Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Krugman's Conundrum

Dr. Walter E. Williams
Muddying the waters in his November 3rd New York Times column Oligarchy, American Style, Paul Krugman lamented our state of affairs, worrying: "We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only."

To which Walter Williams answers:
Joanne Rowling was a welfare mother in Edinburgh, Scotland. All that has changed. As the writer of the "Harry Potter" novels, having a net worth of $1 billion, she is the world's wealthiest author. More importantly, she's one of those dastardly 1-percenters condemned by the Occupy Wall Streeters and other leftists.

How did Rowling become so wealthy and unequal to the rest of us? The entire blame for this social injustice lies at the feet of the world's children and their enabling parents. Rowling's wealth is a direct result of more than 500 million "Harry Potter" book sales and movie receipts grossing more than $5 billion.

In other words, the millions of "99-percenters" who individually plunk down $8 or $9 to attend a "Harry Potter" movie, $15 to buy a "Harry Potter" novel or $30 to buy a "Harry Potter" Blu-ray Disc are directly responsible for contributing to income inequality and wealth concentration that economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says "is incompatible with real democracy." In other words, Rowling is not responsible for income inequality; it's the people who purchase her works.
Krugman's notion that "income inequality" is incompatible with Democracy begs the question "who shall enforce the 'equality'". The job must fall to the government. The resultant loss of freedom would of course ensure that individuals would lose their ability to freely make their neighbors wealthy, but who would the real losers be?

It is not freedom that is the problem, Mr. Krugman. It is your pinheaded ideas about a 'perfect world' that are incompatible with Democracy.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

She's Too Funny!

Ever catch April Gavaza at inveterate scars?
A Warning

I feel bad for the husband. He patiently sits through every one of my first person POV rants, waiting until the end to politely nod in agreement as if I haven't given him the same speech at least once a week. The rambling diatribe is usually preceded by the unceremonious dumping of some unfortunate scifi tome into the trash bin and the statement, "It's harder than it looks, people!"
She's telling this to the collective authors of the various books she's reading!
Because not just anyone can craft a lush narrative out of what is actually a very myopic view of the tale. Not everyone can weave depth and clarity into one person's version of events. Very few writers remember that just because you are writing "I" does not mean that you are telling the story. The narrator is not necessarily the person with their name on the front cover. If you must write yourself into the story, give yourself a cameo.

Charlie Huston, Chuck Palahniuk, Tom Piccirilli and a few others are good at first person. Many others sound like bad detective noir, and not in the fun, campy way.

Don't make me throw your book in the trash, people. Think before you start down that road.
I love the way she orders these guys around. "Think! Think!!!" Geez!

And on the more personal side:

My hair is tragic. Never go to SuperCuts on a whim, clutching a picture of Jean Seberg. As alluring as the $20 price tag may be, it is not worth it. Not. Worth. It. Needless to say, no new pictures until it grows out a bit. I try not to regret going short, but a bad haircut is a bad haircut.
I'm sorry, this stuff just cracks me up. It's pretty fun.

Obama Team Befuddled On Kagan Controversy

In a bid to become the most uncredible spokesman in White House history, Obama Administration Press Secretary Jay "Chili-con" Carney states he sees no reason for United States Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself in the upcoming Supreme Court challenge on the constitutionality of the Obamacare legislation.
“These issues were raised, just a year ago, in an expansive confirmation hearing. And those questions were questions were asked and answered both in the hearing itself and in written questions that were responded to in writing. It’s a mystery to me how this can suddenly be an issue a year later and they want to revisit what they just visited not that long ago.”
Kagan is known to have exchanged e-mails with Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, including one that said:
“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
Carney isn't arguing that Kagan has no opinion on the legislation. He is saying that the topic was thoroughly discussed at her confirmation hearings. Of course the truth lives far from Jay Carney, and all the e-mail exchanges between then Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Tribe, who is a well-known Supreme Court litigator and was then serving in the Justice Department, were blocked from view until a Freedom of Information Act filing pried them loose.

Well Jay, here is what Democrat Senator Arlen Specter had to say at the time of her confirmation hearing:
"It would be my hope that we could find some place between voting no and having some sort of substantive answers, but I don't know that it would be useful to pursue these questions any further."
It was so difficult for Senator Specter to get a straight answer from Ms. Kagan that he thought there would be no use in further questioning her. Nice.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Senate Republicans have said:
“Neil Katyal, Ms. Kagan's principal deputy, stated he would ‘speak with Elena’ about her office participating in a Department working group that would plan the Administration's litigation strategy, exclaiming that he wanted the Administration to ‘crush’ those challenging the [health care law].”
28 U.S. Code Section 455 stipulates that a justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”
When pressed about the e-mails, Carney moved to a different topic.
Yeah, move along, Jay. It's no fun arguing when the facts indicate you're either an idiot or a liar, and as unbelievable as some of the things you have to go out and say for this White House are, you're no idiot.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Sunday, November 27, 2011

What is this guy doing?


I don't know. I have a hard time listening to President Obama talk about how hard he's working to create jobs, get the economy going, how really bad it was when he came in to office, the problems he inherited, how really tough it's been on him, and how we need to toughen up ourselves, learn to sacrifice, and take on our fair share of the burdens. Meanwhile once he gets off the golf course (and mind you he's had thirty trips to the links so far this year) he's out trying to inflict another economy crushing tax bill, or looking to pass another spendapalooza.

If the president wants to play golf, shoot some hoops, travel off to the islands or watch some basketball, whatever... that's fine with me. Just get your boot off the throat of America.

The rest of us need to work.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Tommy Takes a Look at Liberal Land

Discussions held with proponents of liberalism can leave one wondering 'what on earth are these people are thinking?' A simple, common sense statement like 'we cannot go on spending money we do not have' is utterly lost upon them. We have had a wealth of practical experience allowing liberal ideology to be implemented into public policy, with disastrous results. And yet, not in the least bit deterred, they cry out to us all:

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our English dead!"

That might be the perfect phrase if you are laying siege to a fortressed city, not so good if you are tossing limited resources into the bottomless money pit that is our Federal government.

Thomas Sowell is not pre-disposed to such tomfoolery. Growing up in Harlem, his optimistic notions of the benefits of government interventions were rudely shattered when he spent a year working as an economist with the Department of Labor. It is with this eye of experience that he views statements of our Treasury Secretary:
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner says, "We're facing a very consequential debate about some fundamental choices as a country." People talk that way in Liberal Land. Moreover, such statements pass muster with those who simply take in the words, decide whether they sound nice to them, and then move on.

But, if you take words seriously, the more fundamental question is whether individuals are to remain free to make their own choices, as distinguished from having collectivized choices, "as a country" — which is to say, having choices made by government officials and imposed on the rest of us.

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.
And still we hear our problems will all be solved if we just spend ... more. A trillion dollars were spent to 'stimulate' the economy, and the result is unemployment near 10%, 20% if you count all those who gave up looking. Despite this the solution tossed our way is to blow another 500 billion... 500 billion that we do not have.
The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.
Yes, but you and I get to live here, in reality.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

No NBA, No Problem.

The big time ball players that make up the NBA have had a slow fall. Training camp, the pre-season and the fall schedule of games have all gone by the wayside, and with nary a notice. Now I love basketball as much as the next fellow, but with all the goings on in the fall, do we really miss the NBA? No, we did not get to ponder roster cuts, we did not read about the meaningless pre-season games as teams tried out twenty players in hopes of finding... one, maybe two. The first quarter of the season has disappeared, and... ? Tall men running around in pajamas, tossing around a big orange ball?

Who was the NBA champion two years ago?

Okay then.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011


A top female Russian news anchor has caused a stir after appearing to offensively show US President Barack Obama her middle finger during a live newscast. In what has become a shocking online sensation, the reporter appears to be making the allegedly offensive gesture while reporting on the Asia Pacific Corporation. Footage of the incident has been widely viewed in both Russia and the United States.

In the footage, Tatyana Limanova can be seen briskly reading through a news brief on how Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had assumed chairmanship of the Asia Pacific Cooperation organization. She is then heard to say that the post "had previously been held by American president Barack Obama" before mechanically saluting the political leader who has done so much to improve US international relations.

The raised middle finger is often interpreted as an offensive gesture and is sometimes referred to as "flipping the bird."

The station's ownership claims that the newsreader believed she was off camera at the time and merely providing a voice-over for a report. They further reported that the gesture was intended for studio technicians only, who had been teasing her and trying to put her off her game. The footage has been viewed thousands and thousands of times. Most viewers concede Tatyana had the upper hand.

Super-committee Stumble

Mark Steyn, ever chipper in his predictions of Western societal collapse, views the recent political posturing of Super-Committee members as a harbinger of an economic melt down:
... the “automatic” sequestration cuts would over the course of ten years reduce US public debt by only $153 billion. Which boils down to about a month’s worth of the current federal deficit.

Yet even slashing a pimple’s worth of borrowing out of the great oozing mountain of pustules will prove too much for Washington.

Another downgrade is now inevitable. After that, all that’s holding the joint up is the dollar’s status as global currency. If the world were looking around for a reserve currency today, I doubt it would pick that of a $15 trillion sinkhole. This week’s failure will hasten the urge of the Chinese and others to arrange a post-dollar order. I wrote earlier this year about America’s inclination to do everything big. And so it goes even with imperial eclipse: We are inviting nothing so genteel as “decline” but rather a sudden convulsive collapse.
Not good.

'The Apartment' Open Thread

   What did you think?

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Terrance Takes Ms. Parker to Task

Pundit and part time TV personality Kathleen Parker has offered some commentary on the changing face of the Republican party:
"Republicans aren’t really stupid, of course, and Begala acknowledges this. But, as he also pointed out, the conservative brain trust once led by William F. Buckley has been supplanted by talk radio hosts who love to quote Buckley (and boast of his friendship) but who do not share the man’s pedigree or his nimble mind."
To which Terrance observes:
The intimation is that people who "boast" of being Buckley's friends couldn't really have been such because they don't have the same sparkling wit and intellectual class as Buckley himself. Of course, that would mean that Buckley had almost no friends, since few were his intellectual equals.
And hoisting Ms. Parker on her own petard
To imply that someone else's talk about a personal friendship is meaningless with no evidence other than that the friends have differences is not only anti-intellectual because no proof is given, it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of friendship.

Read the whole thing here.

Monday, November 21, 2011

- These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For...

With a pronouncement of such hyperbole that it bordered on the absurd, Democrat Henry Waxman professed to Obama Administration Energy Secretary Steven Chu that the Administration's failed investment in Solyndra saved the world from fires, droughts and floods.
“I want to put this in perspective Dr. Chu,” Waxman told Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Thursday at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the Solyndra failure. “You’ve been trying to move our nation toward a clean energy economy. And that’s essential to protect American families from fires and droughts and floods and other extreme weather that climate change will bring.”

The curious comments came during Dr. Chu's halting testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That's half a billion tax payer dollars that went down the tubes, but according to Waxman's way of thinking, who really cares? In fact, to decry the waste of the $535-million loan is a trick of party politics.
“My Republican colleagues on this committee have been trying to block these efforts [green subsidies] every step of the way. Republicans in Congress and their allies in the coal and oil industry oppose efforts to put a price on carbon pollution. They oppose funding research into new clean energy technologies. They oppose investment in clean energy companies which – like Solyndra – would produce new technologies. I think you’re on the right side of history. The Republicans are on the wrong side and I think what they’re doing is leading us astray”
Oh, so the guys that are blowing billions of dollars on failed start-ups in a technology industry with a strikingly limited market are the guys on the right side of history? The guys pulling out with millions of dollars while the US tax payers are on the hook for billions, these are the guys on the right side of history? No Mr. Waxman, they are not on the right side of history, and you sir, are no on the right side of history.
“What Congress should be doing on energy policy is to encourage development of new energy sources so that we don’t have to rely on oil and coal and nuclear,” he said.
Nope. What congress should be doing on energy policy is take steps to increase the production of energy here in the United States, not blow soap bubbles or use tax payer funds to dream up pie in the sky solutions.
"We've lost the money. There’s nothing there. Move along.”
“We have lost the money, it’s unfortunate, but there’s no scandal there,” said Waxman. “There’s nothing there.”

Who does this guy think he is?!

Thursday, November 17, 2011

A Chequer-board of Nights and Days Shines Light on the Solyndra Scandal

Paul Krugman, the 'brilliant' New York Times columnist never troubled himself very much over the Solyndra scandal, as his brush off back in September showed:
The Solyndra Scandal

Haven’t written about this. But it is indeed a terrible scandal, because the private sector never ever puts money into ventures that end up failing.
Totally missing the point. But it did give occasion for one of our fav writers, Pejman Yousefzadeh of A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days to have at it time and time again:
I guess this means that the people who repeatedly told us during the debt ceiling crisis that it would be terrible for the U.S. to default (a position I agreed with then, and agree with now), are presently telling us that it isn’t newsworthy that a government-backed business defaulted on loans that it had to pay back to the United States government.
Yes, default is unthinkable for the US government, that would be irresponsible, but for companies the government loans its money to, why they can default all week long, and twice on Sundays, and we're not in the least bit troubled by it.

And now The Washington Post reports:
The Obama administration, which gave the solar company Solyndra a half-billion-dollar loan to help create jobs, asked the company to delay announcing it would lay off workers until after the hotly contested November 2010 midterm elections that imperiled Democratic control of Congress, newly released e-mails show.
To sum up the Obama administration, the government's got tons of money to throw around, sure. That's not the problem. The problem is you and I aren't putting out our fair share to pay on the debt they've been piling up.


Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney

The sensible and acerbic Ann Coulter has issued an affectionate slap across the face of the conservative faithful:
"The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney."
I'm not so sure, Annie.

First off, no one's voted yet. Second, Romney puts our collective feet to sleep. I'm sure he will make a fine president, but let's not bear down just yet for the Romnification of America. Any one of those candidates running for president would be a much better choice than the one we have now. You know it, and I know it. Let the big dogs run awhile. No need to rush forward into what you may live to regret, and for the rest of your life.

Loretta: "Twice I took the name of the Lord in vain, once I slept with the brother of my fiancee, and once I bounced a check at the liquor store, but that was really an accident."

Priest: "Then it's not a sin. But... what was that second thing you said, Loretta?"

Kagan Country

We all wondered about the remarkable mind numbing silence Elena Kagan offered on most any probative question during her confirmation hearings, but this latest offered by the CNS News Service makes you wonder what she could possibly be thinking:
"On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center,'s parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails."
Boy, that must have been really exciting news for the Supreme Court Justice, who next year will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of that very same piece of exciting legislation.

28 U.S. Code Section 455 stipulates that a justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”
"The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes."
So, she is a partisan, and she lacks the judgment to make simple decisions like recognizing when she is no longer impartial on an issue. And this person we confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Is This Guy Completely Nuts?!

President Barack Hussein Obama ventured into the topic of our international competitiveness over the weekend, this time speaking in Kapolei, Hawaii at the APEC CEO Summit, and asserting:
“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America."
Lazy? The problem is we've become lazy?!

Here is the architect of our ruination, whose party presided over driving the nation over the cliff, and after finishing the job by sinking nearly a trillion dollars into worthless pension bailouts for Federal and State employee unions and throwing all kinds of money at so called "green energy" firms that went under before they could even produce a product, we have this guy saying the problem is we've become lazy?!!

What is the current business climate here in America, Mr. President? What about the United States makes it attractive for business? Say oil exploration and development - that's an excellent international business. What did we do to BP? Or, how about the oil industry in general in the gulf? No, huh? Well, how about aircraft manufacturing? What become of Boeing's efforts to open the plant they built in South Carolina? What about corporate tax policy? Environmental regulations? Drug research and development? Auto industry? Banking? Is the Untied States of America a place where people would want to come to do business?

It's not laziness, Mr. President. People here in the United States are as keen to succeed as they have ever been. But when you make a point of putting your boot on our necks while you spend the nation into oblivion, word gets around.

Christmas Festival!

Tis the season once more to sit by the fire, get a warm blanket and watch our favorite Christmas shows!

See if you can identify the movies from which the photos below are from, and put in your pick for this season's Chrsitmas spectacular!

And now the answers to our Christmas movie quiz:

The Magnificent Ambersons

It's A Wonderful Life

The Bishop's Wife

A Charlie Brown Christmas

The Family Man

A Christmas Story

Love Actually

Little Women

While You Were Sleeping

Get out a warm blanket, pull up the big sofa chair, and come share with us in our holiday cheer!

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

With A Smear Campaign Here Today, Can David Axelrod Be Far Behind?

Ann Coulter is not one to be taken for a ride. Wise to the ways of Chicago politics, she finds one too many coincidences in the Cain Conundrum:
After a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless. Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.
Excellent. Perhaps a position of czar might be better for Ms. Bialek... a presidential appointment as Czar of Nontraditional Revenue Streams or some such. Spares us all that unnecessary trouble with congressional oversight. Coulter goes on to recount the various miraculously fortuitous Obama campaigns, from primary obscurity to national front runner, and all from a guy with no real life experience.

That's one lucky guy.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Accuser #4 Tearfully Comes Forward With Her 'Story'

Gloria Allred's latest political client has come forth for her tearful (?!) press conference in which she accused Herman Cain of having an untoward interest in her. However, the UK Daily Mail has probed a tad deeper, and curiously the woman that Allred painted as having a solid education and respectable employment history has not actually held a job for over two years and twice has filed for bankruptcy.

The Cain campaign responded immediately, releasing a statement stating unequivocally that the allegations were untrue. The nominee went on to appear on the Jimmy Kimmel show late last night:
'This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle'
'I was listening very closely and then when it was all over with, I said, well I know what we got to do because there's not an ounce of truth in all of these accusations and my team is putting this stuff together. That is why I'm willing to do a press conference tomorrow to set the record straight. I'm in it to win it and I'm not going to be discouraged.'
Those are mean things to say, Mr. Cain. How could you say that?
Meanwhile, a friend of Ms Bialek, from Chicago, told the New York Post: 'She has a very infectious personality. It’s easy to see how she won [Cain] over. But the reality of her situation is -- she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about the money.'
Adding that she was from a middle-income family but lives in a posh house while running from bill collectors, the source said: 'Most of her jobs ended in termination. It’s always the employer’s fault, not hers. 'This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.'
A fifth woman has come out to talk about some suspect activity at the hands of Cain. Former employee of the United States Agency for International Development Donna Donella, 40, from Arlington, said the Republican presidential candidate asked her to help arrange a dinner date for him with a female audience member following a speech he delivered nine years ago. She told the Washington Examiner: 'After the seminar was over. Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, "Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?"' When she declined to, saying she didn't feel comfortable doing it, he then invited her to dinner. She accepted and brought two colleagues with her. Though she said Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, he did order two $400 bottles of wine and left the women with the bill.
Good heaven's! He left them with the bill?! Oh, this is too much. He has gone too far!!
Details of a number of legal and financial difficulties belonging to Ms Bialek also emerged today, with the Chicago Tribune listing a long history with tax evasion and late or missed credit card payments. The paper reported that Ms Bialek has filed for personal bankruptcy twice, first in 1991 and then again in 2001. In 2001, she claimed $5,700 in assets and more than $36,000 in liabilities. Among the creditors seeking payment was a management firm demanding back rent of $4,500, four credit card companies and a lawyer asking for his legal fees. She is also said to have accused a former boyfriend of harassing her for money he had loaned her after she borrowed $4,500 from him.
Her boyfriend hasseled her over the $4,500 she borrowed but didn't pay back? What a jerk!
The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for nearly $5,200. In August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Ms Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004, according to county records. Court records also show creditors took legal action against her during the past decade, including at least one lawsuit filed in Cook County.

She is also said to have spent two-and-a-half years at CBS radio as managing director for nontraditional revenue.
I'll say.
The single mother, who worked for the National Restaurant Association under Cain from 1996 to 1997, made an appeal to the embattled nominee saying: 'I really didn't want to be here today, but I want you, Mr Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people...and then move forward. Mr Cain, I implore you, Make this right.'
And how is he going to do that, exactly. Even if we were to concede what you say happened did happen, which we do not, what do you expect will make it right? Make it right and move forward? Where? How? The plea in and of itself makes no sense.

Sunday, November 6, 2011