17 April 2006
05 April 2006
Good Night and Good Riddance.
As Rep. Delay prepares to resign from Congress, I am left wondering how we got here. The difference between the left and the right is a broad and dark chasm, seemingly insurmountable. We seem to have two choices in political parties these days:
1) Socially progressive, tax and spend, liberal Democrats. Seen to be weak on security and overly permissive leading to no accountability for personal responsibility.
2) Socially regressive, cut-taxes and then spend anyway, neo-conservative fossils who have tied personal belief to political belief. From the right we learn that if you believe in cutting spending and fiscal responsibility, then you also believe homosexuality is a blight on our civilization. We also learn that supporting marriage equality must mean you support terrorism.
What of the moderates? What of the budget-hawkish progressives? Going back to the chasm analogy, it's not that there's no room in the middle, it's that he middle is a seemingly bottomless pit where you will surely disappear. Each side has their hard-core base of voters, the folks who vote straight party tickets no matter the year, no matter the candidates. But for the rest, for the middle, the average citizen, it often comes down to weighing the personal against the economic. I for one believe the government has no business in my private life, but should have strong regulatory powers when it comes to corporate behavior. I think we need to re-think entitlement programs like Medicaid and social security. I think defense spending need to be reigned in, and waste trimmed. But where the party for that. Each election is a contest between the lesser of two evils.
Talk to some older people to get a sense of what the political landscape was like before the Reagan Revolution in the 80's and the Neo-Con Congressional landslide in '94. With each major win, these new style Republicans have made discourse impossible, along with compromise and statesmanship. Party loyalty above constituent loyalty. Anything to win, be it insincere, hogwash, or out-right illegal (Mr. DeLay).
With such vitriol coming from the Right, the Left responded in kind, widening the divide. Now that the Public is so clearly disappointed with the way our country is being run, maybe we'll see some new kinds of politicians rising through the ranks. I wouldn't hold my breath, but maybe by the 120th Congress we'll see a return to the civility of the old days, when we could all agree that Equality was a good thing, and disagreed not on the principle, but on the method. Even better, maybe we'll see a whole new political landscape.
Even though the English government is held together with little more than tea, crumpets and the Magna Carta, I find their three-party parliamentary system interesting. With three relatively viable parties it is rare for any party to have a clear majority, they must be satisfied with a plurality, and try to build coalitions. That's something we haven't seen in our legislature since time immemorial.
04 April 2006
Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead ....
BBC NEWS | Americas | Top US Republican stepping down
One of the greatest villains since Grendel of Beowulf fame, and almost as disgusting, Delay has not decided to run again. I would just like to say
Yipppe Freakin' Whoo!!!
This man, this bastion of ugly partisanism, this corrupter of Republican values, this power-hungry, gerry-mandering a-hole may be gone as soon as May or June.
I find it hard to contain my excitement. I haven't been this happy with the Republican Party since they didn't elect Blunt to lead them.
One of the greatest villains since Grendel of Beowulf fame, and almost as disgusting, Delay has not decided to run again. I would just like to say
Yipppe Freakin' Whoo!!!
This man, this bastion of ugly partisanism, this corrupter of Republican values, this power-hungry, gerry-mandering a-hole may be gone as soon as May or June.
I find it hard to contain my excitement. I haven't been this happy with the Republican Party since they didn't elect Blunt to lead them.
20 March 2006
Whose the party of fiscal responsiblity?
BBC NEWS | Business | US debt limit nears $9 trillion
It's nice to see that the Republican party is flexible, capable of change. They seem to have changed quite a bit, from fiscally and socially conservative to free-wheeling with our budget defecit while also seeking to further government interference in private matters. No longer the party of the right, they seem to have become the party of the religious-right. All others need not apply. Rather than advance policies on governing their primary goal is the passing of a social agenda, rending power from the states and quashing individual liberties.
Back to the previous point. I understand that the debt ceiling had to be raised or the government would have defaulted on the t-bills, and the dollar, already so low thanks to low foreign investor confidence, would have sunk lower. My question is, couldn't they see it coming? Couldn't they have planned for this, or at least pushed it off if it was inevitable? The rubber-stamping congress, rather than exercise their Constitutional Duty to provide a check on the Executive, has seen fit to defecit spend rather than refuse to give tax-cuts. That doesn't sound like fiscal conservatism to me. It sounds like ideological, political power-play mumbo jumbo.
War is expensive, and often leads to defecit spending. This current war is costing more than originally estimated and shows no signs of stopping. But the geniuses who run the GOP saw fit to pass massive tax cuts, just when the need for revenue was about to increase in an unpredictable but necessary way.
Fiscal Responsibility My Aunt Fanny!
It's nice to see that the Republican party is flexible, capable of change. They seem to have changed quite a bit, from fiscally and socially conservative to free-wheeling with our budget defecit while also seeking to further government interference in private matters. No longer the party of the right, they seem to have become the party of the religious-right. All others need not apply. Rather than advance policies on governing their primary goal is the passing of a social agenda, rending power from the states and quashing individual liberties.
Back to the previous point. I understand that the debt ceiling had to be raised or the government would have defaulted on the t-bills, and the dollar, already so low thanks to low foreign investor confidence, would have sunk lower. My question is, couldn't they see it coming? Couldn't they have planned for this, or at least pushed it off if it was inevitable? The rubber-stamping congress, rather than exercise their Constitutional Duty to provide a check on the Executive, has seen fit to defecit spend rather than refuse to give tax-cuts. That doesn't sound like fiscal conservatism to me. It sounds like ideological, political power-play mumbo jumbo.
War is expensive, and often leads to defecit spending. This current war is costing more than originally estimated and shows no signs of stopping. But the geniuses who run the GOP saw fit to pass massive tax cuts, just when the need for revenue was about to increase in an unpredictable but necessary way.
Fiscal Responsibility My Aunt Fanny!
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Okay, so I know any lawyer (or even law student for that matter) could pick my argument apart while stoned or half-asleep, but hear me out.
Marriage is a Universal and Fundamental right for Men and Women, and no limitation of race, nationality or religion may be used to keep them from their intended spouse here in the United States or any signatory country, as long as they are of full age and capacity.
From my viewpoint, no matter what language is used to couch it, the attempts to keep same-sex couples from legal recognition is based soley on an animus stemming from religious beliefs. Call me crazy, but it sounds like limitations due to religion.
No where does the Declaration expressly allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation, and strict constructonist that I am, powers are only ever expressly derived from governing documents. Implied powers cannot hold up against fundamental rights. Simply because something is not forbidden (discrimination based on sexual orientation), does not mean it is allowed.
"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Okay, so I know any lawyer (or even law student for that matter) could pick my argument apart while stoned or half-asleep, but hear me out.
Marriage is a Universal and Fundamental right for Men and Women, and no limitation of race, nationality or religion may be used to keep them from their intended spouse here in the United States or any signatory country, as long as they are of full age and capacity.
From my viewpoint, no matter what language is used to couch it, the attempts to keep same-sex couples from legal recognition is based soley on an animus stemming from religious beliefs. Call me crazy, but it sounds like limitations due to religion.
No where does the Declaration expressly allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation, and strict constructonist that I am, powers are only ever expressly derived from governing documents. Implied powers cannot hold up against fundamental rights. Simply because something is not forbidden (discrimination based on sexual orientation), does not mean it is allowed.
15 March 2006
Oh, I've Been to Prague...
BBC NEWS | Europe | Czech MPs approve gay rights law
Though there seems to be inherent danger in referring to foreign law when arguing positions of policy, I include here a link to show just how out of sync I consider the United States to be. The Czech Republic is likely to recognize that gay people have rights too. The US has not yet gone that far.
To defend the position of many socially-progressive yet conservative people, adding laws is usually not the best way to ensure freedom from interference on the part of the government. Fewer laws = better exercise of freedoms. However, due to the current EOE, and other similar laws that protect classes of people, there seems to be an implicit conclusion that those not included on the act can be legally discriminated against. So, more law seems neccessary.
Czechs 1 - Americans 0.
My opinion regarding rights liberties and freedoms is quite simple. Having been endowed by my creator with certain inalianable rights, it is not for the government to graciously grant those rights to me. I already have, by birthright, by the mere fact of my having been born to human parents, said rights. We should not seek to be given our rights, hat in hand. We should seek to force the government to recognize those rights and through legislation prevent others from infringing on them. That, to me anyways, is the whole reason we consent to be governed.
Though there seems to be inherent danger in referring to foreign law when arguing positions of policy, I include here a link to show just how out of sync I consider the United States to be. The Czech Republic is likely to recognize that gay people have rights too. The US has not yet gone that far.
To defend the position of many socially-progressive yet conservative people, adding laws is usually not the best way to ensure freedom from interference on the part of the government. Fewer laws = better exercise of freedoms. However, due to the current EOE, and other similar laws that protect classes of people, there seems to be an implicit conclusion that those not included on the act can be legally discriminated against. So, more law seems neccessary.
Czechs 1 - Americans 0.
My opinion regarding rights liberties and freedoms is quite simple. Having been endowed by my creator with certain inalianable rights, it is not for the government to graciously grant those rights to me. I already have, by birthright, by the mere fact of my having been born to human parents, said rights. We should not seek to be given our rights, hat in hand. We should seek to force the government to recognize those rights and through legislation prevent others from infringing on them. That, to me anyways, is the whole reason we consent to be governed.
Mexican Oil: Spicy, with a Little Heat
BBC NEWS | Americas | Mexico discovers 'huge' oil field
I'll just say, it's a good thing Mexico owes the US so much money, and will essentially do what they're told, otherwise we'd have to annex them.
I'll just say, it's a good thing Mexico owes the US so much money, and will essentially do what they're told, otherwise we'd have to annex them.
A Response to Scott Adams
The Dilbert Blog
Dear Mr. Adams:
While I certainly agree that on the issue of "Blah, blah, blah" we can defer to public opinion, I have to contend that the constitutionality of most issues is paramount, over and above public opinion.
If the issue is mainly nomenclature then we have no need for the 667 rule. 'Right' and 'Wrong' are simply defined by the individual, who may refer to the opinion of friends, family, religious leaders or public opinion polls to form their own stance. The law is not concerned with 'right' and 'wrong', but only with what is just. And what is just is defined in the context of the Constitution.
The Constitution exists as the rule of law. All laws must emanate from it, or they are not truly law. The reason we do not have a simple majority rules, or as you may be recommending (I can't really tell), a super-majority rules, is that the Founding Fathers were concerned not only for the Will of the Majority, but also for the Rights of the Minority. Even with a 667 there would be rougly 33 percent of the public who would stand on the other side of the issue. Those 33 percent have rights, and the Constitution protects them. It's a delicate balancing act, but in the American vision of a just society the Will of the Majority should never take precedence over the guaranteed Rights that we all share.
More to the point, good luck finding an issue where 66.7% of the public actually affirmatively agree on something. The country is largely split 50/50 on most issues, and their specific feelings change depending on where wording emphaisis is placed. For example, more Americans support 'defining marriage as between a man and a woman' than support 'making same-sex marriage illegal.' The end result is the same, but most induhviduals just answer based on conditioning than on any real thought. The constitution is there to help protect us all from the finicky will of the people, and force us to examine an issue before deciding on it. By the way, my polling research is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, but you can check the numbers yourself on any of the many polling site on the internet. Pew Trusts, Harris Polls and Gallup Polls are among the most respected and trustworthy.
Not to mention most polls seem to seek a sample size of around 1000, which may be statistically significant, but is far from the total number of 'adult citizens who could vote.' Plus polls only tend to poll likely voters, not all possible voters. So, we could redisgn the polls I suppose, but what about the margin of error, usually +/- 3 percent. Would we really need the 697 rule to make sure we are within the margin of error?
I also realize that you are mainly a cartoonist, but you are also very smart and philosophical (e.g. God's Debris). If I read this 667 rule in a Dilbert comic, I would have merely laughed, shook my head and not bothered to repsond. But on the blog, it's hard to tell where you are just being funny, or if you are being funny and attempting to provoke stupidly long responses, or if you're just annoyed becuase some guy ruined a party you were at by not letting up on the political talk.
If I have misinterpreted, or simply taken you too seriously I apologize. I certainly see the possibility looming in front of me. But, if nothing else perhaps someone else will read this response to you and think about something. Anything.
Sincerely,
Tripp
Dear Mr. Adams:
While I certainly agree that on the issue of "Blah, blah, blah" we can defer to public opinion, I have to contend that the constitutionality of most issues is paramount, over and above public opinion.
If the issue is mainly nomenclature then we have no need for the 667 rule. 'Right' and 'Wrong' are simply defined by the individual, who may refer to the opinion of friends, family, religious leaders or public opinion polls to form their own stance. The law is not concerned with 'right' and 'wrong', but only with what is just. And what is just is defined in the context of the Constitution.
The Constitution exists as the rule of law. All laws must emanate from it, or they are not truly law. The reason we do not have a simple majority rules, or as you may be recommending (I can't really tell), a super-majority rules, is that the Founding Fathers were concerned not only for the Will of the Majority, but also for the Rights of the Minority. Even with a 667 there would be rougly 33 percent of the public who would stand on the other side of the issue. Those 33 percent have rights, and the Constitution protects them. It's a delicate balancing act, but in the American vision of a just society the Will of the Majority should never take precedence over the guaranteed Rights that we all share.
More to the point, good luck finding an issue where 66.7% of the public actually affirmatively agree on something. The country is largely split 50/50 on most issues, and their specific feelings change depending on where wording emphaisis is placed. For example, more Americans support 'defining marriage as between a man and a woman' than support 'making same-sex marriage illegal.' The end result is the same, but most induhviduals just answer based on conditioning than on any real thought. The constitution is there to help protect us all from the finicky will of the people, and force us to examine an issue before deciding on it. By the way, my polling research is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, but you can check the numbers yourself on any of the many polling site on the internet. Pew Trusts, Harris Polls and Gallup Polls are among the most respected and trustworthy.
Not to mention most polls seem to seek a sample size of around 1000, which may be statistically significant, but is far from the total number of 'adult citizens who could vote.' Plus polls only tend to poll likely voters, not all possible voters. So, we could redisgn the polls I suppose, but what about the margin of error, usually +/- 3 percent. Would we really need the 697 rule to make sure we are within the margin of error?
I also realize that you are mainly a cartoonist, but you are also very smart and philosophical (e.g. God's Debris). If I read this 667 rule in a Dilbert comic, I would have merely laughed, shook my head and not bothered to repsond. But on the blog, it's hard to tell where you are just being funny, or if you are being funny and attempting to provoke stupidly long responses, or if you're just annoyed becuase some guy ruined a party you were at by not letting up on the political talk.
If I have misinterpreted, or simply taken you too seriously I apologize. I certainly see the possibility looming in front of me. But, if nothing else perhaps someone else will read this response to you and think about something. Anything.
Sincerely,
Tripp
10 March 2006
The Independent Judiciary
NPR : O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts
An independent and powerful Judiciary are hallmarks of a just society. It is our political heritage and bedrock of our common law legal system.
What is interesting is that the Neo-Cons are only now upset by activist judges, which apparently are any judges who do not use Neo-Con ideology when making rulings, but instead defer to law and the constitutions of the states and federal government. When President Reagan and the Conservative Revolution took Washington the Executive began a bold campaign of trying to convince every judge on the bench to undue or circumvent much settled case law, most notably Roe v Wade. Other examples include Affirmative Action, Civil Rights and the Role of Faith in Government. Where positions opened in the Federal Bench it was not qualifications alone that made sure you'd get the tap. No, no. Your chances were greatly improved if you were not only well-educated, accomplished and articulate, but if you shared the President's view of government and his views on all the issues his administration had taken on. Was this ethical, was this right? It's hard to say. But what we do know is that the Office of the President was not only satisfied with, but strongly encouraged what can only be described as Judicial Activism.
Personal Ideology should never be the basis for a Judicial Opinion, and I believe it rarely is. I trust in the Justices and Judges that are appointed to the bench to maintain their allegiance to the Law above their allegiance to any party. While there are many different theories of jurisprudence, and most Justices have their own sense that has developed over time, these theories and methods are not Political or Religious ideology. They are beliefs as to how law should be interpreted and justice administered. Judges must be above Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Centrist, Progressive or any easily adhered label.
When above these considerations unpopular decisions are often made. Or, more likely, decisions that create a nearly even split among the citizens of the Republic. But Judges are not answerable to the public, in fact their selection is about as far removed from the public as any officer of the government. They are never answerable to the Executive, once appointed. And they are answerable to the Legislature, once appointed, only through the extraordinary process of impeachment.
The Justices are the standard-bearer of the rights of the minority, as the Congressman are the standard-bearers of the will of the majority. These two influences must always remained balanced, for to give too much power to one is to weaken the very foundation of our Republican Democracy. Cheap and politically motivated attacks on the Judiciary, through constitutionally questionable proposed legislation, through the all-to-eager and all-to-willing to print and broadcast press, from political pressure and demagoguery is a challenge to the Framer's Intent, to the very American way of life.
Oh, Great Legislators! Just because you don't like the decision, doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad, or evil. Just because you are not ready to see the country move on to the next phase of freedom and human rights, doesn't mean it's not time. So the gays can marry in Massachusetts, why are you all so upset? Get over it, and stand with your brothers and sisters in arms, the Judges. Acknowledge their sacrifice for their country, just as you sacrifice for it. And for the Love of G-d stop politicising the lives of others, and their champions. Have a debate about real issues, that actually effect us, like massive trade deficits, a burgeoning debt and the cost of health care. Leave the philosophical and religious debates to the philosophers and theologians. Focus on what you can fix, can make better. Focus on the law, freedom, prosperity and defense and stop using that cornerstone of the parlor trick, mis-direction, to cover your own failures.
An independent and powerful Judiciary are hallmarks of a just society. It is our political heritage and bedrock of our common law legal system.
What is interesting is that the Neo-Cons are only now upset by activist judges, which apparently are any judges who do not use Neo-Con ideology when making rulings, but instead defer to law and the constitutions of the states and federal government. When President Reagan and the Conservative Revolution took Washington the Executive began a bold campaign of trying to convince every judge on the bench to undue or circumvent much settled case law, most notably Roe v Wade. Other examples include Affirmative Action, Civil Rights and the Role of Faith in Government. Where positions opened in the Federal Bench it was not qualifications alone that made sure you'd get the tap. No, no. Your chances were greatly improved if you were not only well-educated, accomplished and articulate, but if you shared the President's view of government and his views on all the issues his administration had taken on. Was this ethical, was this right? It's hard to say. But what we do know is that the Office of the President was not only satisfied with, but strongly encouraged what can only be described as Judicial Activism.
Personal Ideology should never be the basis for a Judicial Opinion, and I believe it rarely is. I trust in the Justices and Judges that are appointed to the bench to maintain their allegiance to the Law above their allegiance to any party. While there are many different theories of jurisprudence, and most Justices have their own sense that has developed over time, these theories and methods are not Political or Religious ideology. They are beliefs as to how law should be interpreted and justice administered. Judges must be above Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Centrist, Progressive or any easily adhered label.
When above these considerations unpopular decisions are often made. Or, more likely, decisions that create a nearly even split among the citizens of the Republic. But Judges are not answerable to the public, in fact their selection is about as far removed from the public as any officer of the government. They are never answerable to the Executive, once appointed. And they are answerable to the Legislature, once appointed, only through the extraordinary process of impeachment.
The Justices are the standard-bearer of the rights of the minority, as the Congressman are the standard-bearers of the will of the majority. These two influences must always remained balanced, for to give too much power to one is to weaken the very foundation of our Republican Democracy. Cheap and politically motivated attacks on the Judiciary, through constitutionally questionable proposed legislation, through the all-to-eager and all-to-willing to print and broadcast press, from political pressure and demagoguery is a challenge to the Framer's Intent, to the very American way of life.
Oh, Great Legislators! Just because you don't like the decision, doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad, or evil. Just because you are not ready to see the country move on to the next phase of freedom and human rights, doesn't mean it's not time. So the gays can marry in Massachusetts, why are you all so upset? Get over it, and stand with your brothers and sisters in arms, the Judges. Acknowledge their sacrifice for their country, just as you sacrifice for it. And for the Love of G-d stop politicising the lives of others, and their champions. Have a debate about real issues, that actually effect us, like massive trade deficits, a burgeoning debt and the cost of health care. Leave the philosophical and religious debates to the philosophers and theologians. Focus on what you can fix, can make better. Focus on the law, freedom, prosperity and defense and stop using that cornerstone of the parlor trick, mis-direction, to cover your own failures.
The Africa Problem
BBC NEWS | Africa | Africa extends Darfur peace force
This conflict has been going on for years now. One has to wonder about the motives behind limited support from the UN. Just as disturbing is the general lack of media coverage in the US. Our government has called the Janjaweed campaign genocide. One would think that genocide deserves a little news coverage. Thank God for the BBC.
My cynicism rises quickly when considering US troop deployments. The largest are Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. Why aren't we involved in the Sudan when our nominal purpose in taking action in Iraq and Afghanistan were liberation and freedom for their oppressed peoples? I am the first to agree that Saddam was and is a sadistic, despotic madman, but no one has accused him of genocide, only war crimes (War Crimes being apparently a level below all out genocidal activity.)
As awful as this conflict is, it is only one of several issues that make up what I like to condescendingly refer to as "The Africa Problem". You'd be hard-pressed to find more zealots, despots, nutjobs and warlords on a single continent. The African Union is a nice idea, and a necessary one, but how can it hope to survive in its current manifestation. And you thought the EU and UN were weak and ineffectual.
I am not an isolationist. I would have gladly supported a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Sadistic Despots should only be allowed to stay in power if they were elected. Otherwise I say intervene. But have a plan for f---'s sake. I mean come on. Exit Strategy is good phrase. Two comforting words.
My problem is our selective intervention in ending atrocities. There are no vital US interests in the Sudan, so why should we bother?
Additional commentary from From OpinioJuris
This conflict has been going on for years now. One has to wonder about the motives behind limited support from the UN. Just as disturbing is the general lack of media coverage in the US. Our government has called the Janjaweed campaign genocide. One would think that genocide deserves a little news coverage. Thank God for the BBC.
My cynicism rises quickly when considering US troop deployments. The largest are Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. Why aren't we involved in the Sudan when our nominal purpose in taking action in Iraq and Afghanistan were liberation and freedom for their oppressed peoples? I am the first to agree that Saddam was and is a sadistic, despotic madman, but no one has accused him of genocide, only war crimes (War Crimes being apparently a level below all out genocidal activity.)
As awful as this conflict is, it is only one of several issues that make up what I like to condescendingly refer to as "The Africa Problem". You'd be hard-pressed to find more zealots, despots, nutjobs and warlords on a single continent. The African Union is a nice idea, and a necessary one, but how can it hope to survive in its current manifestation. And you thought the EU and UN were weak and ineffectual.
I am not an isolationist. I would have gladly supported a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Sadistic Despots should only be allowed to stay in power if they were elected. Otherwise I say intervene. But have a plan for f---'s sake. I mean come on. Exit Strategy is good phrase. Two comforting words.
My problem is our selective intervention in ending atrocities. There are no vital US interests in the Sudan, so why should we bother?
Additional commentary from From OpinioJuris
Links
- BBC News: perspective from across the pond
- The Grey Lady: all the news that fit to print
- OpinioJuris: more enlightened commentary
- Center for Democracy & Technology: aka 'Good Guys'
BBC News|The Americas Tops Stories
Previous Posts
- We Really Are Just Fooling Ourselves
- The Hypocrisy of the Religious Right
- Good Night and Good Riddance.
- Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead ....
- Whose the party of fiscal responsiblity?
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- How Many Lawyers Does It Take...
- Oh, I've Been to Prague...
- Mexican Oil: Spicy, with a Little Heat
- A Response to Scott Adams
Archives
//-->
