Wednesday, September 05, 2012
All things DNC - a running blog
I have to say I very lightly sampled the first night of the whole affair. Honestly I hit the hay before Michelle Obama's big speech not because I hate her but I had to be at work by 7 to set up by myself and if they really wanted folks to watch it she would have been on at the top of the hour. Look things aren't going well for them but the DNC is like a defense attorney, you have to say something. I get that, it doesn't bother me and you can't expect them to be all walking around dispiritedly with placards saying WE SUCK. Actually they did seem rather dispirited the whole night. One guy was particularly pathetic and got into the whole class warfare thing (is that a winning formula?) and strongly implied Romney didn't pay all his taxes. Nita Lowey is actually one of the richest members of Congress, did you know that? There was alot of talk about women and heavy on the Goya. Masturbating the base, dead fetuses and gay marriage but no real talk of the public debt which David Brooks of the Newshour said is what those independent swing voters care so much about that and economic growth. Caught Harry Reid early on and in his speech I heard the phrase "some Tea Party ideologue" or was that my imagination? ho-hum and changed the station. Kathleen Sebelius and health care, I think I switched over to Globetrekker. Actually the whole night seemed rather boring and I was heavy on the channel-surfing. I could have gotten more out of my evening by meditating on the grease spot on the ceiling, I mean Clint Eastwood may have been weird but he got people talking. I was wrong though, I thought the Dems would hold more of a moderate convention but it doesn't appear to be so far.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fact Check? Lets go to the video tape!
ReplyDeleteThe National Public Radio, among other mainstream media outlets, whitewashed First Lady Michelle Obama's fib-filled speech to the Democratic National Convention last night. At the end of a roundup of perfunctory attempts to fact-check some of the Democrats' speeches, NPR gave Mrs. Obama a clean bill of health: "As for first lady Moochel Obama's address to the convention, the fact checkers don't seem to have any faults to find."That is because they weren't looking. The basic premise of Moochel Obama's speech--that she and her husband had struggled economically like so many other Americans--is false. Not only did they enjoy many advantages that others do not, but CNS News reports that Barack Obama inherited half a million dollars in stock from his grandmother, a bank vice president who Moochel misleadingly cited as a victim of gender discrimination.
If Barack Obama was an impoverished student, for example, it would certainly have been news to his friends, who included rich Pakistani socialites. He dabbled in recreational drugs such as cocaine--hardly a cheap thrill--and traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan while still at college. Barack Obama is known to have a penchant for exaggeration, having embellished much of his memoir; it seems that tendency is shared by his wife as well.
The mainstream media was so eager to pronounce If Barack Obama was an impoverished student, for example, it would certainly have been news to his friends, who included rich Pakistani socialites. He dabbled in recreational drugs such as cocaine--hardly a cheap thrill--and traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan while still at college. Barack Obama is known to have a penchant for exaggeration, having embellished much of his memoir; it seems that tendency is shared by his wife as well.
The mainstream media was so eager to pronounce Moochel Obama's address a triumph, a "grand slam," gushed Wolf Blitzer of CNN that they did not even bother to check the truth of the stories
omg.. please, PLEASE post your list of references and sources for this.
ReplyDeleteI can NOT wait to see it.
Thanks!
Apparently now FOX News must be in the tank for Obama as even Karl Rove, Britt Hume, and Chris Wallace liked the speech. Each if them are strong conservatives...
ReplyDeleteHow do the extreme right wingers explain that?
I think that Our First Moocher was kind of angry at Bubba for stealing the show from the Socialist In Chief.
ReplyDeleteDave Miller said...
ReplyDeleteApparently now FOX News must be in the tank for Obama as even Karl Rove, Britt Hume, and Chris Wallace liked the speech. Each if them are strong conservatives...
You mean like CNN, CBS, MSNBC AP, the NY Times, and all the others have been for the past 3 1'2 years?
Dude... you charge is scurrilous... you, like a lot of people on the right, only accept the accuracy of the media if you agree with them.
ReplyDeleteIs there ever a place for being able to say something like, I still don't like Michelle Obama, but she gave a good speech?"
I have read comments and blogs from people like you and Malcontent for years... and here is what Mal told me one day... he doesn't believe a wife of a president, or a candidate should be saying anything.
I have always believed that was a bunch of BS, just made up to give him an out.
Sadly, he is no longer blogging so we cannot read his diatribes telling Romney's wife to shut up.
Can you, and your partisans, talk respectfully of the first lady?
I am not aware of this level of vitriol directed at Laura Bush, Barbara Bush or even at astrology following Nancy Reagan.
Why is it so prevalent today from the party of family values like respect of fellow man?
Because they haven't anything of actual substance to say.
ReplyDelete& it might be added strong conservative John Podhoretz also liked her speech. I think many of us like to give the wife a pass otherwise it looks personal.
ReplyDeleteHum, David, I found you comment both very interesting and also full of shit. My pardons to the ladies for the vulgarity.
ReplyDeleteAs for it being interesting, the fault I found in the Faux First Lady's speech was the insincerity. Tell me isn't Obama his brother's keeper? Then how come angry hate-America Michelle didn't mention this guy who lives in a hut in Kenya in her review of "Barack's BIG HEART"?
And as for you comment being full of shit, All fairytales are full of shit.
Michelle had to give a soft touch to all the rampant pro-abortionism at the convention. Yeah it's not news that the Democratic platform has been mostly pro-choice down through the years but I don't remember a time when it was so aggressively so. It's a hodgepodge of everything left-wing from that to illegal immigration and I don't see alot of reaching out to those independent moderate swing voters who usually decide elections.
ReplyDeleteYou liked her speech Dave, well good for you, but don't get too used to her, because she ain't gonna be around to much longer.
ReplyDeleteHas for my liking her, well let me put it this way.. In my eyes, hypocrisy is telling a country you know what their money struggles are while wearing, $3,000 shoes, a designer dress that costs three time the amount of what a middle-class families monthly income is, or taking 15 Vacations a year, drinking top shelf vodka in five-star Spanish hotels: spending $10m of the public money on her vacations, or eating Lobster and caviar, and drinking champagne on the tax payers dime, and then tells us that she shops at Target. All this while dictating and lecturing a 16 year old Gold Medal Gymnast Gabby Douglast, who ate ONE Egg McMuffin, When Moochie most likely chumps on Twinkies in bed. I'd compare dress sizes with Michelle Antoinette and Gabby any day!
Moochelle aught to take a good look in the mirror and good look at Gabby's size and then just shut up for once..Just like a typical arrogant, angry, Marxist! Telling everybody what to eat, what to say, what to do and how to live, when her own Brother in Law lives in a Hut in Kenya. Only thing Moochie hasn't bought on our dime, is a Crown, but she still has time.
If this doesn't strike you as offensive, shameful and despicable, then you are a lost cause.
Is that substance enough for you Satyavati devi dasi? If not, I could go on a bit further..
Yes, Dude, I found your entire comment offensive, shameful and despicable...
ReplyDeleteI prefer to communicate civilly and appreciate it when others do so also.
There is a way to disagree agreeably, if people so choose. Z-man is a great example... we are not on the same side politically, but we never disrespect each other.
Why is it that, in this case, both you and radical choose to be disrespectful?
Why is it that Radical decided to come to my non political blog and leave offensive comments that have nothing to do with my posts?
Have I ever done something like that to either of you?
For folks who support the party that claims to love God, I find the disparity between actions and words to be tremendous.
Do either of you desire dialogue where there is a give and take on ideas, where people can search for common values, or do you just want to state your opinions?
No Dave, they don't.
ReplyDeleteIt's like how Michelle Bachmann says the President isn't in touch with the average American because "he's too wealthy".
Delusions. No basis in reality.
They don't let themselves be dictated by factcheckers.
Look Mister, my post was about Michelle Obama and it said nothing at all about you, so if you care to take it personally then go right ahead and be my guest.
ReplyDelete"Why is it that Radical decided to come to my non political blog and leave offensive comments that have nothing to do with my posts?
I have no idea why don't you ask him, to the best of my knowledge don't think that I ever was at your blog, nor do I care to, I try my best to stay away from Liberal's blogs, it makes me sleep better at night that way.,
Have a nice day!
And as for Satyavati devi dasi's dim witted attack, I don't think that I have ever been compared to Michelle Bachmann before. But that's nice to know. I'm just glad you didn't compare me to Nancy Pelosi. You may not like Michelle Bachmann, but I think that she's brilliant, and doesn't take any enemies, the kind of women that Liberals hate.
You have a nice day too!
An by the way, don't flatter yourselves, I don't come here to argue, fight, or even to disagree with either of you two.. And I stay away from liberal blogs because there are Obama supporters there, I only come here because of Z and Beth..
ReplyDeleteNeither of your blogs are of any interest to me.
I'm so still waiting for a list of references from the first comment.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to see them.
Look, You people want 4 more years of what we have NOW, and what we have had in the past 4 years? Then go for it.... nuf said!
ReplyDeleteAll I want is references for all the rhetoric in the first comment.
ReplyDeleteSaty, i've been down this road before with folks like Dude...
ReplyDeleteYou are not going to get links, references, or answers to your questions.
I've been called a prosecutor for asking for this kind of stuff.
Dude, you said your post was not about me, but it was addressed to me, which is why i responded...
Here's your quote... "You liked her speech Dave, well good for you, but don't get too used to her, because she ain't gonna be around to much longer."
Be that as it may, can any of the conservatives here lay out a path to victory for Mr. Romney where he gets to 270 electoral votes?
What states will he win that Obama captured in 2008? After Indiana, the polling does not look good for him.
Dave: "For folks who support the party that claims to love God..."
ReplyDeleteYou know what I don't get, the Democratic Party has a reputation for being the godless party, the socially irresponsible party for supporting things like abortion-on-demand etc. Are they a godless party? that may be fair or unfair to say. Let's say it's unfair so for the life of me I don't get why they originally voted any references to God out of the party platform. Oh sure it was inserted later at the last minute after a raucous voice vote that and Jerusalem being the capital of Israel but even the no part of the voice vote which was quite loud didn't make the party look any better. Can you explain this Dave?
Maybe because America is NOT solely about Christians and Jews, but plenty of other folks too, who get marginalized (and sometimes demonized) in the process.
ReplyDeleteIt's fairly frequently that when measures are passed that help to ensure the freedom of minority groups, majority groups claim persecution.
For example, and this is just the first one off the top of my head. It doesn't include 'laws' but it does illustrate my point:
Many Christian groups have claimed that the use of 'Happy Holidays' is an 'attack on Christianity', an 'attack on Christmas' or some kind of secular humanist way to eliminate Christianity from America.
They don't recognize that multiple other faiths celebrate holidays at that time, and that using 'Happy Holidays', rather than a negative attack on Christianity, is an inclusive approach that recognizes that other religious groups' observances should be respected as well.
It includes all while excluding none.
However, this is often claimed to be an 'attack'.
My mother in law is currently obsessed with the thought of and convinced that the 0.06% of the American population that self-identifies as Muslim is somehow going to force the 78% of the American population that self-identifies as Christian to renounce their Christian faith and convert to Islam.
Only 0.04% of Americans self-identify as Hindu. I am a member of a tiny minority WITHIN that 0.04%.
I neither identify with a party that goes on and on about it being so Judeo-Christian, nor do I necessarily feel safe (given the history) with a party whose objectives are to pursue a program of increasing Judeo-Christian influence in our country.
Just a personal viewpoint on it from the other side.
I am not sure they are a Godless party, but they are certainly more secular in their understanding of the role of government...
ReplyDeleteDoes not mentioning God in the platform mean you do not believe in God? Or can it mean you believe in God, but want to be sensitive to the millions of people who understand faith differently?
That being said, it was a public relations nightmare...
What is interesting is that the very people who last week said the platform does not matter, that you are voting for a candidate and not a platform, this week are trumpeting the importance of the platform.
And the ones who last week said the platform was vitally important, this week are saying it is not...
It all seems to come to "What I believe and want is best, and screw you."
How do we move forward in such an atmosphere?
For instance, my sense is that you and I could get some stuff done... we would both sacrifice a little of our beliefs for the good of many...
Abortion is a good example... you know I am a lefty... I support a woman's right to choose... to a point... for me, that right is not absolute.
So, you can choose an abortion up to some agreed upon point in the pregnancy and then we say too late.
And then we work like the dickens to convince people to use birth control, abstinence, adoption, and whatever else to lower actual abortions...
But there should be limits... something, for whatever reason, a lot of Dems dismiss...
And then take guns... i don't own guns, but that doesn't you shouldn't or can't. But again, within reason. Does someone really need 20 automatic weapons? How about 10,000 rounds of machine gun ammo?
Maybe we can put a limit on the amount of firepower individuals can personally have.
Even registration is a problem... for some reason, the GOP will not allow any restrictions on guns at all.
We already accept some restrictions on rights that are enshrined in the Constitution, like free speech.
We should be able to get this stuff done and I truly believe reasonable people, not beholden to party ideology can make it happen.
Or maybe I am just crazy...
Saty: "Maybe because America is NOT solely about Christians and Jews but plenty of other folks too who get marginalized (and sometimes demonized) in the process."
ReplyDelete& that is perfectly true and yet I think it extreme to excise all mentions of God in your platform. I don't see how one conflicts with the other. Let's say atheists are a minority in this country (dunno the statistics but I'm sure they're googleable) does that mean the only way to respect them is to avoid the mention of a Creator at all costs?
Dave: "Does not mentioning God in the platform mean you do not believe in God?"
ReplyDeleteNo but it does show they're embarrassed by the subject. They don't have to go on and on about it but one or two mentions of a Creator in the platform would have offended that many folks?
"It was a public relations nightmare."
Of course it was but the Dems should know how they're perceived by now. When you have a negative public image in certain areas you work on them no? Bill Clinton wasn't afraid to be seen toting a bible around every now and then.
I guess that Saly. Don't like Christions and Jews'
ReplyDeleteI think it's more along the lines of and this is a purposely ridiculous example but if there were only 10 atheists in the whole country we wouldn't want to offend them in any way.
ReplyDeleteFace it Dave Obama is Dead Meat, no way is he gonna win.
ReplyDeleteMoving right along.
I think that part of it may be that on the one hand you've got these Republicans who are like aggressively Christian in their approach to the point where they really ARE demonizing people of other religions... and then on the other hand, here's your alternative, imagine this, politics without religion.
ReplyDeleteI mean, really, how do I relate to a party that goes on and on about being so Christian? How does that represent me? How do they in any way identify with me or with anything I believe in, and how can I be expected to trust them to uphold and defend my religious freedoms? Because surely, what I see from them isn't encouraging in that department.
There are people who actually believe that you can have politics without religion. These are the same folks who believe in that 'seperation of church and state' thing.
That there shall be no test of religion and so on.
That you can believe in a God, or not, and it's still okay.
I mean, cmon.
Darth, can you show me the electoral math? What states... no one, and I mean no who is credible is saying this is in the bag for either candidate.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the electoral outcome you see that will get Romney to 270 given that they have virtually now conceded Michigan and Pennsylvania and seem to be on the verge of losing Ohio?
You can believe in something all you want, but at some point, reality sets in and he has to win some states McCain was unable to carry in 2008.
Which ones will they be?
A party doesn't have to go and on about being so Christian. All the Democrats had to do was insert a couple references to God in their platform, not Jehovah, not Yahweh, not Allah, not Zeus, not Ganesh, not Vishnu. They came across as a tad bit too Madeline Murray O'Hare-ish, it's like having diarrhea over a Christmas carol.
ReplyDeleteAnd why not Ganesa, or Visnu, or Allah? Because when you have a 78% majority and you say 'God' it's a given that you're talking about the Christian god, and trust me, not about Krishna.
ReplyDelete"it's like having diarrhea over a Christmas carol." ..you no doubt
ReplyDeleterefer to the big boycotts over
Happy Holidays? BTW, I've come to the conclusion that 'rinos' are the new far right: the old Eisenhowers were the REAL Republicans...now where did I put my flag pin?
That's not necessarily true Saty. You know the Masons and the Founding Fathers were indeed Masons but the Masons in their rituals refer to God in a very general sense as in "Grand Architect of the Universe" and they're fine with their fellow Masons worshipping the God of the Koran, the God of the Torah, the God of the O.T., the God of the N.T., your God whoever God. Anyway I agree with alot of what you've said about some folks feeling marginalized but I don't see how getting rid of the word God entirely in a platform is the answer. So we get rid of the only mention of God in the platform, don't we feel all warm and fuzzy now?
ReplyDeleteBB I can kind of accept Saty's explanation of the Happy Holidays thing as long as we don't get too pc about it. In other words I have no problem with you saying Happy Holidays to me, hell I've said it to customers myself but don't require me to say it or say I have to say Happy Holidays so as not to offend various sensibilities. At the end of the day I'll probably agree with you but let me be the judge of that.
ReplyDeleteLet's posit that atheists are a distinct minority of the US population even if we hold that we should not offend them the issue here is why should we go out of our way to not offend them? There are ordinary measures and extraordinary measures to not offend groups out of the mainstream and I'm not getting the heroic impulse here.
ReplyDeleteBecause I think the imputation of the word 'God', again, in an environment where the OVERWHELMING majority is some kind of Christian, really just doesn't leave any other kind of interpretation open.
ReplyDeleteAnd that inclusion is better than exclusion, which is the default answer otherwise.
Saty would YOU have taken God out of the Democratic party platform?
ReplyDeleteProbably. But if I hadn't, I would have been exceedingly careful to make sure that every word of the language I used was inclusionist, and that means inclusive of atheists and agnostics as well.
ReplyDeleteCan you be inclusive of atheists and agnostics whilst discussing God? Sure, if you're careful. And I would have been exceedingly so.
And now that I think about it more, here's what I think I would have put in the platform, or something similar. I don't write this kind of thing for a living.
ReplyDeleteWe support wholeheartedly the right of every American to express his or her personal moral beliefs without prejudice and the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose thereof; and to that end we support wholeheartedly the absolute separation of church and state. Congress shall make no test respecting religion; and we the Party shall continue to support the right of every American to be free from oppression, bigotry and undue interference.
So why couldn't the Dems have originally included God in the platform but done so in a careful manner? Seems like a no-brainer.
ReplyDeleteI dunno. I don't particularly care.
ReplyDeleteIn a place that keeps separation of church and state, isn't it a no brainer to leave God out of it?
ReplyDeleteI guess it has to be pointed out again that that idea of separation of Church and State is to be found in the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and not in the Constitution itself.
ReplyDelete"I dunno. I don't particularly care." The religion of Whatever.
You seem to feel that one or two mentions of God in a political platform is beating the public over the head with it. Um, somebody sneezes do you say God bless you? to be consistent you would not as you may not know what faith they adhere to but most of us would probably say go ahead and say it anyway as a form of being polite. Seems to me we have the same absurdity here.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see that religion has a place in politics. At all.
ReplyDeleteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think that pretty much says it all. Your religion is your business, not the government's.
No further comment is necessary.
Name me a war when both sides didn't claim God was on their's..
ReplyDeleteThat's one thing Saty but for the Democrats to take the word "God" out of the platform when it's already there...I mean yeah let's say this was the first time the Democrats ever had any platform at all you might go your route but when you do things like this have Him (or Her) in take Him out have Him in again it's like a form of political OCD.
ReplyDeleteThat's the whole problem with the conservative mindset. "But it's always been that way" is not an appropriate reason to perpetuate something.
ReplyDeleteShould we take "In God We Trust" off our coins?
ReplyDeleteHere's some interesting information about "In God We Trust".
ReplyDeleteThe Reverend M. R. Watkinson, as part of a campaign initiated by eleven northern Protestant Christian denominations in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognising "Almighty God in some form in our coins."[7] At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War.[8] According to Brian Burrell, the actual wording of the motto was inspired by a Union Civil War unit's company motto.[9][10]
In 1956, the nation was going through the height of the Cold War. As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we trust". The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian.[15] The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.
____________
So as you can see the inclusion of this statement on the currency was from the very beginning a political statement.
That being said, I feel like taking it off the currency wouldn't be such a turruble bad thing.
Well those Protestant ministers had every right to get involved in the political process, didn't Martin Luther King do the same thing? Free speech and the right to petition government apply to religious folk as well as non-religious folk so sorry if what you just documented I don't find so shocking. I'm only talking about feathery mentions of God in political platforms and things like currency not beating everyone over the head with it. It'd be like taking offense because someone says God bless you after you sneeze. You don't seem to be differentiating just that mentioning God is a bad deal.
ReplyDeleteAren't you one of those people who want government out of your life?
ReplyDeleteSo why do you keep inviting the government into your church?
Dunno, why do you think the government should recognize gay marriage if that's a private religious affair? I do want government out of our lives but just pointing out those Protestant ministers who wanted "In God We Trust" on our coinage were doing nothing illegal or unconstitutional. Do I think they should have done it? we all have an opinion. Did they do anything outside our governmental system? absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe church marriage should carry legal status and I have said it before.
ReplyDeleteI think all marriages should be done civilly and then if the couple would like a church wedding then fine that's their thing but it don't count.
I think a legal marriage should be done civilly. I don't think it's a religious thing or has to be a religious thing and I don't believe that a religious ceremony should carry legal status with it.
Government has no place in religion and religion has no place in government. Period.
Well if Gov't has no place in the bedroom why get involved in the marriage business at all?
ReplyDeleteThe bedroom is the LAST place you find a marriage. Marriage is a contract.
ReplyDeleteSoapster must've rubbed off on you but it needn't be a contract. The Bushmen in Africa get married is the government involved? Why do we have to legally recognize marriage at all even straight marriage? So a man and a woman want to hang out together for the rest of their lives, go to the A&P together, Barnes & Noble. Play pinochle with friends and have the occasional bedroom frolic DUH! ok cool but why does City Hall have to get involved? oh yeah the contract. Do you get a union handbook?
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to overhaul the entire thing, laws, everything, insurance, joint payments, joint ownership, rights of survivorship, child support, etc etc etc you can, but if you'd like to remain at least somewhat within the existing frame of society you can remove religion from it without any trouble at all.
ReplyDeleteMarriage has ALWAYS been a contract. Read your history. More marriages have been made throughout the ages for political convenience than for any other reason.
Your first paragraph there really proves the case that marriage has been the downfall of civilization and now you want to add gay mayhem to it? I rest my case:)
ReplyDeleteIf you let gay folks get married you'd not only be bringing tons of money into the wedding (and related)industries, you'd significantly elevate the aesthetic standards of today's weddings. Just because a strapless gown comes in your size doesn't mean you should wear a strapless gown.
ReplyDeleteThe exploding industry tomorrow is gonna be gay divorce lawyers. What I don't get is we've seen the social havoc hetero marriage has played on society and you want to compound it...put it this way, you know how you're walking in the mall and there's this older couple and they're carping about this and carping about that and you want two gays doing this? Give marriage a rest.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't that. It's about equality.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking at the Bigger Picture though and sure equality to suffer I get your point. Would you say hetero marriage has been a rousingly successful social institution? It's just ironic that gays want to go this route. Yeah I could see if hetero marriage had like a 90% success rate but maybe I'm just looking at it from a curmudgeonly POV.
ReplyDeleteWhen you was a lil Z, didn't you want to do the things that everyone else got to do?
ReplyDeleteYou're being a curmudgeon yes. But in that vein I would say, let the gay folk find out for themselves how shitty divorce settlements can be.
Paris Hilton and her anti-gay remarks in the back of that NYC taxi, everyone came on board for her defense including the gays because her privacy was violated by the hack who tape-recorded her conversation and gave it to a website. Interesting, if Mel Gibson had said the same things the cabbie'd be a hero and Abe Foxman would have a few things to say. Just sayin'
ReplyDeleteParis Hilton is a perfect example of why "American Culture" is an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteAll you have to do is see what's trending on Yahoo everyday to see we have no culture. I mean I might know who Kim K is but I'm not gonna spend a whole valuable block of prime computer time at the local library learning every detail about her whole fucking life.
ReplyDelete