The presidential election is one week old; the economy is still struggling to mend; fiscal cliff is upon us; Europe is still teetering; China economy looks wobbly (or bubbly, depending on your vantage point); we're still actively engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or, are we seriously winding down any time soon?).
And what is main media obsessed on right now? The salacious scandal of General David Petraeus, the ex-military commander turns CIA chief turns disgraced middle-aged man with an extra-marital affair.
Everyone in general public, main media and the internet seems to know every unfolding details about this scandal, which started out with a glamorous military woman turns grad student, turns biographer of Petraeus. The two of them must have thought they're being extra-cautious about the cover-up, creating private gmail accounts for their liaison and communications, supposedly thinking that these are anonymous and untraceable. Little did neither of them know that nothing on the web is truly anonymous for very long. Patraeus must have had very little inkling of how law enforcement traces cyber crime. How ironic, for a supposedly spy chief of CIA director.
Unfortunate for Patraeus, his undoing is really the poor choice of a crazy mistress who sent anonymous emails to another woman deemed as her rival to the Patraeus attention. The harassed woman complained to some FBI agent, who brought the issue to the FBI cyber crime division, which then diligently followed up on it, just to turn up evidence of salacious details of the affair between Patraeus and his mistress. Big ooops, indeed.
Apparently, the harassed woman is no innocent victim, having ensnared the attention of not only the FBI agent eager to send her his bare chest picture, but also another general, one General Allen. Talking about hubris, this harassed woman must be in the league of Comet Hale-Bopp. It's probably safe to say, that she's no innocent victim of the very jealous mistress of Patraeus, being such a name-dropper, social climber.
BUT, the scandal is not what I was intending to write about. It's not really the scandal itself that caught my attention; rather, it's the reaction that is more interesting - in reflecting our lives and times in this contemporary age.
So, it was that, this morning I was listening to Tom Ashbrook's On Point on NPR, with the interview of an author, Tom Ricks, who wrote a book about generals over the years. In relation to the matter at hand, some of the facts look to be disreputable. Patraeus and Allen look to be highly effective generals, and are both very good at what they do in the military. As per Ricks, given how effective they are as generals, we should give them a break on all these indiscretions, since effective leaders in the military are so hard to come by and our military force has become so complacent with ineffective leadership. Afterall, according to his logic, even Dwight Eisenhower had had extra-marital affairs; and if we were to choose, he's sure no one would want to replace Eisenhower during the WWII war command. If we are willing to cut Eisenhower some slack, why not Patraeus or Allen?
Most people who are understanding on the men (and the women) would sympathize that, while it's morally wrong, they are consenting adults, and the total private matters is none of the FBI's concerns. Afterall, divorce rates are at all time high in civilian population; why should the military be treated to a different (and much higher) moral standard?
Those who strike moral high grounds believe these men, who handle highly classified government secrets, have put themselves in compromising position, opening themselves to potentials of blackmails. In fact, the FBI has since found classified documents on the mistress' computer, though it's unclear where she's got those files from. The thinking goes, that if these generals have come clean about the affairs, they'll be blackmail-proof, and the marital issues would become private matters between the husband, the wife, and the mistress, and not the FBI or CIA.
These are probably the strongest arguments that I would grant them for. There are others that are plain sexist (eg. Holly Patraeus should mind her appearance a bit better to keep her husband; or that, these mistresses are just attracted to men in power, much like Monica Lewinsky) are simply too weak or repulsive for me to even consider them. Granted that there are part truth in such statements, I would highly doubt that these men have strayed from their domestic life simply because their wives have gained 20 pounds over a period of 40 years. These men (and women) want excitement in their life, and the affairs and even just the supposed flirtations, provide welcomed distractions from their mundane daily routines. Could their wives (or husbands) have done anything to prevent that from happening, perhaps by, say, changing new bedroom costumes from Victoria Secrets every night? I don't think so. As the saying goes, they want new meat.
Still, while I was listening to the interview on On Point and the listeners' call-in, with arguments both for and against the "public lynching" of Patraeus and Allen, it's started me on some soul-searching.
If this has been in France or Italy, this kind of discussions probably would not even warrant media prints in the third page. Somehow, America in the 21st century is still remarkably self-righteous, believing themselves to be cut from cloth of higher moral fabric. (Don't take my word for it: Just look at the multiple affairs and divorces of New Gingrich while he's on the hunt to the Lewinsky liaison during Bill Clinton impeachment, and you'll see why I'm so cynical about all those self-righteous, "religious" men, mainly in the GOP camp.)
Do we aspire our leaders to higher standards, or should we lower the standards, just so that our leaders can cross the bar? I'd rather not. Still, I don't want to be the one to cast the first stone, even though I've never strayed from the path in my marriage. I can only imagine the tug-and-pull of sexual tension in the formative stage of an affair; and the flirtation must be fun (just ask General Allen, even though he insists that it's all innocent and he hasn't had sexual relationship with the harassed woman in question, it's really just a matter of time).
If we stray only in our heads, with some fantasy that is never acted upon, have we sinned? Where does the moral judgment begin, and end? Afterall, isn't that all Hollywood is about, when people watch movies and become enameled of movie stars as sex symbols? I doubt there aren't that many women who never drool over George Clooney or Brad Pitt or the six-packs from other movie guys; same goes with praises from men to airheads like Megan Fox.
I do not want to judge, but somehow I have harbored hope against all hopes that the leaders - military leaders, no less - would be able to achieve what we mere mortals can't, ie. to succumb to our whims and fantasy. I would have hoped, that all the talk of military discipline would really mean and count for something in self discipline; or, is all the ooh-rah's just for show? Is it really that bad (or unachievable, in modern times) for us to aspire our leaders to be the next Winston Churchill? Have we, as general public, scooped so low that they have given up hope that there will not be another Churchill, not only in terms of leadership, courage, wisdom, but also the moral fabrics?
I can only say, that I have not given up the hope for that. But one man after another, these crops of leaders, supposedly elites from West Point and all, have failed. I'm profoundly disappointed. I really am. I have long given up hopes on politicians, but military elites are no better, apparently. How sad.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
On our new Garmin GPS...
I'm on a roll, of late. After tackling our "reading" problem with the Nook, I've decided to tackle another problem of mine, which is maps.
Yes, yes, I know, everyone is all over map - pun intended - about the snafu of the iPhone Map that came out very recently. Not that I care much about iPhone map, I do fully appreciate why it's such an important application for daily use. The location service on the smartphones are perfect for keeping tab on consumers, going local. It's perfect for selling personalized mobile ad, wherever the users might be. Social media is all hyped up, and suddenly everyone wants to know where everyone is, probably down to the precision of the exact cube in the bathroom. Big money is to be had. Big wars will be fought (just look at the infighting among Google Maps, Bing Maps, and now iPhone Map).
The scale of my problem is much smaller. I don't want smartphone apps to give me maps; that has nothing to do with the quality of the new iPhone Map versus Google or Bing Map on every other smartphone. I don't want to marry my map needs with a data plan for the phone. I don't want the map providers to tie me to other search or purchase/browser history. I don't want mobile ad; period. I get what I need; I don't want to be pushed to buy things. And I'm not a stalker, I don't need such hyper needs to track everybody else.
I go about my navigation needs the old-fashioned ways. I have physical maps and atlas, and I check with physical maps and Google Map ahead of time for driving instructions. That usually work out quite well, except when it doesn't (at times).
I'm sure it happens to everybody else, of how it's like when the map instructions from Google (or Bing, or whoever) are off. Or, you make a wrong turn, or you miss an intersection; and suddenly everything is off. Big ooops. And then, there are detours, traffic jams or accidents, or having to fumble over maps under flashlight in the dark; the works. For some reasons, those situations happen to me quite often. My kids have come to expect that. My son would volunteer to read the maps or instructions for me. My daughter would periodically ask me, "Are you sure where we are?"
I have not planned for a single-purpose device again, as I've noted before, but there is something appealing about a special purpose device like a GPS. For one, I only need to pay for the device once, and I won't have to worry about the need to pay monthly fees (for phone data plan) for just checking maps; never mind surfing the web which is not essential to me when I'm on the road. I can download maps for other countries when I go on trips, and I won't have to worry about getting a local cell phone plan in foreign countries, just to get the smartphone map apps to work. The satellite tracking is better than triangulation of cell phone towers too, particularly for those cell phone providers who have spotty coverage; in short, I need my maps to be accurate, and I need complete coverage.
So, after the Nook, I've decided to get a Garmin GPS. As with every other gadgets, once the hump of initial setup is over, things go quite smoothly. That includes registering the device with Garmin and the lifetime map update (yes, I want updated maps whenever it's available), and downloading the maps which take a good long time of 8+ hours. But after that, everything's a breeze. Battery life looks very decent, and I don't have to charge it that often.
It's funny how, for once, my kids sigh a breath of relief after I got it working. Their relief? "We won't get lost again." Hope so...
Granted, I won't give up on my physical maps and checking out Google or Bing Maps before trips. I don't like to rely solely on electronic devices. More importantly, I want to actively use my brain whenever I can, rather than mindlessly following driving instructions from some gadget's voice commands. I'm human, afterall, ain't I!?!
PS: I've been extremely happy with the "behavioral development" re the Nook so far. I have worried that my son would spend too much time just playing games. As it turns out, almost one month into it, my kids have been all too happy to read the few hundred books (most of them classics) that we've got on it so far. I know, for a fact, that my son would not have volunteered to read up on Two Thousand Leagues Beneath The Sea from library shelf, but he's all too happy to read it in the car during journeys; and he loves it. On the other hand, my daughter whose interest is in reading on the Nook only, is getting comfortable with gadgets, which is a good thing too.
PPS: Although if Barnes & Nobles would ask of me, I would certain offer my humble opinion, as a user, of what works and what doesn't. There are times when things are simply not intuitive at all (ie. I have to dig it out, or search online to find the answers). I don't know who design the human interface of the Nook, but it does need works.
Yes, yes, I know, everyone is all over map - pun intended - about the snafu of the iPhone Map that came out very recently. Not that I care much about iPhone map, I do fully appreciate why it's such an important application for daily use. The location service on the smartphones are perfect for keeping tab on consumers, going local. It's perfect for selling personalized mobile ad, wherever the users might be. Social media is all hyped up, and suddenly everyone wants to know where everyone is, probably down to the precision of the exact cube in the bathroom. Big money is to be had. Big wars will be fought (just look at the infighting among Google Maps, Bing Maps, and now iPhone Map).
The scale of my problem is much smaller. I don't want smartphone apps to give me maps; that has nothing to do with the quality of the new iPhone Map versus Google or Bing Map on every other smartphone. I don't want to marry my map needs with a data plan for the phone. I don't want the map providers to tie me to other search or purchase/browser history. I don't want mobile ad; period. I get what I need; I don't want to be pushed to buy things. And I'm not a stalker, I don't need such hyper needs to track everybody else.
I go about my navigation needs the old-fashioned ways. I have physical maps and atlas, and I check with physical maps and Google Map ahead of time for driving instructions. That usually work out quite well, except when it doesn't (at times).
I'm sure it happens to everybody else, of how it's like when the map instructions from Google (or Bing, or whoever) are off. Or, you make a wrong turn, or you miss an intersection; and suddenly everything is off. Big ooops. And then, there are detours, traffic jams or accidents, or having to fumble over maps under flashlight in the dark; the works. For some reasons, those situations happen to me quite often. My kids have come to expect that. My son would volunteer to read the maps or instructions for me. My daughter would periodically ask me, "Are you sure where we are?"
I have not planned for a single-purpose device again, as I've noted before, but there is something appealing about a special purpose device like a GPS. For one, I only need to pay for the device once, and I won't have to worry about the need to pay monthly fees (for phone data plan) for just checking maps; never mind surfing the web which is not essential to me when I'm on the road. I can download maps for other countries when I go on trips, and I won't have to worry about getting a local cell phone plan in foreign countries, just to get the smartphone map apps to work. The satellite tracking is better than triangulation of cell phone towers too, particularly for those cell phone providers who have spotty coverage; in short, I need my maps to be accurate, and I need complete coverage.
So, after the Nook, I've decided to get a Garmin GPS. As with every other gadgets, once the hump of initial setup is over, things go quite smoothly. That includes registering the device with Garmin and the lifetime map update (yes, I want updated maps whenever it's available), and downloading the maps which take a good long time of 8+ hours. But after that, everything's a breeze. Battery life looks very decent, and I don't have to charge it that often.
It's funny how, for once, my kids sigh a breath of relief after I got it working. Their relief? "We won't get lost again." Hope so...
Granted, I won't give up on my physical maps and checking out Google or Bing Maps before trips. I don't like to rely solely on electronic devices. More importantly, I want to actively use my brain whenever I can, rather than mindlessly following driving instructions from some gadget's voice commands. I'm human, afterall, ain't I!?!
PS: I've been extremely happy with the "behavioral development" re the Nook so far. I have worried that my son would spend too much time just playing games. As it turns out, almost one month into it, my kids have been all too happy to read the few hundred books (most of them classics) that we've got on it so far. I know, for a fact, that my son would not have volunteered to read up on Two Thousand Leagues Beneath The Sea from library shelf, but he's all too happy to read it in the car during journeys; and he loves it. On the other hand, my daughter whose interest is in reading on the Nook only, is getting comfortable with gadgets, which is a good thing too.
PPS: Although if Barnes & Nobles would ask of me, I would certain offer my humble opinion, as a user, of what works and what doesn't. There are times when things are simply not intuitive at all (ie. I have to dig it out, or search online to find the answers). I don't know who design the human interface of the Nook, but it does need works.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
On Obama's win 2012, Romney's downfall, and GOP set adrift...
The presidential election is over now (finally), and the people spoke their mind.
For months, the GOP talking heads, Romney campaign, and their strategists, have been hiding their heads in the sand, insisting that all is well, ignoring people's wishes and needs, and their candidate (Romney) will win. Looking back, it just goes to show how silly they have been, all along.
I'm a voter and, for all intent and purposes, more a spectator, except during the final voting hours. Although I live in a state that is quite heavily Dem leaning, I'd say there are really more Independents than diehard Dem these days. Such is the case when the Senate has changed hands between the parties unexpectedly, as it should be. Most people find that to be surprising, but it's not surprising to me at all. At the heart of it, diehard anything, regardless of far left or far right, is suffocating, preventing true conversations of real issues at hard, never mind any attempt in finding solutions.
Perhaps one could look back on the 2012 election from two angles: How Obama has won the election, and how Romney (and GOP at large) have lost it.
Romney has had so many chance to show he can be presidential (or at least the appearance of it); but with perhaps the only exception of the first presidential debate, he and his campaign had failed time and again to seize the moment or conversation, and when they did, they did it too soon (hence, rendering them as rash). He stepped on toes on foreign allies by criticizing London's handling of the Olympics which turned out to be hugely successful and earned himself rebuff and jeers from the Brits. He criticized the handling of the attacks in Benghazi during the initial hours without knowing all the facts. He kept talking down on the economic recovery (albeit painfully slow) while everyone knows it's on the mend, property prices on the rise again (finally) and unemployment rate inching down. He shouted down any criticism of his business hedge funds credentials at Bain Capital as jealousy of capitalism at its best, without realizing how out of touch his wealth and low tax rate are when compared to common folks' daily problems to just finding a job - any job - or to put food on the table, arguing that his low tax rate is legal (while never addressing whether it's ethical or not), which is exactly what Warren Buffet has pointed out. Romney repeated the standard party line of the hardline stance against (illegal) immigration, proposing self-deportation. Above all, Romney claims to have a plan - his so-called five-point plan - to fix the economy, yet it's nothing but slogan and no meat. The list goes on and on, one inept move after another. It's quite pathetic, really.
To be sure, Obama's campaign is effective but it's nowhere near what it used to be in the 2008 campaign when everyone seemed to ride the wave to his Hope and Change message, which again was just slogan and no meat. (I never did believe in it.) As an incumbent this time around, Obama has to campaign on his 4-year record in office. He backpedaled early on with some campaign promises, but the left leaning interest groups seemed to have forgiven him and moved on. (Afterall, Obama is the lesser of two evils, should a GOP president be elected.) Obama did double down on deficit spending and more bailouts that George W Bush had started, to prop up the economy, which is nothing short of any hope to change. The war might still be winding down, but the books are not closed. Granted, the economy is indeed on the mend; his push for ObamaCare (which is not ideal but it's one step closer to universal coverage, American style) has come to fruition; his executive order to bypass a highly partisan Congress to go ahead with Dream Act; most notably, the killing of Osama bin Laden. And so, for anyone to call this president lazy, as the GOP surrogate Sununu has done, is downright wrong. In fact, this president looks to have worked harder than Bush did, with much less vacation to his ranch as Bush did back in his days.
And so, it's only fair that the country is split almost 50/50, but conservative and far right arguing on non-issue like abortion and women's rights which, to most (me included, especially), should have been issues long settled, have utterly missed the point. The only effect of such divisive conversation only serves to alienate women's voters at the closing hours of the election. The condescending tone from these religious and far right GOP groups and supporters have pissed me off so much that I've decided to vote the current GOP Senator in my state out of office (which he did). I've decided to ensure GOP does not get the majority say.
To be sure, even though sore losers in the GOP camp complain about negative ad attacking Romney's Bain record, there are hardly any real personal attacks in this campaign from either side. At the very least, Obama's campaign never brought up the issue of Romney being a Mormon (which was an issue early on in the GOP primaries); yet there are still the GOP idiots like Donald Trump who still believes that Obama is not born on US soil, or that he's Muslim, or that he's not patriotic, all of which personal attacks have proven endless times that they are untrue. All these white noise only goes to show how ignorant a majority in the GOP camp are.
No doubt the loss of 2012 will be more painful than 2008. At least there's such unrealistic expectation of Obama the candidate, to the point of Messiah's second coming, that it's almost impossible for an old hand like McCain to overcome. GOP has hoped against hopes that 2012 would bring Obama down to earth, and Romney is the guy to beat him. As it turns out, Obama's record hasn't been all that shabby, and Romney's record hasn't been all that great.
It's funny how far right and the noisy GOP Tea Partiers have initially rejected Romney as their standard bearer, and turned around to embrace to the guy with the best chance to beat Obama. That embrace has never been heartfelt, true, or long lasting.
The decisive win of Obama in 2012 serves to remind GOP that much change in 2008 has become permanent, in particular, the demographic shifts and the rise of minority (including women's voters, hispanic voters, and young voters). There'll surely be much soul searching among the GOP strategists for years to come, since their vaulted hope to get elected on the backs of rural white voters and conservative religious voters alone. The continuous shifts in the demographics will tar the GOP.
My bets are, the GOP will never embrace the blacks. With the hispanics voters generally more religious in nature, and this voter bloc is on the rise, GOP will modify their stand in immigration to embrace them. But if GOP keeps putting out idiotic, combative female candidate like Christine O'Donnell or Michelle Bachmann or Salin Palin, they'll never get any real traction with women's voters.
The bottomline is, can the GOP party machine keep the Tea Party and far right in check, and move to the middle. The fight over the fiscal cliff is going to be a test case for this, to see if they really want to move toward the center, rather than just being a party of 'No' and be obstructionist. But if GOP cannot move forward from the old guards like Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove, they'll never be able to reinvent themselves.
For months, the GOP talking heads, Romney campaign, and their strategists, have been hiding their heads in the sand, insisting that all is well, ignoring people's wishes and needs, and their candidate (Romney) will win. Looking back, it just goes to show how silly they have been, all along.
I'm a voter and, for all intent and purposes, more a spectator, except during the final voting hours. Although I live in a state that is quite heavily Dem leaning, I'd say there are really more Independents than diehard Dem these days. Such is the case when the Senate has changed hands between the parties unexpectedly, as it should be. Most people find that to be surprising, but it's not surprising to me at all. At the heart of it, diehard anything, regardless of far left or far right, is suffocating, preventing true conversations of real issues at hard, never mind any attempt in finding solutions.
Perhaps one could look back on the 2012 election from two angles: How Obama has won the election, and how Romney (and GOP at large) have lost it.
Romney has had so many chance to show he can be presidential (or at least the appearance of it); but with perhaps the only exception of the first presidential debate, he and his campaign had failed time and again to seize the moment or conversation, and when they did, they did it too soon (hence, rendering them as rash). He stepped on toes on foreign allies by criticizing London's handling of the Olympics which turned out to be hugely successful and earned himself rebuff and jeers from the Brits. He criticized the handling of the attacks in Benghazi during the initial hours without knowing all the facts. He kept talking down on the economic recovery (albeit painfully slow) while everyone knows it's on the mend, property prices on the rise again (finally) and unemployment rate inching down. He shouted down any criticism of his business hedge funds credentials at Bain Capital as jealousy of capitalism at its best, without realizing how out of touch his wealth and low tax rate are when compared to common folks' daily problems to just finding a job - any job - or to put food on the table, arguing that his low tax rate is legal (while never addressing whether it's ethical or not), which is exactly what Warren Buffet has pointed out. Romney repeated the standard party line of the hardline stance against (illegal) immigration, proposing self-deportation. Above all, Romney claims to have a plan - his so-called five-point plan - to fix the economy, yet it's nothing but slogan and no meat. The list goes on and on, one inept move after another. It's quite pathetic, really.
To be sure, Obama's campaign is effective but it's nowhere near what it used to be in the 2008 campaign when everyone seemed to ride the wave to his Hope and Change message, which again was just slogan and no meat. (I never did believe in it.) As an incumbent this time around, Obama has to campaign on his 4-year record in office. He backpedaled early on with some campaign promises, but the left leaning interest groups seemed to have forgiven him and moved on. (Afterall, Obama is the lesser of two evils, should a GOP president be elected.) Obama did double down on deficit spending and more bailouts that George W Bush had started, to prop up the economy, which is nothing short of any hope to change. The war might still be winding down, but the books are not closed. Granted, the economy is indeed on the mend; his push for ObamaCare (which is not ideal but it's one step closer to universal coverage, American style) has come to fruition; his executive order to bypass a highly partisan Congress to go ahead with Dream Act; most notably, the killing of Osama bin Laden. And so, for anyone to call this president lazy, as the GOP surrogate Sununu has done, is downright wrong. In fact, this president looks to have worked harder than Bush did, with much less vacation to his ranch as Bush did back in his days.
And so, it's only fair that the country is split almost 50/50, but conservative and far right arguing on non-issue like abortion and women's rights which, to most (me included, especially), should have been issues long settled, have utterly missed the point. The only effect of such divisive conversation only serves to alienate women's voters at the closing hours of the election. The condescending tone from these religious and far right GOP groups and supporters have pissed me off so much that I've decided to vote the current GOP Senator in my state out of office (which he did). I've decided to ensure GOP does not get the majority say.
To be sure, even though sore losers in the GOP camp complain about negative ad attacking Romney's Bain record, there are hardly any real personal attacks in this campaign from either side. At the very least, Obama's campaign never brought up the issue of Romney being a Mormon (which was an issue early on in the GOP primaries); yet there are still the GOP idiots like Donald Trump who still believes that Obama is not born on US soil, or that he's Muslim, or that he's not patriotic, all of which personal attacks have proven endless times that they are untrue. All these white noise only goes to show how ignorant a majority in the GOP camp are.
No doubt the loss of 2012 will be more painful than 2008. At least there's such unrealistic expectation of Obama the candidate, to the point of Messiah's second coming, that it's almost impossible for an old hand like McCain to overcome. GOP has hoped against hopes that 2012 would bring Obama down to earth, and Romney is the guy to beat him. As it turns out, Obama's record hasn't been all that shabby, and Romney's record hasn't been all that great.
It's funny how far right and the noisy GOP Tea Partiers have initially rejected Romney as their standard bearer, and turned around to embrace to the guy with the best chance to beat Obama. That embrace has never been heartfelt, true, or long lasting.
The decisive win of Obama in 2012 serves to remind GOP that much change in 2008 has become permanent, in particular, the demographic shifts and the rise of minority (including women's voters, hispanic voters, and young voters). There'll surely be much soul searching among the GOP strategists for years to come, since their vaulted hope to get elected on the backs of rural white voters and conservative religious voters alone. The continuous shifts in the demographics will tar the GOP.
My bets are, the GOP will never embrace the blacks. With the hispanics voters generally more religious in nature, and this voter bloc is on the rise, GOP will modify their stand in immigration to embrace them. But if GOP keeps putting out idiotic, combative female candidate like Christine O'Donnell or Michelle Bachmann or Salin Palin, they'll never get any real traction with women's voters.
The bottomline is, can the GOP party machine keep the Tea Party and far right in check, and move to the middle. The fight over the fiscal cliff is going to be a test case for this, to see if they really want to move toward the center, rather than just being a party of 'No' and be obstructionist. But if GOP cannot move forward from the old guards like Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove, they'll never be able to reinvent themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)