America The Humorless
I've been fired from papers a number of times for my humor, like for the column on a woman who gained 80 lbs. during her pregnancy and just didn't feel like losing it, and felt her husband should just deal. The firing offense? This line:
A man doesn't buy a sports car expecting it to morph into a cargo van.
Bruce Estes, managing editor of The Ithaca Journal, dumped my column after readers complained about this line:
Sex isn't special. Monkeys do it, and not because somebody bought them flowers or expensive jewelry.
Here are a few words on the New Yorker cover from editor David Remnick, and a few words more, from Paul Lewis in The Guardian:
The magazine's editor, David Remnick, believes the image "holds up a mirror" to the absurd and often malicious rumours that have stuck to his [Obama's] campaign. And he believes his readers are intelligent enough to get the joke.Rather depressingly, it has been suggested that people won't understand the point of cartoon, titled "The Politics of Fear", and that the cover should have included a caption.
A caption? What would it have said? 'The New Yorker would like to inform readers that the above depiction is supposed to be funny. We don't really think Obama is a terrorist and we like Michelle's hairstyle as it is. Just in case any of you should think us unpatriotic, we remind readers that the Stars and the Stripes should be kept away from fire at all times.'
British papers are much more fun to read than papers in the U.S. because they aren't such nannies about what's printed over there. Or such ninnies.
Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that editors over there aren't afraid to publish writing and art that would appeal to an audience with a reading and intelligence level above "deeply learning disabled."
Up here in Canuckistan, we have quasi-judicial bodies hauling comedians in front of them for insulting lesbians.
It shouldn't be too long before the publishers of the New Yorker are hauled in front of some governmental organization to 'splain themselves.
Sigh.
Robert W. at July 14, 2008 8:36 AM
This "cartoon" is far more illuminating about what the left thinks of those of us on the right than it is anything else.
This cartoon, by the artist's own admission was meant to caricature what the leftists believe the rightists think about Obama. Does that make sense?
Put another way, the left has this moronic worldview in which everyone that isn't gushing with joy for Obama is some kind of racist, sexist, bigot, islamophobe.
It's also a bit of projection. Since the modern political left is dominated by those who place symbolism before substance, they assume that everyone else must be just as shallow as they are. They project this image of how they think the right views Obama, because they only see him as "the first viable black candidate", and can't be bothered to look at any of the substance the man has attempted to show.
And in putting this image on the cover, the editors are putting their ignorance and vanity on full display for everyone to see.
brian at July 14, 2008 8:47 AM
Yep, "ninnies" is right. (They put in the Editor's Note at the bottom after everybody flipped out.)
Speaking of Britain, did you guys hear about the BBC show last week where a Christian extremist beheaded a Muslim? Ripped from the headlines, huh?
Jim Treacher at July 14, 2008 9:10 AM
yeah, the left thinks the right has gone off the deep end. seriously, i wish i could count how many times i've heard a republican say that barack is a muslim, that he's a terrorist, ad nauseum.
Yes, it makes sense. The right-wing liberals have forgone reality and embraced gut reactions. This is what happens when you live and breath on instinct and avoid facts. Calling Barack a muslim makes about as much sense as calling a cracker "the body of christ'. It has no basis in reality. This is far beyond him being black. Seriously...terrorist fist jab???
This picture encapsulates the inability of the neocons to formulate cogent arguments and thier preference to use ad-hominem attacks, a typical liberal tactic. This IS how the neocons view Obama, and I'm wondering why this isn't evident to you?
Fact is, the satire is lost on the right. I hope they put this one on billboards in WV.
j.d. at July 14, 2008 9:12 AM
I think the Michelle Obama as revolutionary depiction is pretty damn hilarious.
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2008 9:15 AM
wow. i just read that link from OpinionJournal. I'm a conservative and I didnt' think that was even remotely funny. I'm sure it was funny to the Larry the Cableguy crowd, but there is a point where comedy goes below the lowest common denominator humour.
j.d. at July 14, 2008 9:20 AM
Actually, isn't it easier to sue for libel in the UK? I think their laws make it much easier for public figures to go after people who attack them in the media.
sean at July 14, 2008 9:56 AM
j. d. - you rode the short bus, didn't you?
The only people I've heard put forth the "Obama is a muslim" meme are either insane, or left-wing commentators saying "well, the Republicans are going to say he's a muslim".
Right. The right-wing Republicans are liberals. What the fuck does that make the Democrats? This picture encapsulates no such thing. It encapsulates the parodic view that the modern American left has of its political foes.
um... because it's not true?
brian at July 14, 2008 10:03 AM
Actually, there are two ways to parse this image.
Knowing that the New Yorker is supportive of Hillary, it could be interpreted as "We put one over on the hicks, and now we're gonna run things" - i.e. The New Yorker has seen through the facade that the rest of the rubes in "flyover country" who granted him the nomination didn't.
But, knowing that the New Yorker is generally liberal, it could be interpreted as "this is what the Republicans think of our candidate".
It would appear that most people are opting for interpretation B, which has no objective evidence to support it. As opposed to interpretation A, which has no objective evidence to support it.
brian at July 14, 2008 10:09 AM
Have any of you read "Killed Cartoons: Casualties in the War on Free Expression" by David Wallis? Hysterically funny and depressing as all hell at the same time. After reading it, I'm absolutely amazed that this one ever saw newsprint. Most US papers are terrified of anything controversial anymore, and will bend to the whim of advertisers and the slightest whiff of "Oh no, what if...?!?!"
Amy, you said something last week about nothing more boring than explaining humor...
juliana at July 14, 2008 10:26 AM
Concerning the humor of it - I think it's funny because it's so obviously over the top in its ridiculousness.
But then again, I'm not one who is looking to have his feelings hurt.
brian at July 14, 2008 10:30 AM
David's one of my closest and oldest friends. Terrific book. Here's a link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393329240?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0393329240
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2008 10:45 AM
Actually, here's a link to my blog item on it, with cartoons from it (used with permission, of course), and a statement from David:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/03/16/killed_cartoons_2.html
In other words, bore the internal organs out of people.
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2008 10:49 AM
Amy - if that's true, then how do Don Wright and Pat Oliphant and Stuart Carlson keep getting published?
I mean, just about every day, Wright offends me with his rank stupidity and inability to grasp even simple reality.
brian at July 14, 2008 11:08 AM
Thank you Juliana for that link to killed cartoons. Interesting. Funny. Tragic.
jerry at July 14, 2008 11:33 AM
You've seriously never heard a republican talk about obama being a muslim? Go over to Politico and check out the threads on this topic. Sheesh. Or, you could listen to sean hannity.
yes, the republicans are liberals. what else could they be? About the only conservative thing the republicans are for is border-control. Everything else is an attempt to use government to control the lives of others in a way that accomodates thier beliefs. And no suprise, this is what liberals do. Look at McCain ffs: they man doesn't even come close to understanding the word 'conservative' (and he's from Goldwater's state!). Or the 'great conservative' Mitt Romney, who introduces Mass. to socialized healthcare. Calling Republicans 'conservative' does not make it so. And of course, this means that the Democrats are liberals as well. The Republicans have moved so far left, I'm sure they'll nominate Lieberman next presidential election cycle.
The picture absolutely represents what neoconservatives believe Obama to be. Anyone who does not conform to a Wilsonian foreign policy of spreading democracy at the point of a gun must be anti-American. Strangely, the illustrator left out the hammer and sickle off of his forehead, and the cocaine spoon and joint on the mantle. That would have been more complete. Of course, the problem with doing so would have resulted in diluting the satire with some well-founded truth.
j.d. at July 14, 2008 11:37 AM
... Monkeys do it ...
I find, when discussing what makes humans different from other animals (and I note in passing that every animal is different from other animals in some way) that most people latch on to our sexual behaviour: love in particular. It has always seemed to me that love is one thing we have in common with lots of other animals, many of which pair for life, and pine when their partner dies.
I find it odd that people should pick out love as the feature that makes us different. Why don't they say music, or science, or religion, or poetry, or mathematics? Is it because any damn fool can experience love, whereas, if we chose any of the other options, it would mean that 90% of humans have no feature to distinguish them from other animals, which would not be politically correct?
Norman at July 14, 2008 11:40 AM
I'd write that your writing sucks, however the off-putting bitter tone, combined with the never ending self-absorbed diatribe, doesn't allow for me to read further.
F U C K off already. You've been fired for a REASON.
PS---as for SUVs? People can drive whatever the hell they choose. Unless you're a VEGAN that doesn't drive at all, you're part of the problem too. You have NO f--king CLUE what the drivers do in the rest of their lives...likely more productive than you and your much more than zero carbon footprint.
RealitySpeaking at July 14, 2008 11:53 AM
Thanks for checking it out!
Jim Treacher at July 14, 2008 12:02 PM
j.d. - I didn't say the Republicans were conservative. They're closer to what Democrats were 50 years ago, if you want to call that "liberal", fine. But what does that make the Democrats now?
There are NO conservatives in Washington. There are NO conservatives in the presidential race.
As far as "neoconservatives", I could give a fuck for what they think. There aren't any of them running for president either.
And Hannity's one of the aforementioned nuts who would be willing to believe that Obama's a muslim. Should I consider the entire Democratic party to be 9/11 conspiracy theorists because most of the truthers support Obama? Does it make Obama a truther?
Your assertion that "republicans" believe that Obama's a muslim is not supported by available evidence.
Again, I tell you, this picture represents what the leftists at Daily Kos and Huffington Post believe the right thinks. But then again, they also believe that Satan is ass-raping Tony Snow right now and that George Bush took down the Twin Towers with his mind-control rays. So no accounting for intellectual firepower there.
brian at July 14, 2008 12:04 PM
Well, RealitySpeaking, something keeps you coming back...perhaps the food?
As for SUVs, yes, people can drive whatever the hell they choose. I choose to drive a car that puts as little particulate in others' lungs as possible, and supports OPEC as little as possible. Seems a good cause on both ends to me. (FYI, it's a Honda Insight hybrid car: a SULEV -- Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle.)
As for why I've been fired, yes, it's for a reason -- editors bowing to complaints of the humorless and easily wounded...like you!
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2008 12:07 PM
Sounds like Honda went to the Capcom Product Naming School.
What's the next one? Super Hyper Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle - II?
brian at July 14, 2008 12:17 PM
Wow! Michelle looks hot in that 'fro.
I like it when others assume I'm intelligent, and I dislike the opposite.
DaveG at July 14, 2008 12:24 PM
Actually, I think it's a government term.
What I love about this RealitySpeaking person is that they go on like this:
PS---as for SUVs? People can drive whatever the hell they choose.
And what they're all snarly about, really, is my exercising my right to free speech.
FYI, I drive as little as possible, but Los Angeles is not a town in which one can get around expediently on public transportation or by bike.
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2008 12:25 PM
i had such a nice retort to brian until i read "realityspeaking"'s comment.
where the f did THAT come from?
I feel like i've been blind-sided by a non-sequitur...
j.d. at July 14, 2008 12:47 PM
You got to love the in-your-face bravery of the anony-weenies!
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2008 12:52 PM
You all are so wrong about this. It's the New Yorker that lacks a sense of humor, not the United States.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 14, 2008 1:16 PM
Wow, a bunch of y'all sure are being humorless while complaining people are being humorless about the New Yorker 'toon! ;)
I think it's a great image. It shows the extreme end - humorously - of the combined slurs that have been tossed at the Obamas. I'm not going to use the nonexistently-monolithic "Right" as the perpetrators, so don't leap upon me if you think I'm biased. I'm not.
But we've all heard (or received the emails) about Barack - middle name Hussein! Oooo! He must be evil! - being a closet Muslim. And of course, that means he's surely just waiting for the chance to give ol' Bin Laden a juicy BJ.
We've all heard that some idiot refer to the "terrorist fist-bump". They didn't fit "babymama" in there anywhere, but I suppose that might have been overkill.
In short (too late!), I see that image as a summary of many of the stupid misinformations, lies, and moronic statements, made about the Obamas. Right, left, whatever - point the finger at whoever you want. But that's a funny cartoon.
And yes, it's distasteful. Nearly anything even remotely interesting is at least moderately offensive.
Deana at July 14, 2008 1:27 PM
From the cartoon, Michelle obviously has more reasons to be proud of her country, perhaps for the second time in her life: if she pays the tax, a few thousand dollars for the gun itself and shows the BATFE agent where she keeps it, she can have a real AK-47 or -74 and practice religious freedom on the side. Tatatat, tat.
-----
You get fired for telling the truth, which hurts. You won't get published in Woman's Day telling the ladies to quit stuffing their face and go exercise. They want confirmation that fat = comfortable, and what they think is always right.
Radwaste at July 14, 2008 2:41 PM
God, I thought I'd had a stroke for a sec. AlternateRealitySpeaking, apparently. " .... doesn't allow for me to read further." Dare we hope it doesn't allow you to type further??
Radwaste: "You get fired for telling the truth, which hurts. You won't get published in Woman's Day telling the ladies to quit stuffing their face and go exercise. They want confirmation that fat = comfortable, and what they think is always right." Ain't that the truth. The minivan majority doesn't want truth - they want confirmation of what they think and believe, and anything else is "controversial". God forbid readers should think for themselves. How boring would a newspaper be if it only reflected everything the reader thought, instead of differing opinions and ideas?
Its an honour to be disliked by some people. If Amy's getting canned by a publication its a fair bet the readership is comprised mostly of sheeple.
catspajamas at July 14, 2008 3:40 PM
"Keep coming back?" That was my first post and first time to this inane site. I happened upon this ignorant shrine to narcissism by accident while searching info about sunscreen... Which brings me to one of your many hypocrisies...your travels to France to get said sunscreen. Funny my SUV couldn't use the amount of fuel, or touch on the negative impact to the environment associated with ONE LEG of that flight.
So typical of you delusional hypocrites, though, always demanding the rules of the cause du jour while you fuck the world over to get your sunscreen and eye cream (that you could get online)...but you've GOT to travel, right? Such a necessity. Let me guess...it was required by your nonexistant career? LOL!
Let me make it easy on you, so you are not hurt in the long run...you are NOT a "writer," and your attempt at it, while "free speech," does not make it legitimate nor does it make you intelligent. You are no different than the millions of other hacks on the internet who can't hold careers in legitimate fields.
Wow, you've "mastered" (in your eyes) the first language of our country. Congrats genius! :P
RealitySpeaking at July 14, 2008 4:31 PM
wow. RealitySpeaking needs an...ahem. 'asterisk' next to his name.
That aside, here's another satirical article about Obama: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change
j.d. at July 14, 2008 4:34 PM
Yep, he lurked to see what we'd say about him and then he came back here, to Advice Goddess, instead of to any of those "millions of other hacks". Amy, I think he likes you. If you were in grade school he'd be pulling your hair. I got $10 says he'll be back again. Takers?
Thanks, j.d., that Onion article is killer.
catspajamas at July 14, 2008 4:47 PM
Well, the New Yorker cover made the news in Canada. You'll never guess - its "controversial" and some people (apparently not intelligent enough to get the joke) are offended. Quel surprise!
catspajamas at July 14, 2008 8:37 PM
As of yet, we haven't perfected matter transfer, so I drive across Los Angeles and fly to France. I don't fly on a private jet, but on a commercial airplane. I drive the most fuel-efficient and least OPEC-supporting car out there, and you'll find plenty of value in my trips to France in my column.
And actually, you've benefited from my trips -- my posts and knowledge about sunscreen. Where did you go on vacation, how did you get there, and what did we get out of it?
And why so angry that I suggest, if possible, that people try to pollute as little as possible and support OPEC as little as possible?
Do check out some of my columns and my blog and I'm sure you'll get even more out of my trips to France. An example:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/12/look-before-you.html
Also, I criticize plenty of people, but I have the balls to do it in my own full name. What do you have down there, two shriveled black beans? Good luck growing a pair, Kittyboy.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2008 12:19 AM
Let me make it easy on you, so you are not hurt in the long run...you are NOT a "writer," and your attempt at it, while "free speech," does not make it legitimate nor does it make you intelligent. You are no different than the millions of other hacks on the internet who can't hold careers in legitimate fields.
Does that mean McGraw-Hill will be demanding my book advance back?
You're cute, and fun to toy with. Do come back soon!
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2008 12:23 AM
Hmm.
"Which brings me to one of your many hypocrisies...your travels to France to get said sunscreen."
Strike one. That's not the purpose.
"...while you fuck the world over to get your sunscreen and eye cream (that you could get online)..."
Strike two. Can't do that. Was in the column. Ignorance is yours.
"Let me guess...it was required by your nonexistant career?"
Strike three. Making a living for years = career.
"You are no different than the millions of other hacks on the internet who can't hold careers in legitimate fields."
Umm. Strike four? Writing, making said living = legitimate. Check your local, state and national laws - and a dictionary.
"Wow, you've "mastered" (in your eyes) the first language of our country."
What exceptions can you cite, exactly?
How many times should you get to whiff at the ball? It's one thing to hold an opinion, but another to base them on being factually wrong.
Please note that these points do not actually defend Amy, except as they defeat your baseless, anger-driven attack with false allegations. The point here is you.
You should learn to behave, even as you are anonymous. If you want a reason why I use a screen name, even though I never post, e-mail or write anything I wouldn't sign my name to, look in the mirror.
And do some more reading. There is more here, and more in hundreds of sites on the Internet to defuse pointless anger than I can link to. Try this aircraft photography site.
Have a nice day, and note that you have now been better-treated than you have the blog hostess.
Radwaste at July 15, 2008 2:15 AM
Coincidence: McGraw-Hill publishes (or published, it's been some time) Aviation Week and Space Technology, of which I once had a subscription; it was too expensive, reaching $160/year. It routinely featured articles like "Glass Cockpit Workload in Commercial and Combat Flight Regimes", and hardware ads for Mauser cannon, Arrow turbine gears and the like.
Apropo for the flying enthusiast, eh? Amy, see if you can get a deal on a subscription. It's the Scientific American of flight.
Radwaste at July 15, 2008 2:22 AM
I'll do my part to help the poor dear with his problem. Here, read this, you'll feel much better:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806520108?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0806520108
P.S. Al's dead now, but I'm proud to say he was a fan.
And thanks Rad.
And the difference: I know who Raddy is, and he doesn't use anonymity to attack people.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2008 5:08 AM
Not to back up the troll, but if it's okay to burn a lot of fuel in order to make a living... How come everybody else is wrong?
Jim Treacher at July 15, 2008 1:31 PM
Treach, you've hit dead center.
But Americans aren't paying so much for gas because they're doing that: they're burning so much money and gas because they've mistaken going into debt for $50K worth of gas-guzzler for "prosperity".
That's fake.
The payments on two new cars in the driveway can get your kid into college. Oh, hell, no, we're going to RIDE!
Not everybody has done that. But those who have done so are all the news today.
Radwaste at July 15, 2008 2:41 PM
Rad- (And Amy, if you're still keeping tabs on this thread)
When you've got the time, this article is worth reading. It will leave you breathless, or nauseous, or both. "Down and Out in Bloomfield Hills" Talk about prosperity issues. It was written two years ago for the Wall Street Journal, and it's taken me awhile to find it, but it still packs a hellofa wallop. It also makes you want to strangle somebody, sloooooowwlyyy
www.woodenboat.com/forum//archive/index.php/t-47928.html
juliana at July 15, 2008 3:18 PM
I see things differently from "brian." Not all conversatives or Republicans have the view of Obama satirized in the New Yorker cartoon, but some do. Then there are some who don't believe this absurdity, but would like to see more people believe it, in the hopes that it will cause them to vote for the Republican candidate.
McCain doesn't appear to hold these kinds of beliefs about his opponent and I haven't seen any evidence that his campaign is involved in any effort to paint the Obamas this way. But there have been a number of state party figures, conservative bloggers, blog commenters, and cable news types who insist on making a big deal of Senator Obama's middle name, his Indonesian Muslim stepfather, Michelle Obama's statements about pride in country and the dap the two exchanged at a televised rally recently. These would seem to be the people the New Yorker is satirizing.
Like Amy, I thought the New Yorker satire was funny. I'm a Democrat and will be voting for Obama in November. I don't think the cartoon will make any difference in the campaign. I think its life as an issue is (mercifully) just about over.
But I have to say it has made me uncomfortable about some of my fellow Obama supporters. The experience of reading all the huffing and puffing on blogs and elsewhere over the past 24 hours or so has made me feel like I've arrived at an Irish wake only to find myself in a roomful of Presbyterians.
The humorlessness is stifling.
I'm tempted to think there are some folks on the right and the left who deserve each other.
Tim McGarry at July 15, 2008 4:08 PM
juliana, this business of living on debt has been going on lots longer than this. I'm not appalled by that article because I've seen the phenomenon elsewhere. People are astonishingly stupid about money.
I can show you a chunk of Florida barrier island that goes for $2000 a square foot. Not an acre - a square foot. Bare!
We scoff at lemmings, never noticing we are running for the same cliff.
People pack an area, consume a resource, until there is nothing left, and then wonder where it went. And blame others for taking it away.
Radwaste at July 15, 2008 5:42 PM
Tim, when you consider that most of the "smears" of Obama have come from the mouths, pens, or keyboards of his fellow Democrats, it makes the New Yorker's argument that much harder to swallow. What bothers me is how many people have simply assumed that Republicans MUST be racist.
It was part-black (and assumed Democrat) David Ehrenstein who called him "The Magic Negro".
It was Democrat Joe Biden who observed he was "clean and articulate" (which was taken as a racial slur by the grievance industry).
It was he, himself, who made his middle name an issue by implying that Arabs would have an easier time dealing with a man named "Hussein".
And it was Ta-Nehisi Coates in Time Magazine that wondered aloud "Is Obama Black Enough".
What we are seeing here, and you've bought it lock, stock, and barrel, is the media manipulating reality so that people are believing something that simply has not happened.
Obama is nothing more than a garden-variety socialist hack. He personifies every negative stereotype of the "Affirmative Action Hire" that anyone has ever thought.
And the media have packaged him as The Only Man Who Can Save America.
And you signed up for a subscription.
brian at July 15, 2008 8:43 PM
(sorry for the unrelated tangent, everyone)
Rad- You're right, people can be astonishingly stupid about money. I'm just not completely desensitized to it yet, it still catches me off guard and in awe (sarcasm). The behaviors outlined in the article make me feel like such an amateur when it comes to recklessly blowing cash. Detroit (and Michigan) have been in a death sprial for so long, anchored by short-sighted people expecting the UAW to maintain this blissful and ignorant worker's utopia forever. No planning, no budgeting, no savings. Look Ma, no hands! Sorry, ex-pat from Detroit suburbs rant....
$2000 per square foot?!?! Holy hell. Ah, the lifestyles of the bored rich. Wonder what happens during hurricane season...
Juliana at July 16, 2008 6:22 AM
brian! You're a Presbyterian! *grin*
Tim McGarry at July 16, 2008 7:14 AM
What's a Presbyterian?
Seriously.
brian at July 16, 2008 7:18 AM
I think it's a hilarious idea for a cover, but VERY badly executed.
Satire succeeds by exaggerating the essential point until it utterly ridiculous. In terms of content, this cover works well.
But I think it's a dire mistake to use an artist whose does covers several times a year, and for that artist to use the same style he uses for all his droll, my-goodness, can-you-believe-what-the-world-is-coming to artwork. To illustrate this point: Imagine this same cover drawn by Roz Chast.
The use of NYer house style to convey this point blunts the satirical edge. To succeed completely, and not just as an idea, this cover needed to completely over the top in execution as well as contenet. Perhaps mocked up to look like the front page of the Weekly World News, perhaps drawn in the bold line of a newspaper caricaturist.
Consciously or not, I think that's what people are reacting to. If the cover had fully conveyed the "Can you BELIEVE the nonsense some people think?" punch that I am certain the NYer editors intended, we never would have had this much chatter about it.
But because the NYer can't change its stripes, the editors just HAD to fall back on their usual wry watercolor and quavering ink-drawn lines, and as a result, the intended satire was lost in a faint, but unmistakable whiff of "wait, doesn't it seem like they kind of agree with this point?"
Harriet at July 16, 2008 3:54 PM
Leave a comment