G.W. Bush's Presidential Campaign Contributes to the Outsourcing of American Jobs

I guess that it's now official policy to rid the country of any and all jobs.

The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.

To make matters worse, Land's End has now closed to manufacturing plants in Iowa

Supporting America's workforce is just not the Republican way.




- posted by Bridget @ 9:10 AM
|

 
Upholding the Constitution?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

But today those words ring hollow as George Walker Bush asserts that the Constitution is dead:

Citing a World War II court decision, the Bush administration insisted the president has the legal authority to detain suspected terrorists, including Americans, indefinitely without criminal charges.

Who needs that pesky Constitution that grants citizens rights - such as Article V, which states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Without formal charges, without representation, without trial, we can only wonder whether justice will wither in darkness.
- posted by Bridget @ 3:34 PM
|

 
Comprehensive report on Dubya lies

Ya gotta see this:

IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ

A 36-page report, courtesy of Mr. Henry Waxman.

Someone's been busy :^)
- posted by Jonathan @ 6:56 AM
|

 
A speech I'd love to see

Here's a speech I'd like to see Kerry deliver right about now:

My fellow Americans,
The recent events in Spain have provided an object lesson. They demonstrate what happens when a government takes a vacation from fighting terrorism to engage in ill-planned military adventurism. But more than that, the lesson from Spain is one this White House should take to heart. We saw what happens when a government lies to its people. People in democracies react strongly to being lied to; they express it at the ballot box. And the result is our troops in Iraq are more alone than ever.

For this reason, if I were George Bush I would be very concerned right now. This week, Mr. Bush demonstrated his contempt for the intelligence of the American people by trying to rewrite recent history. He claims my vote last year against $87 billion more dollars for his Iraq War constituted a "vote against body armor" and a "vote against higher pay" for the troops he sent there without adequate body armor in the first place. What he hopes you don't remember is that many people, Republican and Democrat alike, opposed that bill. I supported an alternate bill to provide for the troops, one that would have been paid for by some other means than increasing the Bush deficit even further.

Mr. Bush also hopes you don't remember that last summer, he tried unsuccessfully to cut pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was stopped by the combined efforts of Republicans, Democrats and military personnel.

Mr. Bush is trying to deflect attention from his record; he's pretending you won't notice. I have faith that the American people will hold him accountable.

- posted by Jonathan @ 6:46 AM
|

 
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.

Bush/Cheney '04: Apocalypse Now!
Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: "You're either with us or against us!"
Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!
Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!
Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind
Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!
Bush/Cheney '04: Or else.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The economy's stupid!
Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to cast.
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!
Bush/Cheney '04: We're Gooder!
Bush/Cheney: 1984
George W. Bush: A Brainwave Away from the Presidency.
George W. Bush: Honest as his Day is Long.
George W. Bush: It Takes a Village Idiot.
George W. Bush: The Buck Stops Over There
Let them eat yell! owcake! Vote Bush!
Peace & Prosperity Suck -- Big-Time. Vote Bush!
Vote Bush in '04: "I Has Incumbentory Advantitude"
Vote Bush in '04: "Because every vote counts -- for me!"
Vote Bush in '04: "Because I'm the President, that's why!"
Vote Bush in '04: Because dictatorship is easier.
- posted by Jonathan @ 10:01 PM
|

 
An opening

Just as the Bush campaign dishonestly accuses Kerry of voting against the troops comes word that most Americans think we're spending too much on Iraq:

When asked about spending in Iraq by the federal government, just over four in 10 said the government should either spend the same, 33 percent, or spend more, 9 percent. More than half said either less, 31 percent, or no money at all, 22 percent, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.

Since Kerry actually voted to support the troops and pay for it, there appears to be a bit of an opening favoring him, here.

Also from the story:

...they were divided in that poll on whether they approve of the way President Bush is handling Iraq _ with 47 percent saying "yes" and 49 percent saying "no."

It would appear that the current Bush strategy is to throw so much mud and dishonesty into the air that voters can't tell what they're looking at. But at the same time, they're practically handing Kerry his talking points. I would imagine he won't hesitate to use them...
- posted by Jonathan @ 7:56 PM
|

 
Behind the Job Losses

When Alan Meanspin announced that the Fed would remain patient yesterday, he bemoaned the lag in hiring.

What a pathetic excuse for an economist. This is the man (?) that, together with his cronies, approved the merger of Bank of America and FleetBoston which will result in 13,000 lost jobs.

Are these people as clueless as they seem, or are they the basis for the problems that the citizens of the USofA are encountering?


- posted by Bridget @ 10:06 AM
|

 
If I were Kerry...

...here's how I would address Bush's charge that he's lying about foreign endorsements:

Press Release:
Despite polls showing foreign dislike of the President and the explicit endorsement of Presidential Candidate John Kerry by the new Spanish Prime Minister, the Bush campaign continued its efforts today to paint Kerry's recent comments regarding foreign endorsements as dishonest.

Kerry campaign officials expressed some confusion as to why Mr. Bush had chosen to contest the issue; however, Mr. Kerry remarked, "this is simply another attempt by the Bush administration to deflect attention from their own blatant dishonesty and mishandling of our foreign affairs".

Mr. Kerry remarked recently that a number of foreign officials had privately expressed a preference for a Kerry win in November. However, citing the Bush administration's vindictiveness, Kerry noted that it was up to those officials to make their support public.

I think this issue will likely die on its own in a few days. But Bush has put himself on the line by identifying himself with the charge. It would be nice if the Kerry campaign took advantage of that.
- posted by Jonathan @ 7:43 PM
|

 
Is this really what Homeland Security should be doing?

via Pandagon, we have this rather crass misuse of the Homeland Security department, which (I would imagine) actually has better things to do than try to transform Bush into a president who's actually advanced the cause of making America safer:

As the Bush team sorts out its internal mechanics, it will press the advantage of incumbency. Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month.

- posted by Jonathan @ 4:37 PM
|

 
Lessons from Madrid

Some on the right are now claiming the results of yesterday's election in Spain represent "appeasement" of al Qaeda. They're decrying the Spanish people as cowards, unwilling to stick it out in the War on Terror. This is, they say, an unqualified victory for terrorists everywhere.

There have been several counter-arguments put forth. An important one involves reports that much of the action at the Spanish ballot box seems to have been more the result of the Aznar government's reaction to the bombing (blame the Basque Separatists, even as the Spanish intelligence services claimed "99% certainty" that the bombings were the work of muslim extremists) than fear inspired by the bombings themselves. Another is the fact that, in some quarters, the "conventional wisdom" was that a terrorist attack (any terrorist attack) would push people to further support the center-right Aznar government, and that Wednesday's bombing would help the Spaniards "get it" and "get with the program" for fighting terrorists (as though they weren't, already).

These are both good points, and call into question how al Qaeda could have predicted the outcome sufficiently well to try and influence the elections (assuming, of course, that's what they wanted to do). However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and al Qaeda has shown a belief before (perhaps spurred by the examples of the pullout of Marines in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing, and the abandonment of Somalia in 1993 after the "Black Hawk Down" raid went wrong in that country) that a bloody nose will make Western countries fold.

I believe, however, that the far-right narrative is (as usual) a tad too simple. The Spanish people were not merely happy partners with the Bush administration's actions until Wednesday's bombing, at which point they turned tail and ran. Rather, they were overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an irrelevant, immoral and dangerous distraction from fighting al Qaeda which would, if anything, make the problem worse.

The March 11 bombing surely reminded them of this, as al Qaeda claimed responsibility and justification on the grounds of "revenge for Iraq". Now, I don't think anyone who's followed al Qaeda for a while really believes Iraq is that important to them. But many before the war warned that an invasion would provide al Qaeda with recruitment material. It now appears that this may be the case.

At any rate, it was not an act of cowardice for the Spaniards to vote a group of lying leaders out of power just because doing so may have coincided with al Qaeda's wishes. Rather, it was a statement that the Spanish people want their government to actually focus responsibly on fighting terrorism. It was an expression of disapproval that the Aznar government went along with the Bush administration's distraction from fighting terrorism. It was warning that the people are not happy with their leaders' mismanagement of the War on Terror; mismanagement that has very likely made the problem worse, and put their lives at increased risk for no good reason.

The Bush administration's disastrous assumption that they could take a vacation from fighting al Qaeda after a few early victories is coming home to roost in bigger and bigger ways. They segued at the earliest opportunity to fighting a war of choice, a war that was dreamed up long before 9/11 and sold on an immense heap of lies, a war that was carried out at the cost of an increased, not decreased, danger of terrorism. No matter what you may think about the Spaniards' decision at the ballot box, get this part right: part of the responsibility for the deaths of 200 Spanish people on March 11, 2004 very likely lies with the Bush administration and its allies and their wholly incompetent handling of this War on Terror.

The Spanish people have a right to say they're not happy about it, and demand better. We do, too.
- posted by Jonathan @ 11:28 AM
|

 
Hell hath no fury like a Wingnut Scared

At a guess, we'll all be holding our collective breath a long, long time waiting for Cedric Brown to apply the same standards of honesty to George Bush that he thinks he's applying to John Kerry. But then, if it isn't printed in the Washington "Moonie" Times, it isn't relevant, is it?

Folks, the Bushies and their extremist supporters are desperate, and they know it. If they have to latch on to a "John Kerry is a liar!" meme based solely on this foreign leader endorsement thing, then they've got nothing.

And it shows.
- posted by Jonathan @ 9:43 AM
|

 
Kerry soft on terrorism?

A meme the GOP and its para-media shills have attempted to plant is that John Kerry would be soft on terrorism (part of a larger "Kerry is anti-military" thrust). To that end, a number of those on the right have seized on Kerry's statements regarding terrorists being "brought to justice" as evidence he sees terrorism merely as a crime to be prosecuted, not a threat to be dealt with using military might.

This, of course, is a false dichotomy; most anti-terrorism experts will tell you that the best way to fight terrorism depends upon the organization, its resources, its goals and the circumstances. Indeed, war games before September 11, 2001 dealing with fighting al Qaeda-like terrorist groups found that the most effective methods for shutting them down combined military, economic, diplomatic and law enforcement efforts on an international scale. Military options, in successful scenarios, tended to be less emphasized.

Regardless, for those who feel Kerry discussing "bringing terrorists to justice" somehow signals an unwillingness to do what must be done to protect America, here are a few quotes that might put things in perspective:

"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice."

-- President Bush, White House Press Release, "Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation", September, 2001.


"I see things this way: The people who did this act on America, and who may be planning further acts, are evil people. They don't represent an ideology, they don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're flat evil. That's all they can think about, is evil. And as a nation of good folks, we're going to hunt them down, and we're going to find them, and we will bring them to justice."

-- President Bush, in remarks to FBI employees, White House Press Release, "President: FBI Needs Tools to Track Down Terrorists", September, 2001.


"There's an old poster out West 'Wanted -- Dead or Alive'," Mr Bush said, recalling his days growing up in west Texas. "America wants [bin Laden] brought to justice," he said. "That's what we want."

-- The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Australia, September 19, 2001.


"We're working hard to find out who is doing this and bring them to justice."

-- President Bush, responding to questions about the October, 2001 anthrax attacks, White House Press Release, "President Says Terrorists Won't Change American Way of Life", October, 2001.


"We owe it to our citizens, to the families, to be relentless and methodical in tracking down terrorists and bringing each and every one of them to justice."

-- President Bush, speaking at U.S. Attorney's Conference, White House Press Release, "President Says U.S. Attorneys on Front Line in War", November, 2001.


"We won't forget what took place. And we will bring them to justice. We'll bring them to justice in Afghanistan, and we'll bring them to justice wherever they try to hide."

-- President Bush, in remarks during a photo op with the president and prime minister of Norway, White house Press release, "President Asks Global Leaders to Play Anthems on Dec 11", December, 2001.


"Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress. And one of the objectives I've said, in this theater, in all theaters for that matter, is that we want al Qaeda killers brought to justice. And we'll bring him to justice."

-- President Bush, White House Press Release, "President Marks End of Ramadan at White House Ceremony",December, 2001.


"That we've got our law enforcement officers around our country -- at the federal, state and local level -- now understand that they must remain on alert, that there's still an enemy and we've got to stop them. The FBI's primary mission is homeland security, and we're working closely with folks in your communities to make sure that if there's any hint that somebody might try to harm America, that we're going to act, and act now, and bring them to justice.

"I'm proud of the efforts of many all around our country who are working endless hours to make America safe. But the best way to make America safe is to hunt the enemy down where he tries to hide and bring them to justice."

-- President Bush, White House Press Release, "President's Remarks in Aurora, MO on Anti-Terrorism Efforts", January, 2002.


"The message is the war on terror goes on, that there are killers on the loose -- obviously, killers on the loose inside of Saudi Arabia in this example. And we want to work with them and find them, find those killers and bring them to justice."

-- President Bush, answering a question regarding recent al Qaeda attacks on Saudi Arabia, White House press release, "President Bush Vows to Bring Terrorists to Justice", May, 2003.


"Thousands of very skilled and determined military personnel are on a manhunt, going after the remaining killers who hide in cities and caves -- and, one by one, we will bring the terrorists to justice."

-- President Bush, State of the Union Address, January 21, 2004.


"We'll protect the homeland. The best way to protect America, however, is to go on the offensive, stay on the offensive, and bring the terrorists to justice."

-- President Bush, White House Press Release, "President Discusses America's Leadership in Global War on Terror", January, 2004.

For every one of these quotes, there are tens of others.

There seems to be little reason to latch on to the phrase "bringing terrorists to justice" as evidence of anything more than an intent to go after terrorists, unless one can read minds. In which case, one should probably turn one's talents towards fighting terrorism more directly...

(Of course, if one feels that George Bush has dropped the ball on terrorism, the above quotes probably won't re-assure. They are primarily meant to point out that one phrase doesn't necessarily indicate a mindset.)
- posted by Jonathan @ 10:07 AM
|

 
Those whacky GOoPers

Have a look at what our elected officials are promoting on the taxpayer dime:

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

HR 3799 IH

108th CONGRESS

2d Session


H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

. . .

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Just for fun, here's what the U.S. Constitution (which this bill purports to "restore") says on the matter:

Article III, Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

So, basically, the "Dominionists" (who promoted this bill, and who are literally pushing to transform America into a theocracy) want to push a law such that all someone has to do is claim "God made me do it" and they can do whatever they want.

I have a suggestion: this bill should be renamed "the Psycho Government Official Promotion Act of 2004" ("Psycho-GOP")...
- posted by Jonathan @ 9:35 AM
|

 
A few thoughts on Spain

My heart goes out to the wounded, the families of those killed, and all other Spaniards this evening. Today's contemptable bombings were horrific, cowardly and solved precisely nothing, regardless of who was responsible.

It might be tempting to say that Spain, in joining with the U.S. on the Iraq War boondoggle, played some part in bringing this bombing about. I don't feel this would be a fair or accurate statement; chances are Spain, like many other countries, was misled by the Bush administration. And the blame for this bombing lies with those who set off the bombs.

But I will say this.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, I must admit I greatly admired a number of George Bush's actions. I loved his speech at Ground Zero, which I felt, was appropriately populist and a sorely-needed rallying cry. I approved of his decision to go after Afghanistan, even though I now know that Iraq was his first choice (thanks, Colin!).

Unfortunately, I've since found myself deeply disappointed and frustrated by his actions:

- His opposition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the federalization of airline security,

- his systematic underfunding of homeland security, customs and port security, police and fire first responders and foreign aid for Afghanistan,

- his repeated attempts to obstruct an investigation into what went wrong, what went right and what needs changing as regards 9/11,

- his opposition to gun fingerprinting, a basic anti-crime and anti-terrorism step,

- his cuts in pay raises for federal workers and members of the military, education benefits for military families, veterans benefits, and payments to family members of soldiers killed in action,

- his blatant use of "fighting terrorism" as an excuse to pay back fat-cat political benefactors, push economically foolish tax policies, promote "good times" irresponsible energy polices, unnecessarily infringe civil liberties and generally quell any and all disagreement,

- his withdrawal of resources needed to hunt down al Qaeda in order to fight a war with Iraq,

- his deliberately and specifically misleading statements to Congress and the American people to promote war with Iraq,

- his alienation of allies we need for fighting terrorist organizations in order to drive into Iraq,

- his failure to adequately secure locations in Iraq that were supposed to have WMD, and some which did have hazardous and nuclear materials,

- his administration's exposure of the classified identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of a political opponent and CIA operative involved in anti-proliferation, as an act of political payback, followed by his lack of a sincere committment to finding the perpetrator(s),

- and now word that he vetoed the targetting of known al Qaeda terrorists in U.S.-patrolled northern Iraq because it would have undercut the case for war, resulting in some 700 innocent people killed by said terrorist...

...all of these things have convinced me that that George Bush can, at most, be counted on to make a few good speeches in the War on Terrorism. His actual actions, when push comes to shove, belie very little interest in actually making America safer.

In summary, no one is to blame for the heinous attacks on Spanish civilians today other than the bombers themselves. But George Bush dropped the ball early on in this war, and likely gave al Qaeda a chance to regroup. Had Bush done the right thing and dedicated sufficient resources (diplomatic, political and economic) to fighting terrorism, this might not be the case. I can only pray that the world is not now beginning to pay the price of his "steady" misleadership.

UPDATE: After thinking about this issue further, I've had a bit of a change of heart. See "Lessons from Madrid", above.
- posted by Jonathan @ 11:11 PM
|

 
What's Going on With Equatorial Guinea?

Do you think there is connection between this:

Today, U.S. oil firms dominate the Equatorial Guinea landscape. ExxonMobil, Amerada Hess, Chevron Texaco and Marathon Oil have the largest share of the country’s oil production. Based on new discoveries, analysts expect their total collective investment of $3 billion to approach about $5 billion by the end of 2002.

and this:

Sources also indicated that the aircraft, which Zimbabwean officials alleged also carried military equipment, had arrived from the Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, United States, before its stop-over in Barbados.

Further reports stated that the plane, originally a commercial PanAm Airways aircraft up until a week ago, was being operated by the American Air Force, but international Press reports stated it had been sold to a South African company.

With the history of coups and overthrows of governments around the globe being attributed to U.S. agencies, Zimbabwe accused US, British, and Spanish spy agencies yesterday of involvement in a plot to topple Equatorial Guinea's government.
- posted by Bridget @ 6:37 PM
|

 
The Man Who Would Be King

But Settles for Dictator

Seems as though the taxpayers get to foot the bill for His Royal Highness.

For days now, the job at Eisenhower Park in Nassau County has been to follow the order from the White House through the Secret Service and down to the park workers:

"The president's feet are not to touch the dirt.".

Such a shame that he doesn't worry about the mess on anything but his feet.

This year the federal government will borrow about $477 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Cumulatively, the Treasury Department puts the official national debt at $7.1 trillion, 45 percent of which is held by foreigners. With future unfunded commitments and liabilities, that brings total U.S. debt to about $30 trillion, or $100,000 for every American, David M. Walker, the U.S. Comptroller General, notes in a new report.
- posted by Bridget @ 4:33 PM
|

 
"Between now and the end of the year."

Am I the only one who finds this just a tad revealing?

When asked if he thought bin Laden would be captured this year, [Gen. John Abizaid] said he had no way of knowing.

But he said, "I think that we will make it very painful for al Qaeda between now and the end of the year."

(Abizaid is the Commander of the U.S. Central Command.)

So, why is our time horizon for "making it very painful" for al Qaeda to the end of the year? Is there some reason why this year (as opposed to 2002, or 2003) is a better time for going after Osama bin Laden? And why not continue the efforts in 2005?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing the General of planning on ending the hunt on November 2. And I'm aware that the question he was asked pertained to this year. But his statement does seem to go further and illuminate the current focus, one which happens to coincide with George Bush's election prospects. And, to me, that reeks of misplaced priorities.
- posted by Jonathan @ 7:35 PM
|

 
Pollkatz

Up until the turn of the new year, the incomparable Dr. Pollkatz's site was the reference point for polling statistics regarding the Bush administration. At that point, the graphics ended. However, I have reason to suspect that the good Doctor will soon be updating his work once again. And given Bush's tanking ratings, it's none too soon!

In his honor, here are a few stabs of my own at some similar graphics: approval, disapproval and geometric mean approval/disapproval ratio of 12 polls (Pollkatz's own graphics have 13, but that's data I don't have).




- posted by Jonathan @ 4:14 PM
|

 
Who's Been Sleeping in My Bed?

Do you think Judicial Watch will launch an investigation into the high cost of a night in the Lincoln Bedroom over these high dollar donors?

It's a darn shame that the liberal media seems to only hound the Democrats. Wonder why that is?
- posted by Bridget @ 6:33 AM
|

 
How Quaint Are You?

The "new economics" have revealed that they should be reviled. I found out that auto-cannibalism should be considered for the money you live in.

He continued, "Those worry-mongers who are always complaining about debt are laboring under the quaint notion that debt is supposed to be repaid. The purpose of going into debt is so that you can acquire more debt in the future. Governments have known this for a long time, but in a democracy, why shouldn’t ordinary people be able to take advantage of this as well?"

- posted by Bridget @ 11:49 AM
|