so defensive. Nothing meant other than some other guy made the film.

Mapgirl Mapgirl

10

Ross, if losing an election seems to you or others on the left as a failure of the democratic structure, you really have a very limited view of the value of the structure.

Also, Patton weighing in on the foibles of the figures at the Democratic convention is absolutely nothing like the invective against the electorate that I initially complained about. Within reason, bewail the wrongheadedness of the president to your heart's content. That's your right. Attacking public figures is one thing. Attacking the electorate is not very nice, and as an added bonus will consign your ideas to permanent minority status. Attacking that part of the electorate that is in the room with you, well that's rude and thoughtless.

As bloggers, we are more or less expected to do the first. We should certainly avoid the second. No one here has done the third.

Buckethead Buckethead

11

Ross: Opinions are one thing, one very important thing. The matter about which I was responding isn't about the reasons for holding opinions. It's about the continued assumption that the majority just must be stupid. Taking Mr. and Mrs. Buckethead out of the equation, as you did so graciously, was simultaneously ungracious to the rest of those whose views also disagree with yours, and you've again walked right into Steve's original point, "Well, everyone except you two, of course".

My point remains, and it's got zero to do with the difference between your stance on the political issues of the day and my own. This isn't about personalizing, it's about letting go of the condescension.

You've cherry picked an item or two from my blog, and while the wording is mildly incendiary, at its core, I stand by everything contained within it as a valid opinion, albeit opinions with which you disagree. And I'm fine with that.

Did you read the entire posts about which you commented, though? What in the WORLD would make me refer to the electioneers of the left being "bastards" who might destroy the foundation of democracy? If you're at all curious, please feel free to read the entire post. Excerpts can lead to misconceptions, and have in this case.

The difference between the Democrats speaking about rubes and racists vs. the Republicans speaking about the radical leftists is simple: I don't think I'd be able to muster a long-term disagreement, an unbridgable divide, with 80% of Democrats. It's the other 20%, however, who've been setting electoral policy for the majority of Democrats, and it's the reason they've proven again unelectable. It's the LA and NY Times deciding that the issues to be promoted are those with which (as present evidence shows) they're at odds with the American public. And it's got to be fixed, because the Republicans, if left alone to run the country, will do so no better in the long run than any other government with unchecked ideology (See Cuba, et al).

You also appear to have chosen to ignore the last line of the last post you cite: "And perhaps the impending stupidity of the Republican Convention in New York will provide some balance." But I don't take your selective editing personally.

Mapgirl: Sorry for the confusion on Michael Moore - "Super Size Me" is a double entendre in the post you saw. Super Size Me, the movie, was an enormous straw man, designed not to educate but to make a political point via absurd exaggeration. Everything Michael Moore has ever done, in cinema or in person, has been designed not to educate but to make a political point, sometimes through exaggeration, sometimes through mendacity. Oh, and he's fat, but that's both a fact and no more than glue to hold the connection between the two enormous straw men together. I apologize if the connection was too obtuse, or if it offended you in any way. I don't apologize for thinking Michael Moore is among the chief practitioners of the action that began this entire bit of back and forth. Namely, having had his preferred reality outvoted, rather than examine reasons under his control, it's easier to claim that the majority is stupid. With that, I take great exception. And reiterations of his reasons for wanting the vote to go the way it didn't are NOT an answer to the question "Why do you think it's either OK or even in your best interests to insult the majority of voters".

That's the question, and it's not a matter of personalization at all, unless he can't answer the question without re-reading his pamphlets to me.

Same goes for Ross, with all due respect, which is considerably more respect than Moore deserves. If you misunderstood the question at hand, so be it. Same goes for me. If you understood, but decided to explain what you wanted and why, that's fine, but it doesn't answer the question. Pulling the punch on two personal acquaintances exaggerates the punch on the rest.

Honestly, you should feel free not to answer the question for me. The answer no longer interests me in any great detail, and won't, until I'm someday a Democrat, wondering why nobody will vote for me.

p.s. Ross: You claim "I have admitted when I have been wrong...", and while I cannot remember the instance, I'm absolutely sure that it has happened at least once, and that I've seen it when it has. Stipulated, you've made such an admission. Given that, my claim of unending closemindedness on your part was wrong, and I retract it unreservedly. Oh, and your math does preach, rather than just _be_, so unscrew me.

Patton Patton

12

Or how about, "We just need to round up all the Arabs and kick them out of the country. It's the only way to be sure." That was just last week. "

Someone really said this to you? Do I know this person, if so, I don't think I want to know them. That's EXTREMELY frightening in this day and age. Heck, why not send all minorities to internment camps again. Geez.

I am tempted to be a jingoist sometimes, but that would be the ultimate perfidy the modern wired world.

Patton: tsk tsk. Michael Moore didn't make "Super Size Me" unless that's a reference to the guy being fat.

Mapgirl Mapgirl

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]