১৯ জানুয়ারি, ২০২০
The wall Trump opposes.
A massive 200 Billion Dollar Sea Wall, built around New York to protect it from rare storms, is a costly, foolish & environmentally unfriendly idea that, when needed, probably won’t work anyway. It will also look terrible. Sorry, you’ll just have to get your mops & buckets ready!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2020
Sharyl Attkisson picks a winning pro-Trump description of impeachment (and I guess there will be a winning anti-Trump description).
2-Winner: #1 Pro-Trump description of impeachment:
— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) January 19, 2020
(Thanks for playing!) https://t.co/kyOo0RARQI pic.twitter.com/B3aZbEsyMo
Elephant walks into a hotel...
woke up to a text from my mom about how a wild elephant went into a Sri Lankan hotel and gently wandered around while poking stuff with his trunk pic.twitter.com/C2biQT8C30
— Upuli 🇱🇰 (@upidaisy) January 19, 2020
"Nothing like this has ever happened before"... okay, you got me BBC. I'll click.
Oh!
It's Harry and Meghan.
Really, is there any reason why I need to keep up with this story.
I did notice this guy the other day. I'm forgetting about BBC and would like this viewpoint to stand for what I think:
It's Harry and Meghan.
Really, is there any reason why I need to keep up with this story.
I did notice this guy the other day. I'm forgetting about BBC and would like this viewpoint to stand for what I think:
"And the fault was not mine/Nor where I was /Nor how I was dressed/The rapist is you."
— Sonia Mishra Patel (@soniamishra) January 18, 2020
I found that through "Women's March Draws A Smaller, But Passionate Crowd" (NPR):
Unlike in previous years, Saturday's march in Washington did not feature a stage for performances and speeches from celebrities. Instead, in an effort to reconnect with supporters, organizers marched alongside everybody else.That internal link goes to "A Chilean Feminist Anthem Decrying Gender Violence Goes Global" (WBUR, December 11, 2019):
Upon reaching the White House, Chilean collective LasTesis led the crowd through a rendition of their viral protest anthem "Un Violador En Tu Camino" ("A Rapist in Your Path").
The song — “Un violador en tu camino” ("A Rapist in Your Path") — was created by Chilean art collective Lastesis to highlight gender-based violence in the country. I...
Wearing blindfolds, women sing the powerful lyrics atop an electric beat: “Y la culpa no era mía / ni dónde estaba / ni cómo vestía./ El violador eres tú.” (And the fault was not mine / nor where I was / nor how I was dressed. / The rapist is you.)
Spontaneous performances of the song have popped up in Mexico, Venezuela, France, Spain, India and the U.K. In the U.S., the song has inspired Velu Ochoa and fellow organizers to come together for an upcoming performance in the nation’s capital.
"The traditional voyeuristic peephole in film suggests the person being watched is under threat. The peephole makes the person looking through the peephole into the vulnerable one."
Aaid Catherine Zimmer, author of 'Surveillance Cinema,' quoted in "The Policing of the American Porch/Ring offers a front-door view of a country where millions of Amazon customers use Amazon cameras to watch Amazon contractors deliver Amazon packages" (in the Style section of NYT).
Note that Amazon owns Ring, and people who buy and install these devices are facilitating Amazon's business, which is hurt by the theft of packages left outside customers' houses. Amazon ought to give us the devices free and given an Amazon Prime discount to people who keep them up and running.
It's interesting to see how we balance security and privacy as we accept these devices. Imagine if the government simply required us to accept the installation of the devices and imposed its app on all cell phones. What if the city added $1,000 a year to the property tax on any home that did not maintain a Ring-type surveillance doorbell? Of course, we would scream.
But here we are accepting the thing, because it seems cool, and it's low-priced. (If you want one, please buy it here, so that I get a percentage, since I am an "Amazon Associate" and have — voluntarily!! — linked my fortunes to Amazon.) Since the device is voluntary, those who accept it onto their property feel they are gaining security.
If you, the person inside the house, are peeping out, then, as the film professor says, you have the sense that whoever approaches your house is "the vulnerable one." The conventions of cinematography say, you are in control, you have the power. That's important... at least some of the time.
Or maybe all of the time if the world has already changed to the point where children don't come up to doors to ask if a child who lives there can come out to play and neighbors stop by to chat.
ADDED: The second part of the quote in the post title is confusing: "The peephole makes the person looking through the peephole into the vulnerable one." I assume Zimmer didn't mean to say 2 different things, and that "the person looking through the peephole" means the person outside of the house who is being watched from inside the house. But taken literally, it seems more like the one who is looking out through the peephole — the homeowner who wanted to do surveillance — has become vulnerable. We'd need some more clever verbiage to sketch out that theory.
The hunter becomes the prey... but how? Did Zimmer intend to call up the old hunter/hunted switcheroo?
IN THE COMMENTS: Roger Sweeny said:
For a complete reversal of the peephole, see the "Reverse Peephole" episode of "Seinfeld":
"Newman and I are reversing the peepholes on our door. So you can see in..."/"To prevent an ambush"/"But then anyone can just look in and see you"/"Our policy is, we're comfortable with our bodies. You know, if someone wants to help themselves to an eyeful, well, we say, 'Enjoy the show.'"
AND: Don't forget the great 60s slogan, "Power to the Peephole!"
Note that Amazon owns Ring, and people who buy and install these devices are facilitating Amazon's business, which is hurt by the theft of packages left outside customers' houses. Amazon ought to give us the devices free and given an Amazon Prime discount to people who keep them up and running.
It's interesting to see how we balance security and privacy as we accept these devices. Imagine if the government simply required us to accept the installation of the devices and imposed its app on all cell phones. What if the city added $1,000 a year to the property tax on any home that did not maintain a Ring-type surveillance doorbell? Of course, we would scream.
But here we are accepting the thing, because it seems cool, and it's low-priced. (If you want one, please buy it here, so that I get a percentage, since I am an "Amazon Associate" and have — voluntarily!! — linked my fortunes to Amazon.) Since the device is voluntary, those who accept it onto their property feel they are gaining security.
If you, the person inside the house, are peeping out, then, as the film professor says, you have the sense that whoever approaches your house is "the vulnerable one." The conventions of cinematography say, you are in control, you have the power. That's important... at least some of the time.
Or maybe all of the time if the world has already changed to the point where children don't come up to doors to ask if a child who lives there can come out to play and neighbors stop by to chat.
ADDED: The second part of the quote in the post title is confusing: "The peephole makes the person looking through the peephole into the vulnerable one." I assume Zimmer didn't mean to say 2 different things, and that "the person looking through the peephole" means the person outside of the house who is being watched from inside the house. But taken literally, it seems more like the one who is looking out through the peephole — the homeowner who wanted to do surveillance — has become vulnerable. We'd need some more clever verbiage to sketch out that theory.
The hunter becomes the prey... but how? Did Zimmer intend to call up the old hunter/hunted switcheroo?
That trope has roots as far back as Greek Mythology, where a quite literal hunter, Actaeon, is transformed into a deer by Artemis and eventually torn apart by his own dogs.Zimmer is a film scholar, and this trope appears in many movies — "M... Dr. Mabuse... North by Northwest... To Catch a Thief..." — and we all know the cartoons with the hunter-becomes-the-hunted plot. Here's the classic:
The Hunter of Monsters in general lives by this trope in a supernatural context, since monsters, in general, are often portrayed as predators of human beings, and human beings tend not to like being prey....
IN THE COMMENTS: Roger Sweeny said:
I think she means that if you are looking through the peephole worrying that someone may be trying to do you wrong, you are feeling vulnerable. You are worrying that something bad could happen to you, caused by the person on the other side of the peephole.I found that hard to coordinate with the first sentence: "The traditional voyeuristic peephole in film suggests the person being watched is under threat." But Zimmer did say "traditional," so it may be that in the cinematic tradition — such as "Psycho" — the peephole is in a secretive pace, used for spying on someone who thinks no one's watching and gets naked, but with the Ring, the thing is out and proud and the person approaching is outside and expecting to be seen. The person who is in private, inside the house is not seen via the peephole, but that person's sense of vulnerability is manifested by the device. The obvious Ring device isn't a way to sneak a look at someone but to let them know in advance that you're suspicious of them.
For a complete reversal of the peephole, see the "Reverse Peephole" episode of "Seinfeld":
"Newman and I are reversing the peepholes on our door. So you can see in..."/"To prevent an ambush"/"But then anyone can just look in and see you"/"Our policy is, we're comfortable with our bodies. You know, if someone wants to help themselves to an eyeful, well, we say, 'Enjoy the show.'"
AND: Don't forget the great 60s slogan, "Power to the Peephole!"
Elizabeth Warren said, "Let me remind you, I think, I'm the only one running for president who's actually been on the executive side."
Did she "think" wrong?
The Washington Examiner points out that Bernie Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont (long ago), Pete Buttigieg was mayor South Bend, Indiana, and Michael Bloomberg was that mayor of New York City.
But I think I know what she meant, and it's wrong in a different way than forgetting that Sanders, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg have been mayors and mayor is an executive position.
She meant I'm the only one running for president whose actually been on the executive side of the federal government.
The wrongness I'm seeing is the idea that government means national government. State and local government are invisible to the nationalist. For them, federalism is not a system of benefits and safeguards to the American people. The states and local governments might be useful as instruments of national power, carrying out mandates and handling the enforcement of federal norms. In this view, state and local government is subordinate and unimportant — not worth mentioning.
That, I suspect, is where Elizabeth Warren's mind was when she said she's the only one running for President who has actually been on the executive side. I'd like to know more about what Warren thinks about federalism. As a law professor, I was very used to hearing from law professors who dismissed federalism as outmoded at best and racist at worst.
IN THE COMMENTS: RichAndSceptical said, "And obviously Biden was [on the executive side] as VP." Which wrecks my interpretation.
ALSO: Remember when Barack Obama was first running for President and he argued that he had executive experience running Harvard Law Review and running his own campaign?
The Washington Examiner points out that Bernie Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont (long ago), Pete Buttigieg was mayor South Bend, Indiana, and Michael Bloomberg was that mayor of New York City.
But I think I know what she meant, and it's wrong in a different way than forgetting that Sanders, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg have been mayors and mayor is an executive position.
She meant I'm the only one running for president whose actually been on the executive side of the federal government.
The wrongness I'm seeing is the idea that government means national government. State and local government are invisible to the nationalist. For them, federalism is not a system of benefits and safeguards to the American people. The states and local governments might be useful as instruments of national power, carrying out mandates and handling the enforcement of federal norms. In this view, state and local government is subordinate and unimportant — not worth mentioning.
That, I suspect, is where Elizabeth Warren's mind was when she said she's the only one running for President who has actually been on the executive side. I'd like to know more about what Warren thinks about federalism. As a law professor, I was very used to hearing from law professors who dismissed federalism as outmoded at best and racist at worst.
IN THE COMMENTS: RichAndSceptical said, "And obviously Biden was [on the executive side] as VP." Which wrecks my interpretation.
ALSO: Remember when Barack Obama was first running for President and he argued that he had executive experience running Harvard Law Review and running his own campaign?
"The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatever..."
"... let alone 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these Articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying the election and subverting the will of the American people."
So reads the second paragraph of the "Answer of President Donald J. Trump" "In Proceedings Before the United States Senate." My link goes to the PDF at the White House website. I couldn't find a text document of the 6-page letter so there's nothing to cut and paste. The White House website does have this text introduction, which, you can see, stresses the politics:
If we knew for a FACT that the House Democrats acted solely for their own personal, political advantage AND that Trump acted solely for his own personal, political advantage, do the 2 transgressions cancel each other out? But we don't know these things as facts, and the Democrats are calling on the Senate to answer the question about Trump, but they can't shield themselves from the question about themselves.
I see 3 ways to untangle these parallel problems: 1. The question of the House Democrats' political motivation must be answered first, and if they are appropriating the mechanisms of government solely for political benefit, they must be stopped in the act and denied the use of the Senate, or 2. When there is a legitimate governmental purpose, it's acceptable that a desire for political gain is also present, and that should let the Democrats over the threshold but will also set up the absolution of President Trump, or 3. The political component of impeachment is inherent, open, and part of the constitutional design, entirely different from turning federal spending and foreign policy into a personal, political tool.
But I've been talking about website text introducing the 6-page Answer. In the formal Answer, Trump certainly isn't arguing So what if I'm political too?
The document says he has "not in any way 'abused the powers of the Presidency.'" Everything he did was "perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of the national interest." He did "nothing wrong." The call was so perfect that "Mr. Schiff created a fraudulent version" of the call, and that proves the Democrats "knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with that call." As for what they call "obstruction of Congress," the Democrats didn't go to court to resolve the dispute over whether Trump's claim of executive privilege was valid, so they can't turn that into a basis for impeachment.
The Answer concedes nothing. Nothing was personally political. It was all on the highest level. Of course, that's what the House Democrats say about themselves too.
So reads the second paragraph of the "Answer of President Donald J. Trump" "In Proceedings Before the United States Senate." My link goes to the PDF at the White House website. I couldn't find a text document of the 6-page letter so there's nothing to cut and paste. The White House website does have this text introduction, which, you can see, stresses the politics:
The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election—now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.Other than the word "he," that sounds like something Trump could say at a rally. It's all about the motivations of the House Democrats, which, I'd like to point out, corresponds exactly to the House Democrats' argument against Trump: He/They took the powers of government and used them for personal advantage and only personal advantage. The legitimate, governmental purpose of that power was completely absent.
If we knew for a FACT that the House Democrats acted solely for their own personal, political advantage AND that Trump acted solely for his own personal, political advantage, do the 2 transgressions cancel each other out? But we don't know these things as facts, and the Democrats are calling on the Senate to answer the question about Trump, but they can't shield themselves from the question about themselves.
I see 3 ways to untangle these parallel problems: 1. The question of the House Democrats' political motivation must be answered first, and if they are appropriating the mechanisms of government solely for political benefit, they must be stopped in the act and denied the use of the Senate, or 2. When there is a legitimate governmental purpose, it's acceptable that a desire for political gain is also present, and that should let the Democrats over the threshold but will also set up the absolution of President Trump, or 3. The political component of impeachment is inherent, open, and part of the constitutional design, entirely different from turning federal spending and foreign policy into a personal, political tool.
But I've been talking about website text introducing the 6-page Answer. In the formal Answer, Trump certainly isn't arguing So what if I'm political too?
The document says he has "not in any way 'abused the powers of the Presidency.'" Everything he did was "perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of the national interest." He did "nothing wrong." The call was so perfect that "Mr. Schiff created a fraudulent version" of the call, and that proves the Democrats "knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with that call." As for what they call "obstruction of Congress," the Democrats didn't go to court to resolve the dispute over whether Trump's claim of executive privilege was valid, so they can't turn that into a basis for impeachment.
The Answer concedes nothing. Nothing was personally political. It was all on the highest level. Of course, that's what the House Democrats say about themselves too.
১৮ জানুয়ারি, ২০২০
"That Simon & Garfunkel-referencing track is drawing a lot of attention for the video, which depicts a fictionalized account of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting from the perspective of the shooter."
I'm reading "Eminem’s Juvenile Shock Tactics Ruin Surprise New Album ‘Music To Be Murdered By’" (Daily Beast) and the part that interests me is "Simon & Garfunkel-referencing." The track is called "Darkness," so I'm thinking "Hello, Darkness, my old friend...." Rather than read on about how "Em can’t seem to resist his own adolescent tendencies—and it can make for a muddied listening experience, even on his stronger works," I'm just going to embed the video:
"A Kansas City area radio station can broadcast Russian state-owned media programming, the type that U.S. intelligence called a 'propaganda machine,' for six hours a day..."
"RM Broadcasting LLC, a Florida-based company that has agreements to broadcast the Russian state media program Radio Sputnik... KCXL’s website, which says that it’s the radio station that will 'tell you the things that the liberal media wont (sic) tell you,' lists Radio Sputnik in its morning programming.... RM Broadcasting in 2019 was ordered by a federal judge to register as a foreign agent under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires political agents in the U.S. acting on a foreign government’s behalf to disclose their relationships, finances and activities.... KCXL’s president is Peter Schartel, who... [says he's] 'basically a liberal, patriotic American...but our government has done some horrible things.'"
The Kansas City Star reports.
The Kansas City Star reports.
"I should never have done that f***ing vaping thing" — said Trump.
Quoted at Axios.
Yeah, Trump got played, and he knows it. Nice to see him face up to it and yell at himself.
Or... oh... wait... Axios says:
Yeah, Trump got played, and he knows it. Nice to see him face up to it and yell at himself.
Or... oh... wait... Axios says:
Both sources familiar with the conversation said Trump wasn't expressing regret for the specific vaping policy outcome, which the team believes is the right one, but rather for personally wading into vaping and e-cigarette policy in the first place rather than leaving it up to the Food and Drug Administration.The reason I think he got played is that he reacted quickly to early reports of teenagers dying or near death, glimpses of science, and earnest hysteria.
The National Archives blurred "vagina" in the photograph of a sign that said "If my vagina could shoot bullets, it’d be less REGULATED."
And it blurred out "Pussy" in "This Pussy Grabs Back." And "Trump" in "God Hates Trump" and "Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women." These were all signs in a photo of the 2017 Women's March that is on display in an exhibit on the occasion of the centennial of the 19th Amendment.
At WaPo, Joe Helm tries to figure out why the Archives would tamper with a photograph like that:
The article quotes a couple of historians, and they, quite appropriately, disapprove heartily. Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said "there's zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a women's march. Purdue history prof Wendy Kline said the Archive "buys right into the notion that it's okay to silence women's voice and actions... literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera."
At WaPo, Joe Helm tries to figure out why the Archives would tamper with a photograph like that:
The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo.That is such a bad explanation that I'm only wondering if Kleiman is straight-out lying, stupid, or deep into some truly unfortunate ideological zone. If I had to guess, I'd say lying. It looks to me like a desire to keep things nice and uplifting for everyone. It wasn't a "focus on the record," but a deception — changing and sweetening the record, a disneyfication of history.
“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement. “Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.”
The article quotes a couple of historians, and they, quite appropriately, disapprove heartily. Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said "there's zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a women's march. Purdue history prof Wendy Kline said the Archive "buys right into the notion that it's okay to silence women's voice and actions... literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera."
"In Chiafolo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the justices will consider the constitutionality of 'faithless elector' laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way state law directs."
"The petitioner in the Washington case, Peter Chiafolo, was elected as a presidential elector when Hillary Clinton won that state’s popular vote in 2016 but voted for Colin Powell instead, which led to a $1,000 fine for violating a state law that required him to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won the majority of the popular votes. The respondent in the Colorado case, Micheal Baca, was removed as an elector after he attempted to vote for John Kasich, even though Clinton won the popular vote in Colorado as well. Chiafolo told the justices that the question has real-world importance in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election: In 2016, he noted, 'ten of the 538 presidential electors either cast presidential votes other than the nominees of their party' or tried to do so but were replaced. A similar swing would 'have changed the results in five of fifty-eight prior elections,' he added."
Explains SCOTUSblog.
Wow! The answer had better be that these laws are constitutional or all hell will break loose! What if the electors have a constitutionally based power to make up their own minds and apply their personal judgment? It's one thing for them to think they might and to contemplate going off on their own and for some of them, occasionally, to do it. It would be quite another thing for the Supreme Court to enshrine this power in constitutional law, to specifically give the electors the go-ahead!
And how would we, the humble voters feel if we found out that we're not voting for Donald Trump or Biden/Sanders/Warren/Bloomberg but for some local character who's free to do what he/she thinks is best? There would be another dimension of analysis. Some person we haven't cared at all about will need to be scrutinized for iron-clad party fealty. Horrible!
On the other hand, for those who hate the Electoral College and have felt bad about the seeming impossibility of amending the Constitution to change it, the crazy chaos of constitutionally empowered electors could be horrible enough to push the states to ratify an abolition of the Electoral College.
ADDED: I don't think people realize the benefits of the Electoral College. After the 2000 election, I read 2 books on the reform movement that got traction after the 1960 election. I wrote about what I learned in "Electoral College Reform: Déjà Vu." It's short. A lot shorter than the 2 books, and those books made me see why it's not a good idea to abolish the Electoral College.
AND: From my little article — I had forgotten this — "Looking at the faithless elector 'problem' from another angle, consider the plan of novelist James A. Michener, who was a Pennsylvania elector pledged to Democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey, to switch to Nixon if that were necessary to deprive [George] Wallace of a majority. James A. Michener, Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System 16, 56 (1969)."
ALSO: I added a link on that James A. Michener book title, because it's still available. You can buy it on Amazon, even in Kindle. Maybe I'll read that! I like to read the bad reviews at Amazon. In this case: "This book is a disappointment, so precise and so much information that does not mean much and it goes on and on and on about nothing. Did not enjoy it at all." LOL. I love "so precise" as a complaint. Stop with all the precision, James! There. I put it in my Kindle. No audiobook for this one, so we shall see if I can get through a "boring" book. I'll try. Worth it, because the faithless elector problem is before the Supreme Court.
Explains SCOTUSblog.
Wow! The answer had better be that these laws are constitutional or all hell will break loose! What if the electors have a constitutionally based power to make up their own minds and apply their personal judgment? It's one thing for them to think they might and to contemplate going off on their own and for some of them, occasionally, to do it. It would be quite another thing for the Supreme Court to enshrine this power in constitutional law, to specifically give the electors the go-ahead!
And how would we, the humble voters feel if we found out that we're not voting for Donald Trump or Biden/Sanders/Warren/Bloomberg but for some local character who's free to do what he/she thinks is best? There would be another dimension of analysis. Some person we haven't cared at all about will need to be scrutinized for iron-clad party fealty. Horrible!
On the other hand, for those who hate the Electoral College and have felt bad about the seeming impossibility of amending the Constitution to change it, the crazy chaos of constitutionally empowered electors could be horrible enough to push the states to ratify an abolition of the Electoral College.
ADDED: I don't think people realize the benefits of the Electoral College. After the 2000 election, I read 2 books on the reform movement that got traction after the 1960 election. I wrote about what I learned in "Electoral College Reform: Déjà Vu." It's short. A lot shorter than the 2 books, and those books made me see why it's not a good idea to abolish the Electoral College.
AND: From my little article — I had forgotten this — "Looking at the faithless elector 'problem' from another angle, consider the plan of novelist James A. Michener, who was a Pennsylvania elector pledged to Democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey, to switch to Nixon if that were necessary to deprive [George] Wallace of a majority. James A. Michener, Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System 16, 56 (1969)."
ALSO: I added a link on that James A. Michener book title, because it's still available. You can buy it on Amazon, even in Kindle. Maybe I'll read that! I like to read the bad reviews at Amazon. In this case: "This book is a disappointment, so precise and so much information that does not mean much and it goes on and on and on about nothing. Did not enjoy it at all." LOL. I love "so precise" as a complaint. Stop with all the precision, James! There. I put it in my Kindle. No audiobook for this one, so we shall see if I can get through a "boring" book. I'll try. Worth it, because the faithless elector problem is before the Supreme Court.
এতে সদস্যতা:
পোস্টগুলি (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
