I read the recent news of Democrats skirting the lobbying rules set up by Obama. The Democrats parsing those orders so it fits their needs is (dare I say it?) Republican in actions. At least they're getting a backbone... I just wish the backbone was being used to support The People instead corporations.
With that in mind I decided to take it upon myself to be the voice of The People. I sent an email to the Speaker's scheduler. I will blog the responce when I get it.
________________________
To: Ms. Stina Skewes-Cox,
This morning I read an article where it said, "Entrance to the (Friday's Issues Conference) is welcomed with a gift of $5,000 per person. Attendees will be able to schmooze with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)."
I have many issues that I wish to discuss and would love to have a "sit down" with Speaker Pelosi even for only 15 minutes. As a US constituent and one who has concern for the welfare of The People I would think she would like to know what I would have to say.
I'm sorry, I do not have $5,000.00 for I am poor. I cannot afford to come to Washington DC but I hear their are times when Ms. Pelosi is in the San Francisco area. If you could let me know what block of time she will be there I will make it my priorety to visit my sister in Berkeley during that week or so. I could avail myself to any 15 minute block she may have during her visit. I would just need enough time to take the BART to her office downtown.
If it would help, I could email my issues in advance so she could come prepared. I will also be very prepared but since I do not have a staff and my job is not in politics, I would need a few weeks notice so I could schedule time off and prepare for my 15 minute meeting.
Thank you so very much in advance for your kindness and diligence. I will truly look forward to our meeting.
Peter Lawrence
________________________
Anyone taking bets?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Latest Republican Talking Point
I dare you to find an audio clip where ANY Republican in the House or Senate in the past year has said, We want to get affordable "health care" for The People.
One of the Republican talking points has gone largely unnoticed and though seemingly benign it's largely endemic of the issue from a Republican standpoint. The Democrats have said that everyone deserves high quality "health care". The Republicans have never said that. Instead they use different terminology (view video clips).
I have called Mr. Boehner's office at 202.225.6205 (I suggest you do the same) and called him out on it and I sent an email to his press secretary(below) that which they have refused to answer. I called again today and they refused to take my call. When someone did have a conversation with me and I asked, "When Mr. Boehner speaks on health care why can't he say health care instead of health insurance"? The receptionist said, "He doesn't have time for that". I then asked, "You're saying, he doesn't have time to help The People instead of corporations"? I then said, "I dare him to use the phrase health care instead of health insurance".
The conversation went on and on that Mr. Boehner wanted to help The People by getting them health insurance but since insurance companies have a major conflict of interest, that means No Health Care. The Republicans are going to introduce measures to offer tax cuts for health care which is the most idiotic way to get it to most of The People.
If one doesn't make enough money for a tax break and can't afford to get insurance then they will not have any. We've already done the paperwork on this. We will have fewer people covered if health insurance is offered this way and it will bankrupt government because all those rich who could afford insurance will get a tax cut. When that happens, taxes will be raised on everyone to cover it. This is just another way the Republicans can get the poor to subsidize the rich.
______________
Mr. Steel,
I write independently and would like to ask a couple of questions
about the interview with John Boehner from Sunday's State of the
Union.
During the interview Congressman Boehner stated more than once that
the people should have "access" to "high quality, affordable
health insurance". This would not be a polar opposite to what the
Democrats want but it would seem that the focus on what is most
important for each of the parties seems to be different. When the
Democratic Party speaks of health care they state that everyone should
have, "high quality, affordable health care".
1) Does Minority Leader Boehner have any thoughts on the fact that if
the Republican Party focuses on "health insurance" instead of "health
care" in their wording that they could appear to have a conflict of
interest in trying to get affordable health care for all?
2) In other words, doesn't Mr. Boehner fear the possibility that the
Republicans could again be tied to helping insurance conglomerates
instead of working to help the people?
3) Did the Republican Party purposefully word their public statements
to focus more on the term "health insurance" instead of "health care"?
Thank you so very much for your time, Sir. I hope to hear from you very soon.
Peter Lawrence
________________
Well, as he did on State of the Union, Mr. Boehner again, on Good Morning America, stated the same thing. He wants to make sure everyone can have "access" to "high quality health insurance". This term is quite insidious in its creation with two parts that define those two different Republican talking points.
The People are NOT idiots... We understand what that means. It means we can have "access" to health insurance but can't have it if we can't afford it. And it means "health insurance" doesn't necessarily mean access to "health care" since the insurance companies have a conflict of interest between their stockholders and providing coverage and would prefer denying us coverage to improve stock values.
Mr. Boehner's words, which represent the Republican Party, are more of the same - Giving billions to corporations at the expense of The People who cannot afford it.
One of the Republican talking points has gone largely unnoticed and though seemingly benign it's largely endemic of the issue from a Republican standpoint. The Democrats have said that everyone deserves high quality "health care". The Republicans have never said that. Instead they use different terminology (view video clips).
I have called Mr. Boehner's office at 202.225.6205 (I suggest you do the same) and called him out on it and I sent an email to his press secretary(below) that which they have refused to answer. I called again today and they refused to take my call. When someone did have a conversation with me and I asked, "When Mr. Boehner speaks on health care why can't he say health care instead of health insurance"? The receptionist said, "He doesn't have time for that". I then asked, "You're saying, he doesn't have time to help The People instead of corporations"? I then said, "I dare him to use the phrase health care instead of health insurance".
The conversation went on and on that Mr. Boehner wanted to help The People by getting them health insurance but since insurance companies have a major conflict of interest, that means No Health Care. The Republicans are going to introduce measures to offer tax cuts for health care which is the most idiotic way to get it to most of The People.
If one doesn't make enough money for a tax break and can't afford to get insurance then they will not have any. We've already done the paperwork on this. We will have fewer people covered if health insurance is offered this way and it will bankrupt government because all those rich who could afford insurance will get a tax cut. When that happens, taxes will be raised on everyone to cover it. This is just another way the Republicans can get the poor to subsidize the rich.
______________
Mr. Steel,
I write independently and would like to ask a couple of questions
about the interview with John Boehner from Sunday's State of the
Union.
During the interview Congressman Boehner stated more than once that
the people should have "access" to "high quality, affordable
health insurance". This would not be a polar opposite to what the
Democrats want but it would seem that the focus on what is most
important for each of the parties seems to be different. When the
Democratic Party speaks of health care they state that everyone should
have, "high quality, affordable health care".
1) Does Minority Leader Boehner have any thoughts on the fact that if
the Republican Party focuses on "health insurance" instead of "health
care" in their wording that they could appear to have a conflict of
interest in trying to get affordable health care for all?
2) In other words, doesn't Mr. Boehner fear the possibility that the
Republicans could again be tied to helping insurance conglomerates
instead of working to help the people?
3) Did the Republican Party purposefully word their public statements
to focus more on the term "health insurance" instead of "health care"?
Thank you so very much for your time, Sir. I hope to hear from you very soon.
Peter Lawrence
________________
Well, as he did on State of the Union, Mr. Boehner again, on Good Morning America, stated the same thing. He wants to make sure everyone can have "access" to "high quality health insurance". This term is quite insidious in its creation with two parts that define those two different Republican talking points.
The People are NOT idiots... We understand what that means. It means we can have "access" to health insurance but can't have it if we can't afford it. And it means "health insurance" doesn't necessarily mean access to "health care" since the insurance companies have a conflict of interest between their stockholders and providing coverage and would prefer denying us coverage to improve stock values.
Mr. Boehner's words, which represent the Republican Party, are more of the same - Giving billions to corporations at the expense of The People who cannot afford it.
Monday, November 24, 2008
THIS CHRISTMAS GIVE ABRAMOFF - THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING.
James Hirni will be charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He is from a long list to fall - that have and will. What makes Hirni so important is his connections, especially to whom he donated money. He loved to donate money to Senator Mitch McConnell(Rep) and Senator Pat Roberts(Rep) and Senator Bob Corker and Senator Jeff Sessions as well as House Minority leader John Boehner.
Do we expect Hirni to roll over on McConnell, Roberts, Corker, Sessions and Boehner. We don't know. Likely not, though it may depend on the time he will end up serving. I called Pat Roberts office and instead of answering any questions they gave me the "transfer shuffle". I have little patience for that kind of annoying behavior.
When I called Boehner's office, I got the "transfer shuffle" also but at least it was short and I was transfered to someone that was willing to say a few words. Specifically, they were unaware of the charges to Hirni. When asked if they were directly involved in the "Friends of John Boehner" PAC they said yes (Which sort of means he has no friends and must run the PAC himself I guess). When asked if they would be returning or donating the money that was given from Hirni the person answering said they were sure they would do that.
I was told by Senator Sessions office that the person who handles press always returns phone calls and that actually sounded promising. Now, that was noon Pacific time and I got a call back at 12:19. I was impressed. But when I said I was independent I was rushed off the phone and told if he responded that someone would let me know. I actually forced my email address on her after I was "clicked". "Clicked" you ask? That tell tale noise when someone on an extension hangs up after listening. She said "It must have been on your end"(mine). To which I responded, "Someone is listening to another extension on my cell phone? Oooookay". I will update you if I actually get a response - doubtful.
I called McConnell's office and they didn't want me to talk to anyone and instead sent me to their website where I could submit a request. Mind you, this was not for press, what it basically means when they request that is, "We don't want to hear from you but you can vent here provided that you realize we don't care and will not respond." Been there with Nancy Pelosi and others and didn't feel like asking again. No politician likes to be asked questions and it annoys me when they never respond. The definition of crazy being "expecting something different every time you try to do the same thing".
At Corker's office I had a strange call. When asking if the Senator would be releasing a statement and if the monies donated would be returned and/or donated, the person who answered stated that the Senator had nothing to do with donations to his campaign and that she would find a number for me (of which she never did). I asked, "So you're saying that even though someone who is about to be charged with wire fraud in the Abramoff investigation, who donated money to the Senator's campain, that the Senator has nothing to do with that?" She said, yes, that's true.
Wow, reporting is a pain in my ass.
Do we expect Hirni to roll over on McConnell, Roberts, Corker, Sessions and Boehner. We don't know. Likely not, though it may depend on the time he will end up serving. I called Pat Roberts office and instead of answering any questions they gave me the "transfer shuffle". I have little patience for that kind of annoying behavior.
When I called Boehner's office, I got the "transfer shuffle" also but at least it was short and I was transfered to someone that was willing to say a few words. Specifically, they were unaware of the charges to Hirni. When asked if they were directly involved in the "Friends of John Boehner" PAC they said yes (Which sort of means he has no friends and must run the PAC himself I guess). When asked if they would be returning or donating the money that was given from Hirni the person answering said they were sure they would do that.
I was told by Senator Sessions office that the person who handles press always returns phone calls and that actually sounded promising. Now, that was noon Pacific time and I got a call back at 12:19. I was impressed. But when I said I was independent I was rushed off the phone and told if he responded that someone would let me know. I actually forced my email address on her after I was "clicked". "Clicked" you ask? That tell tale noise when someone on an extension hangs up after listening. She said "It must have been on your end"(mine). To which I responded, "Someone is listening to another extension on my cell phone? Oooookay". I will update you if I actually get a response - doubtful.
I called McConnell's office and they didn't want me to talk to anyone and instead sent me to their website where I could submit a request. Mind you, this was not for press, what it basically means when they request that is, "We don't want to hear from you but you can vent here provided that you realize we don't care and will not respond." Been there with Nancy Pelosi and others and didn't feel like asking again. No politician likes to be asked questions and it annoys me when they never respond. The definition of crazy being "expecting something different every time you try to do the same thing".
At Corker's office I had a strange call. When asking if the Senator would be releasing a statement and if the monies donated would be returned and/or donated, the person who answered stated that the Senator had nothing to do with donations to his campaign and that she would find a number for me (of which she never did). I asked, "So you're saying that even though someone who is about to be charged with wire fraud in the Abramoff investigation, who donated money to the Senator's campain, that the Senator has nothing to do with that?" She said, yes, that's true.
Wow, reporting is a pain in my ass.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
LANIRE... The Follow-Up
READ TWO BLOGS DOWN, "A CONVERSATION WITH LANIRE ABOUT PROP 8"
He went ahead and sinned anyway. He was thinking of not voting at all so there wouldn't be a problem but he changed his mind in the voting booth and voted yes on prop 8. I'm a minority but not black so I cannot really comment on why he did it - but I will anyway.
Lanire is black and should have realized that this was the same as an attempt at banning marriage between blacks and whites in the 60s. His family took the religion of their enslavers and learned to hate from it. But it may or may not have been his fault. Instead it may be the fault of his Baptist minister in South Central for telling him how to think. I did ask Lanire to go to his minister and ask which sin was worse. He said he would but he did not.
Now I have to rethink my friendship. Lanire is good in many ways but I don't know whether or not I should overlook this.
This election could have meant. "OBAMA IS THE NEW PRESIDENT ELECT!" with all caps and an exclamation point but with the passage of prop 8 it's only, "Obama is the new president elect." with a period.
He went ahead and sinned anyway. He was thinking of not voting at all so there wouldn't be a problem but he changed his mind in the voting booth and voted yes on prop 8. I'm a minority but not black so I cannot really comment on why he did it - but I will anyway.
Lanire is black and should have realized that this was the same as an attempt at banning marriage between blacks and whites in the 60s. His family took the religion of their enslavers and learned to hate from it. But it may or may not have been his fault. Instead it may be the fault of his Baptist minister in South Central for telling him how to think. I did ask Lanire to go to his minister and ask which sin was worse. He said he would but he did not.
Now I have to rethink my friendship. Lanire is good in many ways but I don't know whether or not I should overlook this.
This election could have meant. "OBAMA IS THE NEW PRESIDENT ELECT!" with all caps and an exclamation point but with the passage of prop 8 it's only, "Obama is the new president elect." with a period.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Man and Woman Equals Brother and Sister or Father and Daughter or Mother and Son!
The Knights of Columbus may have really screwed up this time. Writing law is very complex. You must write it in the negative.. If you write it in the positive then it can be viewed very widely, The proposed change in the California constitution will read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Previous to this, marriage was not really defined. Now, with such a narrow definition, blood relatives may marry. Since the marriage laws only say "cousins may marry" and does not touch on direct blood relatives this change in the constitution will allow someone to marry a person in their immediate family.
A CONVERSATION WITH LANIRE ABOUT PROP 8...
I know, it seems odd to blog about a conversation. But when you realize what our conversation was about then you might understand.
First, I should explain who Lanire is. A retired short-haul truck driver who retired after 45 years on the job - That's right! 45 years! He is black and has had many many children and has grand children. Lanire is very aware of the civil rights era and he's also very much involved with his church. He's an all around nice guy who is very liberal on his views.
The following conversation is not verbatim but it is surely what was discussed about proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 changes the California Constitution to say "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I am voting "NO" and I asked Lanire what he thought about it.
Lanire: Is that the marriage one? I'm voting yes.
Me: Why would you vote "yes"? Do you support marriage between brother and sister?
Lanire: Of course not, I'm voting "yes"
Me: Well you know that laws are written in the negative as in "shall not" or "may not" or "will not" because if you put in the constitution what is allowed then it can be looked at in a broader sense. They want to amend the constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." but they don't limit it to "those who are not related" so if you vote yes that means you support marriage between brother and sister or mother and son or father and daughter.
Lanire: I do not!
Me: Well you do support incest and marriage if you vote yes on 8.
Lanire: But I have to follow the bible and the bible says that men with men is an abomination.
Me: Well the bible says that you should not force your beliefs on others and that they have to come over to Christianity on their own and that forcing youur beliefs on someone else is sinful. So if you vote yes on prop 8 then you're going against the bible.
Lanire: But the government is telling me what to believe and I want to stop that... I believe in separation of church and state. The government should not tell me or my church what I can or cannot do.
Me: But if you vote yes on 8, that's what you are asking for.
Lanire: It is not!
Me: Suppose a church wants to marry two men or two women but the government says "no". Wouldn't that be the government telling a church what it can or cannot do?
Lanire: I'm black and can't stand the government taking away my rights or treating me like a second class citizen. My beliefs are sacred to me.
Me: You're right and I'm sure you remember the 60's and what we all fought for. They wanted to stop whites and blacks from marrying in some states, wasn't that horrible?
Lanire: Damn straight, unconscionable.
Me: Yet you want to do the same thing.
Lanire: No I don't!
Me: But if you forbid someone who loves each other from marrying just because of a physical characteristic that's exactly what you are doing. You're taking away the word black and inserting the word gay and trying to pass a law that continues discrimination!
Lanire: But marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
Me: Lanire, let's recap. You are a black, churchgoing man who believes in the rights of the individual and believe in the church. Yet, first, you want to allow marriage between a brother and sister. Second, you want to install discrimination into the California Constitution. Third, you want to allow the government to tell the church what it can or cannot do. And fourth, you want to go against the bible and force your beliefs on everyone when the bible clearly states that you're not supposed to.
Lanire: But if you let gays marry then why not brother and sister?
Me: And that's how we started this conversation.
First, I should explain who Lanire is. A retired short-haul truck driver who retired after 45 years on the job - That's right! 45 years! He is black and has had many many children and has grand children. Lanire is very aware of the civil rights era and he's also very much involved with his church. He's an all around nice guy who is very liberal on his views.
The following conversation is not verbatim but it is surely what was discussed about proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 changes the California Constitution to say "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I am voting "NO" and I asked Lanire what he thought about it.
Lanire: Is that the marriage one? I'm voting yes.
Me: Why would you vote "yes"? Do you support marriage between brother and sister?
Lanire: Of course not, I'm voting "yes"
Me: Well you know that laws are written in the negative as in "shall not" or "may not" or "will not" because if you put in the constitution what is allowed then it can be looked at in a broader sense. They want to amend the constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." but they don't limit it to "those who are not related" so if you vote yes that means you support marriage between brother and sister or mother and son or father and daughter.
Lanire: I do not!
Me: Well you do support incest and marriage if you vote yes on 8.
Lanire: But I have to follow the bible and the bible says that men with men is an abomination.
Me: Well the bible says that you should not force your beliefs on others and that they have to come over to Christianity on their own and that forcing youur beliefs on someone else is sinful. So if you vote yes on prop 8 then you're going against the bible.
Lanire: But the government is telling me what to believe and I want to stop that... I believe in separation of church and state. The government should not tell me or my church what I can or cannot do.
Me: But if you vote yes on 8, that's what you are asking for.
Lanire: It is not!
Me: Suppose a church wants to marry two men or two women but the government says "no". Wouldn't that be the government telling a church what it can or cannot do?
Lanire: I'm black and can't stand the government taking away my rights or treating me like a second class citizen. My beliefs are sacred to me.
Me: You're right and I'm sure you remember the 60's and what we all fought for. They wanted to stop whites and blacks from marrying in some states, wasn't that horrible?
Lanire: Damn straight, unconscionable.
Me: Yet you want to do the same thing.
Lanire: No I don't!
Me: But if you forbid someone who loves each other from marrying just because of a physical characteristic that's exactly what you are doing. You're taking away the word black and inserting the word gay and trying to pass a law that continues discrimination!
Lanire: But marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
Me: Lanire, let's recap. You are a black, churchgoing man who believes in the rights of the individual and believe in the church. Yet, first, you want to allow marriage between a brother and sister. Second, you want to install discrimination into the California Constitution. Third, you want to allow the government to tell the church what it can or cannot do. And fourth, you want to go against the bible and force your beliefs on everyone when the bible clearly states that you're not supposed to.
Lanire: But if you let gays marry then why not brother and sister?
Me: And that's how we started this conversation.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Will Conservative Republicans Accept Sarah Palin As She Is?
On Saturday Night they were "Live From New York!"
Sarah Palin showed up this past Saturday for Saturday Night Live along with other celebrities. When a Baldwin informed Tina Fey that "The real one" was there she told the audience "bye"... or maybe not. She could have been precognitient. Is it possible that, unwittingly, Tina Fey said, "bi"? The next few seconds were very telling as frame by frame passed.
"Oh my God!" said my friend, Amanda, "Did Sarah Palin just check out Tina Fey's tits and ass?!"
A frame "bi" frame review would seem to indicate that it was true.
I brought the footage to a body language expert to get his take on the incident. Dr. Frederick VonFakendoc of the Derfalsenberg Institute on Body Investigative and Type Correlative Humanity reviewed it and gave me his thoughts on each frame and the subconscious thoughts of the Id. He said, "The Id is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle." I asked for a more layman type of explanation. He went frame by frame and discussed the deep subconscious feelings that Sarah Palin was holding as well as those of Tina Fey.
"Frames 1 through 5 show the uncontrollable urge of Governor Palin to look at Ms Fey's breasts. Between frames 1, 2 and 3, Ms Fey realizes that the Governor has begun staring and by frame 4 it is outwardly manifested with the beginnings of a smile."
"By frame 5 it has turned into a full smile and in 6 Ms Fey is struggling to hold in her pleasure at the thought of another woman being sexually attracted to her. Mind you, even though the Governor fixates for a full 12 or more frames, it is still the subconscious Id at work. Ms Fey is more aware of her camera surroundings and her Ego keeps her from the blatant fixation as that of the Governors because the Ego is what controls the Id from manifesting itself to the conscious world."
"Frames 10, 11 and 12 show Tina Fey struggling. Her Ego has forced her teeth to grit under the pressure of her Id to get out because subconsciously her Id is very aware that the Governor's eyes are still fixated on her breasts. The Body language of the Governor is very telling in these few frames in that her Id is completely controlling her movements. She slows down as Ms Fey passes so her Id's pleasure center can get more pleasure."
I asked, What does that mean?
The Doctor said, "The longer she is in front of her, the more time she has to view her breasts. As Ms Fey does the actual passing, the Governor actually leans back to get more of a glimpse."
"In frames 13 through 19 Ms Fey has passed the Governor and is then able to relax her Ego's hold on her Id because the Id is an impulse that at this time has less to act on. But the tide against the levee is still strong. As her Ego relaxes her Id shows itself with a somewhat less powerful smile than it would have been. But still powerful enough. Her Id, since in a weaker state at this point, is allowed somewhat free rein. By frame 19 she begins to look back at the Governor, however, the Ego does not allow her to look back on the Governor's side for fear she'll be discovered. Also, in frame 19, the Governors Id begins manifesting itself uncontrollably once more as it directs the Governor to begin staring at Ms Fey's hind end so that the Governor's pleasure center can again be satisfied."
"By frames 20 and 21, as Ms Fey begins looking back, the Governors Id again manifests itself as she licks her lips while staring at Ms Fey's hind end. The Governor literally 'stops in her tracks' from frames 18 to 21 to satisfy her Id's pleasure center. And by frame 23 Ms Fey is completely subconsciously aware that she was ogled which also gives her Id and pleasure center much pleasure."
"In frames 22 and 23 there is the tell-tale sign of the Governor's Id's imagination as she looks down in an attempt to put all that she has seen into an image of Ms Fey nude so she can again satisfy her pleasure center."
I asked, Doesn't she know?
The Doctor said, "They are both unaware of their outward manifestations because the Super-ego will not allow them to be aware. You see, Ms Fey does not want to feel pleasure from the Governor because she doesn't believe in her ideals and the Governor does not want to feel pleasure from another woman because she fears that her peers will push her away. Yet she's obviously attracted to the same sex."
I then asked, Are you saying that the Republican Party would reject the Governor if they knew of her true lesbian or bi feelings?
"I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths and the Id, Ego and Super-ego of the Republican Party is really entirely to complex and unusual for me to comment on unless I had a few years to study the complexities."
I thanked the Doctor for his insight and left.
The question still remains. Are the Republicans willing to accept and outwardly bisexual Vice President in Sarah Palin? The past would indicate an obvious NO. But the past would also indicate that an unwed pregnant daughter of a candidate would also cause concern among the Republican Party. So I guess now I really understand why the Doctor said, "... the Republican Party is really entirely too complex and unusual..." because they contradict themselves on every flip and flop.
Though this is all based in true Freudian psychology I'm sure you should look closely at the name Doctor Frederick VonFakendoc from the institute D.I. B.I.T.C.H. and ask yourself, "How many grains of salt should I take with this article"?
On the other hand. Video doesn't lie.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)