« Eric Holder: Reading the Fine Print | Desidero's Blog | Chinese Checkers: It's a Small World After All »
Mark Begich: Waiting for the Criticism
I’m waiting for the due criticism of Mark Begich who not only didn’t major in communications, he doesn’t even have a degree. Main qualification for office? His father was a Congressman who died with the House majority leader some 36 years ago. Plus he married the former chair of Alaska’s Democratic Party. So come on let’s hear some screams of “bimbo Begich”. “Dynasty”. Still checking on whether he ever entered a beauty contest.
Advertisement
Game-changer?
November 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus his experience consists of being Mayor of a small Alaska city with a population on thirty times that a Wasilla.
November 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but a balky keyboard stepped on my snappy reply....
"Plus his experience consists of being Mayor of a small Alaska city with a population only thirty times that of Wasilla."
November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it because the"Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla" questioned so fiercely by national media gave answers that had nothing to do with the office of vice-president?
Why didn't the media ask her if we need to amend the Constitution to incorporate those extra-ordinary powers found by Cheney? That is what I really wanted to know.
Where does it say that a college degree is an automatic qualification to hold office?
A Senators responsibilities are quite different than a vice-president's role in office. Besides, I don't get to vote on Alaska's Senators nor do they get vote up or down on California's Senators. We both get a chance to vote for or against the person coming into the office of president and vice-president.
November 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please let me know when Begich fails to answer an open-book question on remedial-level Social Studies.
Your false equivalence is a disservice to your cause.
November 21, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wake me when he runs for VP.
As you well know, Sarah Palin aspired to an office that impacts all of us for which she has few if any qualifications. This doesn't put an onus on folks to render an assessment on every politician that aspires to any office anywhere - only the ones that affect them.
If Palin had gone from governor to senator nobody would have said a word. But the loony woman with a 5 year BS degree and pending ethics complaint announced "you betcha" when asked if she was ready to be PRESIDENT and people rightfully said "hold on there cowpoke ... RU Serious?!?". Some felt the same way about Obama, we disagree, but it's irrelevant.
Now that we know her nefarious plans, loyal Americans should destroy Palin in her nascent form as we would a larval Cheney or Bush - if we only had an inkling what they would become. Apologies that she has breasts but some sacrifices must be made. Thankfully she is likely to be torn apart by her own party saving civilized folk the distasteful task. We'll see by 2010.
But really, McCain could have chosen KennedyCarterGoreClintonRoosevelt as his VP and it would have been just as necessary to exploit any weakness to defeat them. What's the beef?
November 21, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The beef is that women are superior to men, therefore shouldn't be treated as equal because their ability to handle being treated equally is inferior.
I.e.: Desidero is not rational on the issue of sexism. All women are subjected to sexism, even when they aren't. Women are always and forever victims, and never victimizers. Only men can be sexist. And all violence, all that is vile, all MALEvolence originates with the male.
November 21, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I quite enjoyed your comments on the other thread (even if you don't like "Neil Jung"). I suspect you have your problems on the subject of women.
November 22, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personal attack noted.
I have problems with any person who or group that pretends to perfection. Or worse. Here's an example:
We all saw the photos from Abu Ghraib. Equally represented in them, and acting with equal gusto in abusing the detainees, were both Granier and Lyndie English.
No one had any difficulty with what to do about Granier: obviously guilty, based upon the glaring evidence, lock him up and throw away the key.
Um . . . but . . . Lyndie English. She couldn't possibly have done what the photographs clearly showed her doing, and with gusto, because she's FEMALE. It isn't possible -- despite the photographs -- that a FEMALE could do violence. So there has got to be another explanation . . . ah, I've got it!
"The patriarchy" did it!
So English was PATRONIZED, in her behalf, and thus excused because somehow INFERIOR -- INCAPABLE of being held responsible for her actions, and the consequences of her actions. Someone else must be blamed because English, a feamle, is INFERIOR in judgment.
So we point our fingers away from English, and her responsibility for her decisions and actions and their consequences, at the always-guilty: an abstract imaginary MALE patriarchy.
Granier was sentenced to ten years in prison.
English, for the exact same crimes, was sentenced to SEVEN years in prison.
And there was no outcry from "feminists" demanding equality in SENTENCING.
Clue, child -- and think about this: Want to know the meaning of oppression? Be eligible for the draft during war time -- an OPPRESSION imposed ONLY on MEN.
My problem is with bigots, and hypocrites, regardless their sex. Though male, MLK, Jr. made the point: when MY rights are diminished YOUR rights are diminshed.
Your personal attack is a predictable bigotry: sidestep the issue and engage in psychological and emptional violence. And a predictable DISHONESTY.
November 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You called me a "cunt" and a "bitch" - that's where the personal insults started. I noted that you have problems with women - including postings all freaked out about child payments to women.
You certainly should know the background to England and Grainger as you already posted on this 8 months ago. Grainger has a history of abuse as a guard in a corrections facility and of domestic abuse, pleaded not guilty to all his charges, and tried to subpoena Dick Cheney in his defense.
England is pretty braindead, and had pleaded guilty in a plea bargain that was later thrown out because of Grainger's comments.
In short, she accepted as much of the blame as her addled brain would allow, and he's a sick bastard who tried to fight it all the way - thus the discrepancy in sentencing.
November 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I called you the same/equivalent dirty names you call others, and in accordance with your attitude. Clearly, so far, neither being subtle nor direct can compell you to address YOUR bias, YOUR bigotry.
Granier was not on trial for ALLEGATIONS of prior offenses. He was on trial for his abuses at Abu Grahib. Exactly as was English.
But, yet again, it is typical that English, caught red-handed, was therefore "braindead" -- therefore yet again not sufficiently competent to be responsible for her actions and their consequences. Therefore, yet again, "we" must find something or someone else -- anyone but English -- responsible for HER DECISIONS AND ACTIONS.
Don't you get it yet? When you INFANTILIZE women, by constantly making excuses for their fuck-ups -- it is invariably anyone's but women's fault when women fuck up - you keep them in the exact same place -- considered untrustworthy and incompetent -- you complain about them being in.
Is is exactly that sort of intellectual dishonesty, that amorality, that underhandedness that EARNS the term CUNT, because that is the nastiness of such conducts, and the nastiness implied by the term.
So tell us: Why do you so hate men that no matter how egregious the misbehavior of one or another woman, it is ALWAYS excusable, even by means of the lamest and most transparent sort of bullshit?
November 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure if we learn that Begich is not qualified for the office to which elected he will be criticized on that ground.
Meanwhile, Palin is STILL not qualified to be VP, even though she IS female.
November 21, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't think that Begich won because his competition was an indicted, then convicted, felon?
November 21, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. I just hear that Democrats hate "Dynasties". And people substandard or no degrees. (I read some pretty snobbish comments about Todd Palin, for example.)
November 22, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I found it hiding under my keyboard.
"with"
November 22, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which comments in particular troubled you about Todd Palin?
Democrats certainly are pretty hateful; they hate dynasties and proto-neanderthals desiring to run the country but also anyone with fancy degrees and people who not drink Crown Royal straight from the bottle. They hate all the hard workers who do not make a lot of money, as well as those no-good fat-cats who do nothing and make a lot of money. They hate women and black people and probably Asians too although no-one asked since nobody cares about them anyway.
Hateful bunch those Democrats.
November 22, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
All that Sarah Palin brought to the table (really) was the ability to look hot while lying (about that bridge to nowhere), repeating talking points (drill-baby-drill, democrats will raise your taxes, Joe the plumber, etc), and mean-spirited, often vile attacks with a smile on her face (palling around with terrorists, "real" Americans, etc). She could speak only by stringing phrases together inartfully and often making no sense at all. Her seductive behavior (winking, skirts half-way up her thighs, and her communication style with men -- did you hear her when she thought she was speaking to the President of France? --Helloooooooooo, this is Sarah - how Vice Presidential) showed another area where she was woefully illequipt for the office she sought.
Not only could she not name her reading materials (not surprising considering her obvious lack of worldly knowledge) she thought it was an insulting question, and she supplied extra words to the question (not said by Katie) to justify it.
All that said, and there is plenty more I could add; if she had shown herself to be competent and thoughtful, and to have a world-view, her college history would have been unimportant. She could rouse a crowd in a negative way, and she could lie without blinking, unlike John McCain, who almost blinked himself into a coma in front of all of us.
Mac Begich ran as an individual, not as an heir of a dynasty; he can speak a diagrammable sentence, and was gracious when egged on by reporters to go after Stevens. He didn't bite. There is a universe of difference between him and his governor in that way for one: No one would ever accuse Sarah of being gracious -- just the other day, after offering advice to the Obamas on how to raise their children in the White House, she again worried about their "Domestic Terrorist" friends. She should go back to the turkey farm and do what she does best...kill.
November 22, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. Is Begich a heartbeat away from the Presidency?
I think it's pretty clear Palin selection was insulting to both men and women, especially to those who can point Africa on a map. Palin escaped a lot of critiscm, early on, because she was a woman.
Thanks to SNL, Letterman and Couric for actually breaking the ice.
Sounds like your facts are admissable at Fox and Friends. No?
Begich has won a seat in the senate. He is in a position to learn something in the unlikely event of ever becoming a VP candidste.
But I'm not surprised to see you make this comparision.
November 22, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be the Country of Africa? And by the way, I believe wholeheartedly that she did not know that Africa was a continent. Anyone who justifies her international bonafides by saying she can see Russia from her porch (yet another lie, by the way), and does not know what countries make up North America; probably doesn't know much about Africa, or any other continent.
November 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't say you can see Russia from her porch, she said you can see it from Alaska, which is technically true - there is an island or something belonging to Alaska where you can see Russia.
I guess I should be glad to know that it's only when you run for VP or President that sexism and hypocritical judgements become okay. Begich would not have been in position to run for office without a famous father.
I got a chuckle out of proposal that the governor replace Joe Biden in the Senate with his son. Is nepotism "change we can believe in"? Fortunately his son had the good sense to decline.
November 22, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's make a legitlamte comparison -- and I've made this before, and you've ignored it:
First: I was for Hillary before I was for Obama (but before both I was "Any Democrat"):
And I thought the Democrats presented a delicisous win-win dilemma:
1. One could vote traditionally, for the white candidate -- who happened to be non-traditional: a woman. Or,
2. One could vote traditionally, for the male candidate -- who happened to be non-traditional: a black.
And then there was the campaign:
1. Hillary faced both sexism and her opponents during the primary.
2. Obama faced both racism and his opponents during the primary.
3. Hillary lost on her own merits, sexism notwithstanding.
4. Obama won on his merits, racism notwithstanding.
So instead of sidestepping issues by engaging in vicious personal attack, and insulting everyone's intelligence -- including your own -- by imputing to me "problems with women," ask yourself why your view is that --
A. Women can do no wrong -- but when it appears they do it's actually everyone else's (i.e., MALE) fault; and,
B. Why you hate men.
November 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone still seems a little cranky that HRC didn't win. I don't think there is any reasoning with the Explosion/Koolaid person.
November 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When JNagarya calls me a "cunt" and a "bitch" and tells me I just can't get past my genital configuration, I think there's more than just being cranky behind that.
When the Washington Post puts a long piece on a female candidate's "cleavage" out, and then another 10,000 word one speculating on the state of her marriage without a single relevant fact to support it, when a candidate receives repeated comments like "she makes me want to cross my legs" and "she's a ...rhymes with rich" over the course of a year, yes, I'm concerned about sexism beyond whether a particular candidate won or lost.
Oh, and then there are the converse examples. When Mel Carnahan died during the 2000 elections and his wife was appointed to take his place, I don't recall the screams of terror (ohmygod, she's riding on her husband's coattails) like there were when Hillary went to actually campaign for the same office in New York.
November 22, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The whining never ends with Desidero.
As concerns the Clintons: I'm in New England, and am fed up with the "argument" that a Democrat can win the presidency unless from the South. So I was irritated by the mentions of Clinton for president, and essentially ignored everything about his campaign/s. I voted Democrat, and that was it.
I couldn't stand him, and I paid no attention to him or Hillary -- except on the issue of health care, at the beginning of his first term. Having worked on issues of affordable health care, and being concerned with little one and children's issues, that got my attention. The effort was shredded an shot down, but the effort was genuine, heartfelt, legitimate, and constructive.
Still, after that was shot down, I ignored the Clintons, focusing instead of opposing and refuting the fake "scandals" slung at them (the issue was truth and justice, not persons or personalities). Then, when that hateful effort built to impeachment I got sufficiently alarmed -- its "grounds" were false -- to pay full attention to what was happening. And when the impeachment effort ultimately failed -- Clinton was acquitted in the Senate -- I was impressed that he was still standing. I then looked closely at him: a brilliant politician, and a warm human being, with a few flaows. (I'm glad that I as a finite human being am nonetheless without flaws; am perfect.)
During that ordeal I of course got to "know" Hillary. I liked -- and like her -- and recognize her professionalism and competence.
I don't follow primaries, at least until the field is winnowed down to two, before which I was impressed with the strength of the Democratic field. I had been impressed, of course, by this young black man who gave the wonderful speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
I was, as said, "Any Democrat" v. any Republican -- the last 8 years (actually the last 28) have been hell. But I was for Hillary before this young, inexperienced guy, though I certainly wanted to see -- and hear! -- more of him, because I recognize her greater experience. And I genuinely like her. But that's not how it worked out; and Bill Clinton, during an interview, made the point that for a president judgment matters more than experience. Who am I to argue with him on that point!?
So both were excellent candidates, and I would be happy with either (all the "Clinton drama" is made up by those who then complain about it; and most here who jabber about it, and sling mud at the Clintons, are getting their mud -- their excuses -- from the 1990s far-right lunatic fringe who did all they could to drive Clinton from office as "pay-back" for Nixon).
And I'm elated, thrilled, and excited that we have Obama; as concerns only race, I wish it had happened twenty-five-thirty years ago. Hilliary is, I think, my age. Obama is younger than I -- he is the next generation after mine. He is the politics I wish we'd had during 1968 and thereafter. And I have no problem handing "the torch" on to such an intellligent, "savvy," and substantive person. And if one isn't sold on him on his merits, give a listen to Michelle for a breath of no-airs/attitude fresh air from a regular, down-to-earth lady.
And they have to lovely little ones named . . . "Future"!
Do I like everything for which Hillary stands? No. But she wouldn't like everything I stand for -- and that's her problem. And is Obama perhaps too "conservative" for my tastes? Certainly (same goes for Hillary).
But that's reality; it's long been a curiosity that the electorate votes "conservative" for governor and president -- concerning "foreign policy," which Hillary suits on those points -- but "liberal" on domestic policy -- for an activist gov't which meets the needs of the electorate. I quite like what he's doing in most particulars, and he is showing enormous intelligence and shrewdness in covering all the bases with those who can fill in the blanks where he lacks experience. I was skeptical of Biden as presidential candidate; but when Obama chose him as VP I immediately saw the excellence and wisdom in that choice: Biden is perfect for that job.
So there's past; and there's letting go of the past and getting with the present hope toward a healthy future.
November 23, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrat can win the presidency unless from the South.
_____
Shoulda been "can't win" . . .
November 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most of us are just so relieved that Stevens won't be in the Senate that he could be a high school dropout and we wouldn't care.
As others have hinted at, there were no criticisms of Palin here at TPM (that I'm aware of) until she was nominated to be VP. I'd wager there are quite a few Senators and Representatives (male and female) which lack what many of us would consider essential credentials for the office they hold. Unless they're representing us or do something spectacularly stupid, however, we usually don't care very much. That's not sexist, it's just not being able to pay attention to everyone all the time.
To the degree that we are inconsistent, it's much more likely to be the traditional us vs. them mentality. I suspect many of us are willing to cut Democrats more slack than we are Republicans. Again, that's not fair, but it's not sexism, either.
That's not to say that sexism isn't a problem, or that it didn't enter into the treatment of Palin, but I think drawing conclusions from how we're treating Begich is comparing Apples to Commodores.
November 22, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know nothing about him, can imagine Begich is a nice, smart guy, but also just see how this stuff works. A woman wears a pants suit or a skirt, it's a problem. Wears a swimsuit or a hunting outfit it's a problem. Takes a shot of whiskey she must be a phony (never mind the stories that she would do shots with McCain). A degree from a University is treated as if the woman must be braindead and every vicious rumor is to be believed. A woman is only the product of unfairly taking advantage of whatever her husband or family did for her. And God forbid she mention her kids or the kitchen.
November 22, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're largely right, but I also think you're conflating a few things.
Spot on. (As in you're right, not as in it should be a problem.)
I don't think this was sexism any more than the spin on Obama's bowling was racism. It was simply politics. People tend to find fault in those "on the other team" that they wouldn't find in their own.
I'm not exactly sure where this is coming from. If you're referring to the fact that Palin dilly-dallied around in college (going to 5 or 6 before she finally got her degree, including the University of Hawaii, while at the same time trying to pretend that she's not the type who would go for a European vacation after graduating from college…), I'm not seeing how that's sexism either. I'm not even seeing as how that's unfair criticism.
Definitely some truth in where you're coming from, but Palin sorta disproves the specifics…
I, too, see some double standards there.
In short, although there is definitely a problem with sexism in our society, not every example of a woman being treated unfairly is an example of sexism. Furthermore, when there are so many strong examples of sexism, I'm not sure if the cause is advanced by bringing up cases that are questionable at best.
November 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, perhaps the whiskey thing wasn't sexist, just politics. (Hillary does drink whiskey though).
Regarding Palin's school, well, let's see - she went to Hawaii and it was too hot for someone from Alaska, they went 1 semester, then transferred to an Idaho community college and then got into the University. Pretty straight forward, eh? (Obama went to Occidental for 2 years, then Columbia - though his grandmother was a bank VP, so I doubt had too much of a problem with the money).
Then Sarah did the beauty pageant and a local Alaska community college for 1 semester - perhaps she was out of money, and by the time she won a scholarship it was too late to return to U of Idaho? Or maybe she still had to work to get enough money plus the scholarship to attend. She went back the semester after.
Really, some people have to work in college.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palincollege21-2008oct21,0,6369822.story
November 22, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing: if Obama had done a beauty pageant, do you really think it wouldn't have been brought up? ;)
November 23, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my experience that women drink mixed drinks/hard liquor generally, whereas men are the beer drinkers.
November 23, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot buy into the idea that Palin was treated unfairly. She was the most inaccessible VEEP candidate in history, yet her speeches were carried word for word on every station.
She kept herself away from normal questions, like, "Governor Palin, you did not actually say, Thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere, in fact you kept the money, and the bridge was your idea in the first place -- so why do you keep saying that in your speeches?"
"Governor Palin, you describe Barack Obama as having questionable patriotism because of a relationship with someone who was involved with underground efforts against our government when Obama was 8 years old. Your husband is/was a member of a political party that advocated seceding from the US, and you as governor, spoke at some of their meetings. Can you comment on that?"
"How do you see the role of Vice President, and would you continue the changes that VP Cheney has instigated? If not, why not? If so, why?"
See? No one ever got to ask her questions like that so they were left delving into whatever they could find. The very idea that she was treated unfairly flies in the face of the unfair way the electorate was treated. And they got away with it! They put a big middle finger up and everyone filmed around it -- all those speeches -- free publicity for this media whore (oooooh, what an anti-feminist thing to say! But Sarah Palin is the definition of anti-feminist, all the time hiding behind its mantle.)
Des, sometimes you just have to realize you're wrong. This is one of those times.
November 23, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is a clone of the MACHO MALE. As a FEMINIST, I REJECT that CAPITULATION by women.
Being "macho male" is NOT the definition of "liberation" and "freedom" -- try being eligible for the draft -- an OPPRESSION imposed ONLY ON MEN -- during war time if you want the consequences of that "role".
The 1970s wave of feminism was about "feminizing" the culture -- from which arises, as a central example, a greater public attention to CHILDREN'S issues. It was NOT about "equal right to join the military and kill and be killed" -- it was about an END to that.
Pretending to be male in effort to "be" "equal" to men is a mindless dead-end (and unattractive to heterosexual men). Why on earth would women who object to many of men's DESTRUCTIVE behaviors want ALSO to ADOPT those behaviors!?
November 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just took a bite out of a nice, ripe Mackintosh. It looks a lot like Lionel Richie. You might be on to something here.
November 22, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't dispute that some of the reactions to Palin were clearly sexist, on both the left and the right. I would argue that the actual pick of Palin was sexist in and of itself.
I tend to think that the criticisms of her education, her experience as mayor, of the personal characteristics (her voice, e.g.) would have been significantly more muted had she appeared to be an individual with real curiousity about the world and our role in it, and had she demonstrated some significant understanding of either. She didn't in the first interview with Gibson. She got worse in the second interview with Couric.
I don't know much about Begich, and frankly, I don't care, because he's not going to be my Senator. Sarah Palin could have been my vice president, so I cared.
November 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
They took cynical advantage of the sexism that had already rolled out. But I don't consider the choice itself sexist - Palin did present a package of values that hit the sweet spot for conservative voters, and if there had been a more qualified version of that, I'm sure they would have chosen her or him. Kay Bailey Hutchinson - just a bit too boring for them. The Democrats rejected Hillary as being too 90's amongst other reasons - why would the Republicans turn around and field a retread?
If the Republican Convention had been held in early August, they would have had a couple more weeks to prepare her and the Republicans would have won the presidential election. The drag on their ticket was McCain and Bush as much as it was Palin. But I've said over and over - remember how crappy all of these candidates were the first time they visited Iowa. They had years to get their pitch down - Palin had a couple of days, and managed to nail the first part and then started running aground.
November 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Palin was chosen because she had the right combination of political positions all wrapped up in a woman's body. If Palin had been a man, I doubt McCain would have ever chosen him. I doubt Bill Kristol would have even pushed him.
If she was chosen because of that, I tend to think of that choice as being sexist. And I guess I'd have to come to the same conclusion about, for instance, the choice of Janet Reno and Madeline Allbright. Those choices feel different to me, but that maybe reflects bias on my part more than anything else.
If Sarah Palin had had the seasoning time that Obama and McCain had, she would have been a formidable candidate. But I'm not sure even that would have offset the lurching around of McCain. Interesting thing to contemplate.
November 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well they tried the African-American card, and no one picked up on Alan Keyes. ;-)
I think they considered Jindal from Louisiana, as well as some other female candidates, but sure, there was an identity politics issue, the desire to choose someone who was different, expressed change. And of course they were throwing Obama back in our faces - "here's a guy with 3 years in the US Senate who just happens to be black? Sure, here's our 1 1/2 year governor who just happens to be female - suck on that".
I also think it was a Rove master stroke more than McCain. He gave the Republicans an exit from the election, a way to continue to be victims, and victimhood has been very good for Republicans. Without that, they would have lost by 20%.
November 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Victimhood" has also been "very good" as a dishonest tactic for Desidero.
November 23, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink