Even when it does.
Oh goodie, we can stop obsessing
about Ebola and the Ottawa shooting and renew the obsessive hysteria
about school violence until something else happens. Of course something
else is happening constantly, but there's no money in discussing it
when you compare it to the blockbuster ratings boost from red-eyed,
glued to the tube, round the clock repetition of the same damned video
clips under the rubric of "breaking News!"
I suppose
there will be little or no comment on the likelihood that the massive
coverage will produce copy-cat incidents of suicide by shooting spree
and the usual refusal to attempt perspective by noting that such things
seem to clump, but all in all have been declining significantly - over
50% - for more than 20 years. It's more profitable to claim that schools
aren't safe although impartial statistics
seem to show it's more dangerous at home and that any one American
school can expect to have a gun or explosives incident only about once
in 12,800 years. People are demonstrably terrible at assessing risk and
news providers get rich by helping them panic while other institutions
of reform and anti-reform distract and misinform to promote their
programs, all of them so convinced of their rightness and righteousness,
truth can be damned as an obstruction and lies praised as noble.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Bias
Bias, everything is about frame of reference. If you don't agree, go argue with Einstein. It's unavoidable and that's why news outlets need to spend more time on verification than on making sure they're the first to air a rumor, or indeed a slander: to spend more time on being right than on ratings, more than on being for a Right or Left wing audience.
If you read the comments on this blog, you'll remember that a short while ago there was a bit of conversation about Public broadcasting and the Republican antipathy toward it. Does the relatively small financial support PBS gets from the Federal government really create a risk of bias in news reporting? Is that risk countered by the absence of pressure for ratings? Has the government censured PBS for contradicting the President? Perhaps this is one of these arguments argued from 'principle' rather than from experience, because experience is other than is predicted by theory. Is the test in how well facts fit the theory or in how much the theory fits you?
I can easily remember, having spent many hours as a boy listening to programming from Radio Moscow during the Cold War, and to US and European based propaganda stations, just what propaganda looks like. It doesn't look like the McNeil Lehrer News Hour. It looks more like a panel of out of work politicians giggling and speculating and providing no facts. It looks like talking for weeks about every last rivet and piece of upholstery on a Boing 777 just to keep you watching, about speculating on what a shooting means until it means nothing or everything.
Looking back at the world of 60 years ago, I've had to admit that although grossly exaggerated, some criticism of the US was true, but really, the Soviet news agencies, owned and operated and with scripted "news" reports that praised them and assaulted us can't be compared to a network that spends a few hours a day reporting events and the bulk of it's time with educational programming. In principle, yes, one must suspect government news releases as much as one must suspect the corporate news releases like the ads and articles that tell you Toyota Camrys are wildly exiting vehicles for loveable rogues and 4 door Nissans can't be distinguished from race cars. Can we compare how well the various sources do that? The "independent" sources seem more about speculation and conjecture disguised as "telling both sides" and about fewer stories. PBS tends to stick to reportage, in my opinion anyway. In all these years I don't remember any PBS stories about Saginaw Michigan outlawing Christmas, the sort of thing that's daily fare at a certain "independent" News company. They have refrained from suggesting that not only is Ebola not Pandemic in the US, but speculating that Obama is in favor of it or even now that all proof is visible that Obama is not from Kenya. Is it bias to refrain from Swift Boat Stories or is it "just the facts ma'am?
To Quote the fictional Dr. Gregory House: "everyone lies" and as we all know, the wheels of commerce and the gears of government are greased with Bullshit.
One might be tempted to argue that we turn off the tube altogether.
But do we leave it at that: the suspicion that the McNeill Lehrer Report is government supported propaganda while "independent" MSNBC is owned by the Democrats because they don't report things Obama is not guilty of, while Fox, their endless speculations and conjectures, their well documented fabrications, false statistics and scurrilous attacks on Liberal principle can be trusted?
Is CNN really so financially independent that it can avoid obsessive sensationalism while ignoring the important events of the day, that they can resist publishing Apple press releases as news? My answer is brought to you by the letter N, which stands for NO. Everyone lies or at least everyone has their frame of reference when they get fare enough away from saying it rained this morning or a bomb went off in Boston. The rest is politics and advertising - and sometimes lies.
I fear the argument against PBS usually stops with the theoretical because, as with so many arguments, the facts don't support the arguments for bias and in fact many of those arguments don't really support the sanity of the proponents. Are the Teletubbies really trying to make your kids gay? or are you a crackpot? Is Sesame Street radicalizing your kids or are you an extremist loonie? Are McNeil and Lehrer covering up for Obama's secret agenda just as they covered up Clinton's secret plan to turn the US military over to NATO? Are they being biased by failing to provide "fair and balanced" coverage of all those Fox Fables that never happened, like Obama's blocking of white voting rights, lack of a US birth certificate, that Home Depot has given up selling Christmas trees ( go look for yourself ) or that the Post Office forbids the use of the word God on their premises? Or is all that harder to establish than that Charles Krauthammer is a pathological and irresponsible liar who makes up statistics. Will any of the independents spend a moment proving that wrong -- oh excuse me, MSNBC provided proof, thus showing their bias no doubt.
They're all biased in some eyes and to those visionaries who think their personal interests trump the national interest. Ask yourself how much coverage PBS gave to the Malaysian airliner or to the two US cases of ebola relative to the 18 to 20 hours a day of all the "independent" news sources? Who made it all about blaming it on their political enemies? And who was it that tried to blame Obama for failing to have a Surgeon General or an "Ebola Czar" after obstructing his every effort to appoint one? It wasn't MSNBC with their alleged ownership by the Democratic Party, or CNN with their corporate puppet strings firmly attached, it was Fox with their heavy financial relationship with the GOP. It was not PBS.
To me, and of course that's only my opinion because I don't have the patience to write the thousand page list of irrefutable acts of dishonest propagandizing in the various news outlets: to me the heaviest and smelliest load of that universal lubricant is produced by the segment of the political right that worries about PBS being a government news outlet out to steal your money, to put you in a FEMA camp, import indigent colored people into your living room and outlaw your religion. If I can indulge in an analogy, it's like the people who support the destruction of a river because they profit from it but want to fine you for leaving a cigarette butt on the ground because they don't -- on principle, of course. Principle is important.
If you read the comments on this blog, you'll remember that a short while ago there was a bit of conversation about Public broadcasting and the Republican antipathy toward it. Does the relatively small financial support PBS gets from the Federal government really create a risk of bias in news reporting? Is that risk countered by the absence of pressure for ratings? Has the government censured PBS for contradicting the President? Perhaps this is one of these arguments argued from 'principle' rather than from experience, because experience is other than is predicted by theory. Is the test in how well facts fit the theory or in how much the theory fits you?
I can easily remember, having spent many hours as a boy listening to programming from Radio Moscow during the Cold War, and to US and European based propaganda stations, just what propaganda looks like. It doesn't look like the McNeil Lehrer News Hour. It looks more like a panel of out of work politicians giggling and speculating and providing no facts. It looks like talking for weeks about every last rivet and piece of upholstery on a Boing 777 just to keep you watching, about speculating on what a shooting means until it means nothing or everything.
Looking back at the world of 60 years ago, I've had to admit that although grossly exaggerated, some criticism of the US was true, but really, the Soviet news agencies, owned and operated and with scripted "news" reports that praised them and assaulted us can't be compared to a network that spends a few hours a day reporting events and the bulk of it's time with educational programming. In principle, yes, one must suspect government news releases as much as one must suspect the corporate news releases like the ads and articles that tell you Toyota Camrys are wildly exiting vehicles for loveable rogues and 4 door Nissans can't be distinguished from race cars. Can we compare how well the various sources do that? The "independent" sources seem more about speculation and conjecture disguised as "telling both sides" and about fewer stories. PBS tends to stick to reportage, in my opinion anyway. In all these years I don't remember any PBS stories about Saginaw Michigan outlawing Christmas, the sort of thing that's daily fare at a certain "independent" News company. They have refrained from suggesting that not only is Ebola not Pandemic in the US, but speculating that Obama is in favor of it or even now that all proof is visible that Obama is not from Kenya. Is it bias to refrain from Swift Boat Stories or is it "just the facts ma'am?
To Quote the fictional Dr. Gregory House: "everyone lies" and as we all know, the wheels of commerce and the gears of government are greased with Bullshit.
But do we leave it at that: the suspicion that the McNeill Lehrer Report is government supported propaganda while "independent" MSNBC is owned by the Democrats because they don't report things Obama is not guilty of, while Fox, their endless speculations and conjectures, their well documented fabrications, false statistics and scurrilous attacks on Liberal principle can be trusted?
Is CNN really so financially independent that it can avoid obsessive sensationalism while ignoring the important events of the day, that they can resist publishing Apple press releases as news? My answer is brought to you by the letter N, which stands for NO. Everyone lies or at least everyone has their frame of reference when they get fare enough away from saying it rained this morning or a bomb went off in Boston. The rest is politics and advertising - and sometimes lies.
I fear the argument against PBS usually stops with the theoretical because, as with so many arguments, the facts don't support the arguments for bias and in fact many of those arguments don't really support the sanity of the proponents. Are the Teletubbies really trying to make your kids gay? or are you a crackpot? Is Sesame Street radicalizing your kids or are you an extremist loonie? Are McNeil and Lehrer covering up for Obama's secret agenda just as they covered up Clinton's secret plan to turn the US military over to NATO? Are they being biased by failing to provide "fair and balanced" coverage of all those Fox Fables that never happened, like Obama's blocking of white voting rights, lack of a US birth certificate, that Home Depot has given up selling Christmas trees ( go look for yourself ) or that the Post Office forbids the use of the word God on their premises? Or is all that harder to establish than that Charles Krauthammer is a pathological and irresponsible liar who makes up statistics. Will any of the independents spend a moment proving that wrong -- oh excuse me, MSNBC provided proof, thus showing their bias no doubt.
They're all biased in some eyes and to those visionaries who think their personal interests trump the national interest. Ask yourself how much coverage PBS gave to the Malaysian airliner or to the two US cases of ebola relative to the 18 to 20 hours a day of all the "independent" news sources? Who made it all about blaming it on their political enemies? And who was it that tried to blame Obama for failing to have a Surgeon General or an "Ebola Czar" after obstructing his every effort to appoint one? It wasn't MSNBC with their alleged ownership by the Democratic Party, or CNN with their corporate puppet strings firmly attached, it was Fox with their heavy financial relationship with the GOP. It was not PBS.
To me, and of course that's only my opinion because I don't have the patience to write the thousand page list of irrefutable acts of dishonest propagandizing in the various news outlets: to me the heaviest and smelliest load of that universal lubricant is produced by the segment of the political right that worries about PBS being a government news outlet out to steal your money, to put you in a FEMA camp, import indigent colored people into your living room and outlaw your religion. If I can indulge in an analogy, it's like the people who support the destruction of a river because they profit from it but want to fine you for leaving a cigarette butt on the ground because they don't -- on principle, of course. Principle is important.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Announcement: Help Wanted
By (O)CT(O)PUS
This watery realm known as The Swash Zone has always been a favorite meeting place for beachcombers. On any given day, you never know what ideas, curious oddments or strange spars of knowledge drift ashore and collect at the high tide line. Beachcombers always find those fished up trophies and take strange gain away.
People too come and go like flotsam on the currents and gyres of life. Sadly, having lost our great sea-hoard of riches through attrition, we seek new writers to join our floating fellowship. Do you have ambergris, rare inlays, or special expertise to share? Are you interested in casting messages in bottles upon the waves for posterity? If so, please contact your intrepid cephalopod here: SwashZone@Gmail.com.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
PARTISANSHIP BY THE NUMBERS
Not in Congress but at least in some sectors of Cyberspace, I am starting to notice a change in attitude. Bloggers from the center left and center right are putting rancor aside when discussing issues of vital public concern. Are the twin crises of Daesh and Ebola - plus far rightwing fringe fatigue - driving a newfound convergence of opinion? Will the time-honored art of compromise and consensus return to public life – without the “my-way-or-the-highway” intransigence that has caused past resentments and deadlock? Or am I being irrational and unreal with foolish optimism?
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Bring in the McClowns
It seems I write the same things over and over again because the
Republican pattern repeats indefinitely. It's OK when we do it or say
it or demand it, it's anti-American, tyrannical, too little, too late,
too much, too soon when they do it. Even if Republicans invented it or
pioneered it or used it until yesterday it's different when "they" do
it.
How long ago was it that John McCain and Fox News and the rest of the merry bunch made a circus act with all three rings full of how Obama is a "tyrant" for appointing all those Czars? "More Czars than the Romanovs," tweets the funny man. So where's the big red nose and oversize pants when John McCain tells us that hapless weakling Obama isn't appointing the Czars we need? That's right, John McCain has joined Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), sponsor of H.R. 3226 (111th): Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 in condemning the administration for this egregious failure, invoking the "if it's bad, it's Obama" clause in the Party rules. 2009 is when George W. Bush left office -- just coincidentally -- and of course George had 33 of them, but let's keep that quiet.
Of course there's no public office with the title Czar on the door as far as I know. It's a media epithet that began in the 1940s and of course there's nothing unconstitutional about the President appointing "other public ministers" no matter how much they chuckle and chortle and lie in the Fox newsroom.
But quoting history and public record never seems to have much effect on the magic thinkers and pea-brained partisans of any stripe. The public's eyes are always on the jugglers and clowns and what they're doing now, not what they did ten seconds ago.
"No one knows who's in charge," says McCain, his face revealing nothing of how his party, with the help of the NRA has blocked the nomination of a Surgeon General, an office designed to take control and coordinate the process of informing the country of what's being done. Yes, the NRA, because the Surgeon General might just get involved in gun policy. Can't have that. Better a plague than risk a gun grabber liberal doctor commie near our weapons. Better this country perish from the earth.
How long ago was it that John McCain and Fox News and the rest of the merry bunch made a circus act with all three rings full of how Obama is a "tyrant" for appointing all those Czars? "More Czars than the Romanovs," tweets the funny man. So where's the big red nose and oversize pants when John McCain tells us that hapless weakling Obama isn't appointing the Czars we need? That's right, John McCain has joined Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), sponsor of H.R. 3226 (111th): Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 in condemning the administration for this egregious failure, invoking the "if it's bad, it's Obama" clause in the Party rules. 2009 is when George W. Bush left office -- just coincidentally -- and of course George had 33 of them, but let's keep that quiet.
Of course there's no public office with the title Czar on the door as far as I know. It's a media epithet that began in the 1940s and of course there's nothing unconstitutional about the President appointing "other public ministers" no matter how much they chuckle and chortle and lie in the Fox newsroom.
But quoting history and public record never seems to have much effect on the magic thinkers and pea-brained partisans of any stripe. The public's eyes are always on the jugglers and clowns and what they're doing now, not what they did ten seconds ago.
"No one knows who's in charge," says McCain, his face revealing nothing of how his party, with the help of the NRA has blocked the nomination of a Surgeon General, an office designed to take control and coordinate the process of informing the country of what's being done. Yes, the NRA, because the Surgeon General might just get involved in gun policy. Can't have that. Better a plague than risk a gun grabber liberal doctor commie near our weapons. Better this country perish from the earth.
Monday, October 13, 2014
A kind word turneth away wrath
Drone strikes. Another one of those things we like to oppose for
reasons with holes in them. Malala Yousafzai, the young Nobel Peace
Prize winner told the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner last Friday that drone strikes fuel terrorism
and kill innocent people. Somehow I recollect the saying that being
against bad doesn't make you good. It doesn't make you make sense
either.
Is it the use of an unmanned vehicle that makes bombing terrorist targets wrong? Would we be better off using billion dollar manned vehicles that are less accurate and far more risky for US personnel? Send in another 100,000 troops? Would we be better off not doing anything and as she suggests just give Pakistan more money for "Education" in the phantasmagoric hope that it will somehow not be used to teach Islamic intolerance for so much of what we hold dear, including freedom for young women like Malala Yousafzai? Surely that would work as well as the billions and billions and billions we're already given them while they housed bin Laden.
Drone strikes, like Gluten and fruit sugar, is an enemy without portfolio and it's not surprising to hear it from someone hoping that somehow the insanity and hatred infesting Islamic culture will simply go away if we ignore it, or at most address al Qaeda and ISIS and the Taliban with a little more understanding. Maybe they'll see the error of their ways if we all are just a little more patient.
Is it the use of an unmanned vehicle that makes bombing terrorist targets wrong? Would we be better off using billion dollar manned vehicles that are less accurate and far more risky for US personnel? Send in another 100,000 troops? Would we be better off not doing anything and as she suggests just give Pakistan more money for "Education" in the phantasmagoric hope that it will somehow not be used to teach Islamic intolerance for so much of what we hold dear, including freedom for young women like Malala Yousafzai? Surely that would work as well as the billions and billions and billions we're already given them while they housed bin Laden.
Drone strikes, like Gluten and fruit sugar, is an enemy without portfolio and it's not surprising to hear it from someone hoping that somehow the insanity and hatred infesting Islamic culture will simply go away if we ignore it, or at most address al Qaeda and ISIS and the Taliban with a little more understanding. Maybe they'll see the error of their ways if we all are just a little more patient.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Fall
Florida falls into autumn
the way you grow old:
with a sense of change you
may not see in the weather
or on your face in the mirror
or in the falling of leaves
or ripening fruit,
but you feel in an easing,
a thinning of the still hot air,
a pause in continuity.
The odor of this morning is different.
Something is changing.
Black vultures in a tree.
An osprey on white wings
screams down at us.
the way you grow old:
with a sense of change you
may not see in the weather
or on your face in the mirror
or in the falling of leaves
or ripening fruit,
but you feel in an easing,
a thinning of the still hot air,
a pause in continuity.
The odor of this morning is different.
Something is changing.
Black vultures in a tree.
An osprey on white wings
screams down at us.
Friday, October 10, 2014
How Hezbollah Brought Ebola to Pensacola
By (O)CT(O)PUS
Here is how mutation works (subtext: here is how paranoia conspires with an over-active imagination):
“Illegal immigration will bankrupt the economy; close the border.” (Alex Jones - Handwringer Radio).
“Illegal immigrants, with calves the size of cantaloupes, are pack mules for the illicit drug trade; close the border” (Rep. Steve King).
“ISIS terrorists will enter our country through Mexico; close the border” (Gov. Rick Perry).
“West Africans from Mexico [but not from Canada] will bring eBOLA to our country; close the border” (The Breitbart Fright Mart).
And here are the various and sundry forms of eBOLA mutating in Cyberspace.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Monday, October 6, 2014
CYBER BULLIES AND THE BLOGGERS WHO ENABLE THEM
By (O)CT(O)PUS
If you happen to be the wrong gender, in the wrong neighborhood, or on the wrong side of the Tea Party, criminal acts now have a partisan bias. Not all partisans! Most conservatives, liberals and libertarians – with their moral compass fully intact – condemn sadistic acts of malice. Yet, there appears to be a radical fringe that rejects all standards of common decency. When I first learned of this incident …
Sexual harassment and threats of sexual violence
prompted Shaw Kenawe to suspend her web log
... I posted a quick announcement on this web log, Who’s Your Daddy - a forum frequented by the same predators who tormented Shaw. The proprietress of subject blog issued an immediate denial:
Lisa: “Nobody here has ever made any direct threats” [Deleted].
In a follow-up post, I described these malicious acts (source):
"Hate messages, threats of sexual violence, allusions to smearing
victims in excrement – illustrated with vile pornography."
Hardly free speech, threats of physical violence meet the legal definition of “attempted assault.” Threats of sexual violence meet the legal definition of ‘predation.’ Any distribution of unsolicited and unwanted pornography is a violation of state and Federal laws. ALL ARE CRIMINAL OFFENSES!In response to my article cross-posted at Progressive Eruptions, the proprietress of Who’s Your Daddy commandeered a discussion thread with blanket denials:
Lisa “Being you are all about free speech … Don't blame me for something others do” (September 30, 2014 at 9:59 PM).
Lisa: “I had nothing to do with any of whatever it is you claim happened” (September 30, 2014 at 10:04 PM).
Lisa: “Nobody ever threatened you on my blog” (September 30, 2014 at 10:32 PM). Lisa “Hey Octo … or shithead” (October 1, 2014 at 4:37 PM).
Lisa “Like I stated before and this is the last time, I am not responsible for what others post on your blog” (October 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM)The argument is not over comments posted on Shaw’s blog, but over comments posted on Lisa’s blog by her patrons. In essence, the argument is about hosting and enabling predators.
Apparently, Teflon Lisa has now decided to play the victim card. Consider the irony: My original post was NOT ABOUT LISA but about malice in Cyberspace. Yet, reactive and combative, Lisa turned the focus of attention to herself by denying the offenses and defending the offenders.
Given this turn of events, I am now compelled to show actual examples. By no means trivial, these examples demonstrate the kinds of harassment, humiliation, and torment endured by Shaw, not just in Cyberspace but sent to her private email account.
THE GOODS ON TEFLON LISA
Radical Redneck posted this comment on Lisa’s web log:Radical Redneck: “Shaw will hide her fornicator’s head in unprecedented shame by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!” (March 12, 2012 at 11:12 AM).
Embedded in Radical Redneck’s comment is a live link that brings you to a website containing offensive pornography. WARNING: Reader discretion advised.Here is a direct exchange between Lisa and Radical Redneck:
Lisa [speaking directly to Radical Redneck]: “Hey RR the link doesn't work” (August 26, 2011 at 9:21 PM)
Radical Redneck: “http://img31.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc49&image=44132_14833499.jpg” (August 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM).
If you copy the URL string in Radical Redneck’s comment and paste it into your browser, it brings you to a website containing offensive pornography. WARNING: Reader discretion advised.Here is another comment posted by Radical Redneck on Lisa’s web log:
Radical Redneck: “Shaw and her “Life Partner” celebrate Ogabe’s *Spit* victory!” (February 18, 2011 at 7:14 PM).
Embedded in Radical Redneck’s comment is a live link that brings you to a website containing offensive pornography. WARNING: Reader discretion advised.Yet another comment by Radical Redneck posted on Lisa’s web log:
Radical Redneck: “Chaw is sucking worthless … pick up a thug gaggle and resemble a negroe [sic] porcupine with the countless pricks going in you” (August 29, 2014 at 9:00 AM).
Radical Redneck: “Poor, simple, stupid pest Chaw. Devastated that she's far too contrived and annoying to ever get a black guy, and much to hideous to ever dream of a white guy, must compensate with banal trolling while consuming her default daddy's latest Cleveland Steamer (he always gives her a big one for Kwaanza) out of old Ben & Jerry's containers” (July 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM).
[From the Urban Dictionary: ‘Cleveland Steamer’ is defined as a crude fetishistic sex act whereupon one person – the ‘cacaphile’ - defecates on the chest of another person and smears excrement by rocking back and forth like a steam roller.]Clearly, Lisa’s offal of denial does not pass the sniff test. Not merely isolated examples, there are dozens of lurid comments, links to disturbing images, and threatening email messages sent to private email accounts - clearly a persistent and pervasive pattern of Cyber-Bullying.
Radical Redneck: “Shaw has never looked better!” (August 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM).
Embedded in Radical Redneck’s comment is a live link that brings you to a website containing offensive pornography. WARNING: Reader discretion advised.
The above comment originally appeared under this post. Yesterday, it disappeared from Cyberspace along with this comment:
Rusty Shackelford: “Shaw, the FCFB* (Fat Cunt From Boston) .... chief Obama jock sniffer .....” (July 15, 2014 at 8:01 PM)No doubt, Teflon Lisa will scour her archives clean of all comments referenced herein. No matter. Posts and comments removed from Cyberspace never completely disappear without a trace. There will always be saved texts with embedded links, screen snapshots, copies of menacing email, IP addresses, and digital records stored on computer servers … diligently documented for prosecutors and process servers. Notwithstanding, there will also be shadows of the indignant desert birds reeling in self-righteous anger grasping for self-validation:
Kenosha Marge, Liberated Conservative Women: “I'm in total agreement with all of these comments that side with you against those obnoxious liberals” (October 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM).
Exposing the Hypocrisy of the Liberal Left: “… pure ignorance and extreme bull-shit …” (October 4, 2014 at 1:14 PM).
Duckys here: “Lisa, did Rotweiler post the rape and porn material?” (October 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM).
Lisa: “Ducky get lost” (October 3, 2014 at 7:40 AM).Postscript: Honestly! I never understood nor will I ever understand why some men … and the women who enable them … harass, humiliate, debase, defile, stalk, and torment the women of this world. Women are the mothers of all humanity! Thankfully, there are far more GOOD MEN who respect and protect their partners in life and often refer to them - lovingly - as their “better half.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)