The Catholic Church, and those who are siding with the Catholic Church because it gives them an excuse to bash Obama, are up in arms that their "right" to demonize birth control is being infringed upon.
Let's think about this for a minute...
1. This is an organization run by celibate men...it's easy for them to say birth control is wrong. That makes about as much sense as me dictating the rules of the UFC.
2. This is an organization that systematically covered up the molestation of thousands of children by their own priests.
Why exactly are we listening to their opinion on morality related women's health? It seems 98% of sexually-active Catholic women who use birth control anyway stopped listening a long time ago. I say the rest of us follow suit.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
War on who?
First, read this article from the NY Times: Student Faces Town’s Wrath in Protest Against a Prayer
We constantly hear Christians (and GOP candidates) talk about the war on religion and how they're being persecuted for their beliefs, and I'm sure this case will be another they cite as proof. But try to look at this situation objectively. This girl is simply saying that Christians should not be allowed to break the law, they should not get preferential treatment over those with differing beliefs. Those standing behind the banner say "it does no harm, what's the big deal"? But what would they say if another group wanted to hang a banner aside it with a Muslim message, or God forbid an atheist message? Tell me that those same outraged Christians wouldn't be first in line to have them taken down.
The Christian community, and many who have just never thought to question the societal norms, want people to feel sorry for them and become outraged for their mistreatment in cases like these. But look at how this girl is being treated for what she believes (or doesn't believe for that matter).
Like Jessica, I'm just a middle-class white girl from New England, so I'm not going to cry about how hard my life is. But I'm also an atheist (technically agnostic, but we're splitting hairs) and research shows that atheists are the most hated and distrusted minority in America:
"Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both public and private life, and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is striking that the rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatized groups. For example, while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America, rejection of atheists was higher."
So keep that in mind next time you hear about the war on religion.
We constantly hear Christians (and GOP candidates) talk about the war on religion and how they're being persecuted for their beliefs, and I'm sure this case will be another they cite as proof. But try to look at this situation objectively. This girl is simply saying that Christians should not be allowed to break the law, they should not get preferential treatment over those with differing beliefs. Those standing behind the banner say "it does no harm, what's the big deal"? But what would they say if another group wanted to hang a banner aside it with a Muslim message, or God forbid an atheist message? Tell me that those same outraged Christians wouldn't be first in line to have them taken down.
The Christian community, and many who have just never thought to question the societal norms, want people to feel sorry for them and become outraged for their mistreatment in cases like these. But look at how this girl is being treated for what she believes (or doesn't believe for that matter).
Like Jessica, I'm just a middle-class white girl from New England, so I'm not going to cry about how hard my life is. But I'm also an atheist (technically agnostic, but we're splitting hairs) and research shows that atheists are the most hated and distrusted minority in America:
"Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both public and private life, and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is striking that the rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatized groups. For example, while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America, rejection of atheists was higher."
So keep that in mind next time you hear about the war on religion.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
My thoughts on Occupy Wall Street
I've heard a lot of different opinions on the Occupy Wall Street protests, some surprising, some not. I've had mixed feelings about the movement myself (always in support, just questioning the realistic possibility of changing anything).
Off the bat, if you are anything less than "rich" (whatever your definition of that may be), and you're criticizing the protesters and this movement, why? It's one thing to be skeptical of their effectiveness, or to even think they're kind of silly. But to openly reject what they're doing is just backwards.
This Bill Maher quote always stuck with me, and I think it's relevant here: "The monied elite in America are dragging a bag filled with your future down the steps, and your reaction is 'Hold on there, that looks heavy! Let me give you a hand getting it into your trunk.'"
So here is my response to some of the criticism I've heard...
First, it's not about the literal 1%. It's about the subgroup within that category that has systematically stacked the deck in their favor. People like Karl Rove, the Koch bothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. People who will fight tooth and nail to let 45,000 people die each year because they can't afford healthcare, as long as the profits of insurance companies and hospitals are in good shape.
Second, it's not just about Wall Street. It is largely about Wall Street, since their greed is the proven cause of the recession and the horrible economic conditions that we're currently experiencing (although they're actually doing pretty well...did you see Bank of America's $6.2 Billion earnings in the last 3 months?). But it's more than that. It's the fact that our government has been bought and paid for by corporations and is policed by lobbyists to keep them in line. It's about the constant fight to cut teachers and cops rather than closing tax loopholes for millionaires.
Third, I'm with you in thinking that just sleeping in a park probably won't upend the trend of inequality in this country. But it can at least get people thinking and talking (and blogging), and I think that's where it all starts. Too many people are complacent with the way things are going. I think that people, especially on the left, feel so disengaged with the process and know that things are so corrupt that it's pointless to even worry about it. The problems are too big to fix.
But how can that be true when the cause of the problem is such a tiny group of people, and the victims are the other "99%" of the population? How have we allowed this to happen? Maybe we're finally saying enough is enough.
The Occupy Wall Street movement took up 9% of the overall media coverage last week. President Obama has talked about it. It's been brought up in presidential primary debates. Protests have sparked up all over the country and all over the world. If nothing else, it's starting a larger conversation.
Rachel Maddow had this great segment last night. It's just one small example of why people have valid reasons to be upset and actually try to do something about it (aside from just sitting at home complaining and writing blog posts...)
Off the bat, if you are anything less than "rich" (whatever your definition of that may be), and you're criticizing the protesters and this movement, why? It's one thing to be skeptical of their effectiveness, or to even think they're kind of silly. But to openly reject what they're doing is just backwards.
This Bill Maher quote always stuck with me, and I think it's relevant here: "The monied elite in America are dragging a bag filled with your future down the steps, and your reaction is 'Hold on there, that looks heavy! Let me give you a hand getting it into your trunk.'"
So here is my response to some of the criticism I've heard...
First, it's not about the literal 1%. It's about the subgroup within that category that has systematically stacked the deck in their favor. People like Karl Rove, the Koch bothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. People who will fight tooth and nail to let 45,000 people die each year because they can't afford healthcare, as long as the profits of insurance companies and hospitals are in good shape.
Second, it's not just about Wall Street. It is largely about Wall Street, since their greed is the proven cause of the recession and the horrible economic conditions that we're currently experiencing (although they're actually doing pretty well...did you see Bank of America's $6.2 Billion earnings in the last 3 months?). But it's more than that. It's the fact that our government has been bought and paid for by corporations and is policed by lobbyists to keep them in line. It's about the constant fight to cut teachers and cops rather than closing tax loopholes for millionaires.
Third, I'm with you in thinking that just sleeping in a park probably won't upend the trend of inequality in this country. But it can at least get people thinking and talking (and blogging), and I think that's where it all starts. Too many people are complacent with the way things are going. I think that people, especially on the left, feel so disengaged with the process and know that things are so corrupt that it's pointless to even worry about it. The problems are too big to fix.
But how can that be true when the cause of the problem is such a tiny group of people, and the victims are the other "99%" of the population? How have we allowed this to happen? Maybe we're finally saying enough is enough.
The Occupy Wall Street movement took up 9% of the overall media coverage last week. President Obama has talked about it. It's been brought up in presidential primary debates. Protests have sparked up all over the country and all over the world. If nothing else, it's starting a larger conversation.
Rachel Maddow had this great segment last night. It's just one small example of why people have valid reasons to be upset and actually try to do something about it (aside from just sitting at home complaining and writing blog posts...)
Friday, September 30, 2011
Somebody missed the memo
Someone needs to tell Michelle Bachmann that the Arab Spring is actually a good thing. It's the uprising of oppressed people to overcome dictators and fight for their freedom. My guess is that she hears "Arab" and automatically thinks "bad", "scary" and "Obama".
By the way, she's also totally twisting the Isreal thing...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
By the way, she's also totally twisting the Isreal thing...
Thursday, September 29, 2011
So then we agree...?
I have an uncontrollable need to find logic in things. It's the way my brain works, the way I'm wired. It's the reason I've ruined several of my friends' attempts to surprise me on special occasions. I ask too many questions when things seem off. I crave details and need to connect every dot. I'm like an annoying 5 year old who won't stop asking "but why?". When things don't make sense, I can't let it go.
I've realized that this is exactly why I get so frustrated with politics. Logic, seemingly, is optional. Politicians, pundits and public figures can contradict themselves, ignore facts or leave gaps in reasoning without consequence. If they only knew how many hours of sleep they've stolen from me, maybe they would be kind enough to stop. I think my cats can even sense the stress it puts me through.
I'll admit this happens on both sides, but as you can probably guess, I see it MUCH more on the right than the left. Just watch any of the debates. They're "the party of life" except when it comes to executions (regardless of shoddy evidence). They want small government, except when it comes to the military. They would never ever under any circumstances raise taxes (and that includes closing loopholes!), except for middle class taxes. They're mostly Christians, except they have no sympathy for the poor. (It's the only reason I have more respect for Ron Paul than most other candidates - as crazy as he is, at least he's consistent.)
The way I sort this out in my head is to tie it all back to their motivations. Since there is always a clear line to corporate and personal profit, that's usually enough for me to just say "okay, the people promoting these ideas are mostly terrible human beings, liars and thieves, but at least the dots are connected."
They do at least attempt to come up with some logical cover stories, i'll give them that. They're organized and have a fantastic PR team. They even created a whole theory of economics to try to make it sound like they're not ripping us off.
They claim we need to lower corporate tax rates and reduce regulations in order to reduce unemployment. I'm no business school grad or anything (yes I am) but if I were running a company and sales were flat or down, lowering my taxes or softening the rules wouldn't make me hire more. Why would I bring in more people if I don't have work for them to do? I would only hire more people if I have more customers...i.e. demand-side economics. You know, what those hippy radical liberals (and Nobel prize winning economists) suggest.
But it's no matter, that's their story and they're sticking to it. And because it sounds remotely logical to people with the critical thinking skills of a fourth-grader, half of the American public goes along with it. (Except when you break it down for them, in which case they lean left.)
The only problem is, the politicians themselves sometimes forget their lines. For example, Mitt Romney was on Morning Joe the other day, and said this (the video is too long to post, but if you want to see it go here, it starts around the 2:55 mark):
"Our president may be a nice guy, but our president doesn't have a clue when it comes to getting this economy going again...he doesn't understand how the private sector works...he thinks if you've got cash on your balance sheet, that means you're going to go hire people. No, you hire people if you've got customers."
Isn't that exactly what I just said? Isn't that the opposite of what he's supposed to be saying?? If a company won't hire just because they have enough money to do it, why put MORE cash in their pockets via lower taxes and less regulations? If it's customers they want, wouldn't it make sense to keep money in those pockets? The ones belonging to people who go out and spend it? By, I don't know, cutting their taxes, hiring them to rebuild schools and roads, not firing them just because they're state/federal employees, not cutting off their unemployment benefits, welfare, medicare, social security, etc? By, say, passing the American Jobs Act?
Apparently not, Mr. President. Apparently you're the one who doesn't understand how to get this economy going again.
If anyone reading this has any explanation that can help me better understand what I'm missing here, I would honestly, sincerely love to hear it. I'm not saying that sarcastically, I just need to reconnect the dots. It's past my bedtime.
I've realized that this is exactly why I get so frustrated with politics. Logic, seemingly, is optional. Politicians, pundits and public figures can contradict themselves, ignore facts or leave gaps in reasoning without consequence. If they only knew how many hours of sleep they've stolen from me, maybe they would be kind enough to stop. I think my cats can even sense the stress it puts me through.
I'll admit this happens on both sides, but as you can probably guess, I see it MUCH more on the right than the left. Just watch any of the debates. They're "the party of life" except when it comes to executions (regardless of shoddy evidence). They want small government, except when it comes to the military. They would never ever under any circumstances raise taxes (and that includes closing loopholes!), except for middle class taxes. They're mostly Christians, except they have no sympathy for the poor. (It's the only reason I have more respect for Ron Paul than most other candidates - as crazy as he is, at least he's consistent.)
The way I sort this out in my head is to tie it all back to their motivations. Since there is always a clear line to corporate and personal profit, that's usually enough for me to just say "okay, the people promoting these ideas are mostly terrible human beings, liars and thieves, but at least the dots are connected."
They do at least attempt to come up with some logical cover stories, i'll give them that. They're organized and have a fantastic PR team. They even created a whole theory of economics to try to make it sound like they're not ripping us off.
They claim we need to lower corporate tax rates and reduce regulations in order to reduce unemployment. I'm no business school grad or anything (yes I am) but if I were running a company and sales were flat or down, lowering my taxes or softening the rules wouldn't make me hire more. Why would I bring in more people if I don't have work for them to do? I would only hire more people if I have more customers...i.e. demand-side economics. You know, what those hippy radical liberals (and Nobel prize winning economists) suggest.
But it's no matter, that's their story and they're sticking to it. And because it sounds remotely logical to people with the critical thinking skills of a fourth-grader, half of the American public goes along with it. (Except when you break it down for them, in which case they lean left.)
The only problem is, the politicians themselves sometimes forget their lines. For example, Mitt Romney was on Morning Joe the other day, and said this (the video is too long to post, but if you want to see it go here, it starts around the 2:55 mark):
"Our president may be a nice guy, but our president doesn't have a clue when it comes to getting this economy going again...he doesn't understand how the private sector works...he thinks if you've got cash on your balance sheet, that means you're going to go hire people. No, you hire people if you've got customers."
Isn't that exactly what I just said? Isn't that the opposite of what he's supposed to be saying?? If a company won't hire just because they have enough money to do it, why put MORE cash in their pockets via lower taxes and less regulations? If it's customers they want, wouldn't it make sense to keep money in those pockets? The ones belonging to people who go out and spend it? By, I don't know, cutting their taxes, hiring them to rebuild schools and roads, not firing them just because they're state/federal employees, not cutting off their unemployment benefits, welfare, medicare, social security, etc? By, say, passing the American Jobs Act?
Apparently not, Mr. President. Apparently you're the one who doesn't understand how to get this economy going again.
If anyone reading this has any explanation that can help me better understand what I'm missing here, I would honestly, sincerely love to hear it. I'm not saying that sarcastically, I just need to reconnect the dots. It's past my bedtime.
Sorry for another long rant, I guess I should post more often so it doesn't build up and boil over...
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
This is a stickup!
The Republican party is holding the country hostage, and one way or another, some serious damage is about to be done.
Here's what's happening, in basic terms...I know this is really long, but hang in there, it's important.
The federal government has about $14.1 trillion in debt and we currently have a $14.3 trillion debt limit (ceiling). Congress has to vote to raise the debt limit in order for us to borrow enough money to pay the bills. No one really knows what will happen if we don't raise it because it's never happened before, but economists say that it will likely lead to another recession, increased interest rates, more job loss, etc. A.k.a., we'd be f*cked. Mind you the debt ceiling has been raised in the past (five times under Bush), no questions asked.
What's different this time is that there's a Democrat in the White House and Republicans have the majority in the House of Representatives, so we need Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling. The Republicans are using this to their advantage by making ridiculous demands in exchange for their votes.
What politicians are focusing on right now (or so they say) is reducing the budget deficit, which will help bring down the debt over time. Since early in Bush's presidency, and continuing into Obama's, the government has been spending more money than it brings in in taxes. This is mostly due to:
There are only two ways to reduce a budget deficit:
Before you freak out about the idea of "higher taxes", Democrats are only suggesting we do this by getting rid of tax breaks for oil companies and closing loopholes for corporations and people making record-breaking profits (before you go feeling sorry for them, keep in mind that you and I each paid more in taxes last year than General Electric, literally). The corporate tax rate is already at its lowest point in over 60 years. But still, Republicans say raising taxes will keep companies from hiring people and will increase unemployment ("Job-killing taxes!"), but it's simply not true. They're already making record profits and still not hiring anyone. Since 2009, 88% of income growth has gone to profits, while only 1% has gone to wages.
The Republicans absolutely refuse to raise taxes in any way, shape or form. This might sound great on the surface, but the reason behind it is to reduce the size and scope of government. Not only are they obviously trying to protect the tax breaks for the rich, but they also know that any money that is NOT going to the government will go to businesses which will result in even more profits for the rich. They're willing to sacrifice things like social security, medicare, roads/bridges, education, the environment, food safety, etc. in order to increase profits for the rich (i.e. themselves). The rich have been getting richer, the poor getting poorer, for a long time, and they have no interest in reversing that trend.
So this is where we stand. The two sides have been fighting over this for months. The Democrats have continued to give in and agree to cuts, but the Republicans just throw tantrums and refuse to budge at all on taxes.
The deadline to raise the debt ceiling is August 2. If Republicans don't budge on taxes but continue to insist on big deficit reduction, then one of two things will happen. Either...
1. We don't raise the debt ceiling and we end up with another recession and global economic crisis.
Or
2. To avoid that, Obama caves and is forced to cut spending on things that normal people really depend on in order to get by everyday.
I don't know about you, but "higher taxes" doesn't sound so bad anymore.
Bonus for Republicans...Obama will likely be blamed either way and it could cost him the 2012 election...remember what I said their "single most important" goal was?
What I don't understand is how the Republican establishment can convince roughly half of this country to vote against their own best interests. If you make less than $250K/year, you have no business voting Republican. And for those of you who do it anyway, I'm fascinated. Please, tell me why.
****************
And another thing! If you're not bored to tears yet...
Many economists say that we shouldn't be focusing on the deficit right now at all since the economy is still so bad and unemployment is so high. Debt and deficit sound really bad and scary, and they are, but they're not actually doing as much harm to us right now as the bad economy and unemployment. In order to get people back to work and boost the economy, experts say that the government should actually increase spending. If we invest in things like infrastructure (roads/bridges) or clean energy, we could hire a ton of people.
You might be thinking, that's great for construction workers, but what about white collar jobs? Well if construction workers get jobs, they get paychecks. Then their wives go and spend that money at the mall, and Macy's starts doing better and decides to grow their marketing department. Then they find an ad agency which now has to hire more people to work on that business, etc. You see where I'm going with this.
Once again, Republicans' #1 goal is to get Obama out of office. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected when unemployment was over 8% and right now it's 9.2%. The Republicans have no desire to bring down the unemployment rate, regardless of what they say. They'll tell you that Obama tried this whole "government spending to get the economy going" thing (stimulus package in 2009) and it failed. It actually didn't fail (things would have been much worse if it hadn't passed), but it didn't work as well as planned. Part of the reason why is that it got so watered down by Republicans that it wasn't big enough to work. It mostly consisted of tax breaks and aid for states, but very little for things like infrastructure that would create jobs.
The 2012 election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats (as should every election if people actually paid attention). But it won't be. That's a really scary thought if you look at who's running on the Republican side. This blog post is already waaayyy to freaking long to get into that now, but if you want to know more about who could be the next president if Obama loses, just ask.
If you actually read this whole thing, get yourself a cookie, you deserve it!
Here's what's happening, in basic terms...I know this is really long, but hang in there, it's important.
The federal government has about $14.1 trillion in debt and we currently have a $14.3 trillion debt limit (ceiling). Congress has to vote to raise the debt limit in order for us to borrow enough money to pay the bills. No one really knows what will happen if we don't raise it because it's never happened before, but economists say that it will likely lead to another recession, increased interest rates, more job loss, etc. A.k.a., we'd be f*cked. Mind you the debt ceiling has been raised in the past (five times under Bush), no questions asked.
What's different this time is that there's a Democrat in the White House and Republicans have the majority in the House of Representatives, so we need Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling. The Republicans are using this to their advantage by making ridiculous demands in exchange for their votes.
What politicians are focusing on right now (or so they say) is reducing the budget deficit, which will help bring down the debt over time. Since early in Bush's presidency, and continuing into Obama's, the government has been spending more money than it brings in in taxes. This is mostly due to:
- The wars (Bush)
- Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (Bush)
- The bank bailout (Bush)
- The stimulus package (Obama, but it was needed to clean up mess from Bush)
- And Social Security and Medicare costs which are rising because the baby boomers are getting old.
There are only two ways to reduce a budget deficit:
- You can either cut spending on things that benefit the whole country (defense/national security, social security, medicare, medicaid, roads/bridges/railroads, education, environmental protection, food safety, medical research, etc.)
- And/or you can raise revenue by raising taxes.
Before you freak out about the idea of "higher taxes", Democrats are only suggesting we do this by getting rid of tax breaks for oil companies and closing loopholes for corporations and people making record-breaking profits (before you go feeling sorry for them, keep in mind that you and I each paid more in taxes last year than General Electric, literally). The corporate tax rate is already at its lowest point in over 60 years. But still, Republicans say raising taxes will keep companies from hiring people and will increase unemployment ("Job-killing taxes!"), but it's simply not true. They're already making record profits and still not hiring anyone. Since 2009, 88% of income growth has gone to profits, while only 1% has gone to wages.
The Republicans absolutely refuse to raise taxes in any way, shape or form. This might sound great on the surface, but the reason behind it is to reduce the size and scope of government. Not only are they obviously trying to protect the tax breaks for the rich, but they also know that any money that is NOT going to the government will go to businesses which will result in even more profits for the rich. They're willing to sacrifice things like social security, medicare, roads/bridges, education, the environment, food safety, etc. in order to increase profits for the rich (i.e. themselves). The rich have been getting richer, the poor getting poorer, for a long time, and they have no interest in reversing that trend.
So this is where we stand. The two sides have been fighting over this for months. The Democrats have continued to give in and agree to cuts, but the Republicans just throw tantrums and refuse to budge at all on taxes.
The deadline to raise the debt ceiling is August 2. If Republicans don't budge on taxes but continue to insist on big deficit reduction, then one of two things will happen. Either...
1. We don't raise the debt ceiling and we end up with another recession and global economic crisis.
Or
2. To avoid that, Obama caves and is forced to cut spending on things that normal people really depend on in order to get by everyday.
I don't know about you, but "higher taxes" doesn't sound so bad anymore.
Bonus for Republicans...Obama will likely be blamed either way and it could cost him the 2012 election...remember what I said their "single most important" goal was?
What I don't understand is how the Republican establishment can convince roughly half of this country to vote against their own best interests. If you make less than $250K/year, you have no business voting Republican. And for those of you who do it anyway, I'm fascinated. Please, tell me why.
****************
And another thing! If you're not bored to tears yet...
Many economists say that we shouldn't be focusing on the deficit right now at all since the economy is still so bad and unemployment is so high. Debt and deficit sound really bad and scary, and they are, but they're not actually doing as much harm to us right now as the bad economy and unemployment. In order to get people back to work and boost the economy, experts say that the government should actually increase spending. If we invest in things like infrastructure (roads/bridges) or clean energy, we could hire a ton of people.
You might be thinking, that's great for construction workers, but what about white collar jobs? Well if construction workers get jobs, they get paychecks. Then their wives go and spend that money at the mall, and Macy's starts doing better and decides to grow their marketing department. Then they find an ad agency which now has to hire more people to work on that business, etc. You see where I'm going with this.
Once again, Republicans' #1 goal is to get Obama out of office. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected when unemployment was over 8% and right now it's 9.2%. The Republicans have no desire to bring down the unemployment rate, regardless of what they say. They'll tell you that Obama tried this whole "government spending to get the economy going" thing (stimulus package in 2009) and it failed. It actually didn't fail (things would have been much worse if it hadn't passed), but it didn't work as well as planned. Part of the reason why is that it got so watered down by Republicans that it wasn't big enough to work. It mostly consisted of tax breaks and aid for states, but very little for things like infrastructure that would create jobs.
The 2012 election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats (as should every election if people actually paid attention). But it won't be. That's a really scary thought if you look at who's running on the Republican side. This blog post is already waaayyy to freaking long to get into that now, but if you want to know more about who could be the next president if Obama loses, just ask.
If you actually read this whole thing, get yourself a cookie, you deserve it!
Friday, July 1, 2011
There are bad ideas, then there's the Balanced Budget Amendment...
Before you get caught up in the Republicans sounding all responsible by touting a "Balanced Budget Amendment"...you should read Ezra Klein's Wonkbook post on the subject that points out what it really means: The Worst Idea in Washington.
And this one: The Worst Idea in Washington, Part II
And Part III
And Part IV
And just in case you're still unsure, Part V.
And this one: The Worst Idea in Washington, Part II
And Part III
And Part IV
And just in case you're still unsure, Part V.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)