Wednesday, October 07, 2009

DC Marriage Equality Bill Introduced

Yesterday the Washington, DC, City Council received a bill legalizing marriage between same-sex individuals. The fight is going to line up, let's say, uniquely.

On one hand, it is almost certain that there will be strong opposition from the so-called "black preachers." Washington, DC, aka "Chocolate City," has a lot of churches with mostly black members, they are a powerful institution in the city and have done a lot of good as far as helping people overcome poverty and discrimination and providing a backbone to the community. On the other hand, most of these churches are strict and fundamentalist, and the preachers see homosexuality as a sin to be rooted out of the society. Last summer they made a scene when the DC City Council voted to recognize gay marriages from other states. The vote in that case was 12-1, with the one vote against coming from Marion Barry, who had met with a group of preachers and acknowledged that their view is prevalent in his district and should be respected. You may remember this: "All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."

On the other hand, anything that happens in DC has to be approved by Congress. Congress has thirty days to pass a resolution to block a law, and the resolution has to be signed by the President. Will that happen? You can bet there will be Congresspersons pushing for it, and the President has shown only spinelessness in keeping his promises to the gay community so far. So it's a toss-up, there will definitely be a debate, the Republicans will be against marriage equality and the Democrats may or may not have the balls to support it. Sorry, I couldn't think of a different way to say that.

Here's The Post yesterday afternoon:
Dozens of activists on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate crammed into the D.C. Council chambers Tuesday to watch council member David A. Catania introduce his bill to allow same-sex couples to wed in the District.

Starting at 9 a.m., the activists filed into the John A. Wilson Building, eventually filling the chamber and spilling into the hallway.

But after months of anticipation, Catania's official introduction was fairly anticlimatic.

"We are about to embark on an exciting journey here in the city," Catania (I-At Large), who is openly gay, told the audience when he introduced his bill shortly after noon.

Catania's proposal is being co-sponsored by council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) and the other at-large members of the council -- Michael A. Brown (I), Kwame R. Brown (D) and Phil Mendelson (D).

Council members Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4) and Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) are also supporting the measure, virtually assuring it will be approved later this year. Council members Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) and Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) have declined to sign on as co-sponsors.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has vowed to sign the bill. Congress will have 30 legislative days to review the legislation and both Democratic and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have said there does not appear to be a strong movement to block it from becoming law. Gay Marriage Bill Unveiled Before Packed D.C. Council Chambers

I think what we will see is posturing by conservatives in Congress, who will have to say something bad about gays and lesbians marrying, maybe introduce some hopeless legislation, give some hometown speeches against marriage, etcetera, but there is no momentum at that level to beat this.

The real battle may be played out locally, which is, I think, how it should be. You have a strong network of churches that preach against gay-anything and will not accept marriage between two people of the same sex. Those churches have the respect of local politicians, and are an important source of support for them. You want those preachers to be backing you up, to put it mildly, they can do a lot of political damage from the pulpit and working within their congregations.

Skipping down into this same Post article...
Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, reiterated his push for a citywide referendum to outlaw gay marriage. The Board of Elections and Ethics plans to hold a hearing on Jackson's request Oct. 26.

If the board rejects his request for a public vote, Jackson has vowed that he will go to court to try to force a referendum.

"This is not a human rights battle," Jackson said. "It's a political battle."

Representatives for the Archdiocese of Washington and the Family Research Council also spoke out against the bill.

"The bill introduced today by some members of the District of Columbia City Council to redefine marriage is at odds with marriage's fundamental purpose," the Archdiocese said in a statement. "You cannot redefine biology."

Sultan Shakir of the Human Rights Campaign countered that Catania's bill sends "an important message that the District does not discriminate." Shakir said his organization will continue to resist Jackson's efforts to hold a referendum on the matter.

"We just don't think putting civil rights to a vote is good policy," Shakir said.

Yes, this is an interesting concept. We think of our form of government as a democracy, but it is not, strictly speaking, the majority doesn't rule on everything. We don't vote on every measure, every law, every budget item, we vote for representatives to study those issues and make good choices. This is a beautiful system, in that it buffers policy decisions from the kinds of forces that work in, say, advertising, where you try to persuade someone without actually informing them. The people of the District of Columbia elected these particular Council members to make policy decisions for them, and it is entirely possible that the vote on marriage equality will go opposite of public opinion. The fact is, minorities deserve rights, too, even if they are unappreciated or even reviled by the majority. The representative form of government slows impulsive reactions to hot-button topics; a small number of well-informed representatives can make better decisions than a vote by the entire population after they have been stirred up by inflammatory campaign slogans and images.

So in a nutshell, the City Council and mayor will almost certainly approve this bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia; Congress will almost certainly not block it; and the churches are threatening to push for a referendum to ban same-sex marriages in DC, which could go either way. It's going to get interesting, as the city contemplates the role of religion and the population's commitment to the civil rights of minorities in a new light.


Anonymous anonymously commented said...

"It's going to get interesting"

It's already interesting, brother.

History just never seems to end, does it?

October 07, 2009 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I think if Bishop Jackson and Councilmember Barry don't support same-sex marriage, they don't have to get one.

October 07, 2009 3:15 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

If the residents of D.C. don't have a law giving tax and legal advantages to guys who rub around with each other, they don't have to get one.

October 07, 2009 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Level Headed said...

What did I read? JimK making racist comments? "so-called black preachers","chocolate city". I am shocked. JimK aka JimKKK

October 08, 2009 12:39 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You don't support tax breaks? Is this not a special tax on queer people?

October 08, 2009 6:49 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

look, Obama wants to raise taxes on soda to discourage obesity

why not taxes on gays to discourage homosexuality?

isn't that in the best interest of society over the long term?

anyway, here's how one school in America is handling the gay agenda:

"(Oct. 7) - When it comes to picking out an outfit to wear to school, there's a fine line between self-expression and unnecessary distraction.

One Georgia high school has decided that one of its 16-year-old male students crossed that line, and has asked him to start dressing in a more "manly" fashion, The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports.

Jonathan Escobar had recently transferred to North Cobb High School in Kennesaw, Ga. and immediately caused quite a stir among students and staff with his penchant for wearing wigs, makeup, skinny jeans, vintage tops and women's flats.

Groups of kids gathered around him in the cafeteria, and the school's assistant principal even blamed a fight on Escobar's flamboyant attire.

On his third day at the school, during which Escobar was wearing pink wig, he approached by a school official and told that his choice was to either stop dressing in such a feminine manner or consider home-schooling.

Citing a school dress code that prohibits students from wearing clothing that may "contribute to a disruption of school functions," the school stands by its decision to confront Escobar on his outfits, The Atlanta Journal Constitution says.

Meanwhile, a student group on Facebook called "Support Jonathan" has grown to over 1,000 members. Organizers have printed bright pink T-shirts emblazoned with those words which many students plan to wear to school to show their displeasure, the paper said.

As for Escobar, he sees the school's edict as a an infringement on his creative expression.

"If I can't express myself, I won't go to school," he told the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "I want to get the message out there that because this is who I am, I can't get an education.""

I'm reminded of the guy on MASH who was dressing as a girl to get kicked out of the army.

October 08, 2009 7:29 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Interesting article Anon,

Here’s another one:

“Coming Out in Middle School”

WARNING: May cause depression among certain anonymous readers.

Have a nice day,


October 08, 2009 9:55 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

I don't what you think would depress me about that.

I read the first page but don't have time for the other nine so if there's something noteworthy, why don't you give us a precis.

I did notice on the part I read that it was about some "gay" youth who was upset because his "boyfriend" couldn't get a ride to go to a dance with him. Then, he gets to the dance and forgets immediately about that guy and zeroes in on some other guy.

Another example of the randomly promiscuous nature of homosexuality.

thanks, Cindy

this is the first day in the rest of your life!

October 08, 2009 10:26 AM  
Anonymous like moonlight through the pines said...

"On his third day at the school, during which Escobar was wearing pink wig, he approached by a school official and told that his choice was to either stop dressing in such a feminine manner or consider home-schooling."

I don't get this.

Don't they have mental homes in georgia?

October 08, 2009 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, "Anonymous"...what a ridicuously stupid if GLBT people had some sort of monopoly on promiscuity. ("Another example of the randomly promiscuous nature of homosexuality.")
Take a look at your own kind...a humongous divorce rate, swinging-couples resorts, Las Vagas ("what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas") and on and on and on.
Your kind are the progagators of promiscuity, so it seems disingenuous for you to be casting stones at others in order to cover up your own failings!

October 08, 2009 10:33 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

citizen, homosexuality is ubiquitously promisocuous

straights will fool around, obviously, but the nature of the promiscuity is profoundly different

look at the story Cindy posted

first it's all about how madly in love this guy is with his "boyfriend"

then, as soon as he sees some other guy that catches his eye, he immediately forgets his "boyfriend"

having defined themselves as rebels from society, gays don't feel any obligation to adhere to anything like monogamy or fidelity

it makes sense

it's why AIDS is so disproportionately widespread in gay populations in liberal Western societies like ours

and don't start up with the crap about how AIDS is a hetero disease in Africa

it's not an exclusively gay disease there because homosexuality is not widely tolerated there

ironically, non-tolerance is actually in the best interests of gays

October 08, 2009 10:53 AM  
Anonymous like moonlight through the pines said...

I agree.

Homosexuals should thank those who don't tolerate them.

They should learn to do so at an early age.

In this Georgia case, the kid could be sent to the principal's office and paddled until he thanks the prinicipal for doing so.

It could protect his health in the long run.

October 08, 2009 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Spanky said...

Wow, Anon, you shouldn't hang a change-up right over the plate like that.

October 08, 2009 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The CDC reports:

...Women with AIDS made up an increasing part of the epidemic. In 1992, women accounted for an estimated 14% of adults and adolescents living with AIDS in the 50 states and the District of Columbia [5]. By the end of 2005, this proportion had grown to 23% [3].

Data from the 2005 census show that together, black and Hispanic women represent 24% of all US women [6]. However, women in these 2 groups accounted for 82% (8,807/10,774) of the estimated total of AIDS diagnoses for women in 2005 [3]...

...Most women are infected with HIV through high-risk heterosexual contact [3]. Black and Hispanic women account for 81% of the women living with HIV/AIDS in 2005 who acquired HIV through high-risk heterosexual contact [3]. Lack of HIV knowledge, lower perception of risk, drug or alcohol use, and different interpretations of safer sex may contribute to this disproportion [11]. Relationship dynamics also play a role. For example, some women may not insist on condom use because they fear that their partner will physically abuse them or leave them [12]. Such sexual inequality is a major issue in relationships between young women and older men. In a CDC study of urban high schools, more than one third of black and Hispanic women had their first sexual encounter with a male who was older (3 or more years) [13]. These young women, compared with peers whose partners had been approximately their own age, had been younger at first sexual intercourse, less likely to have used a condom during first and most recently reported intercourse, or less likely to have used condoms consistently.

October 08, 2009 11:15 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

doesn't change the fact that the percentage of male gays that have AIDS is much larger than the percentage of the general population that has AIDS

as James Carville might remind you:

it's the random promiscuity, stupid!

October 08, 2009 11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What in the world is a "so-called 'black preacher'"?????

Is it one who's half white?

October 08, 2009 11:39 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

I probably shouldn't speak for Jim but I don't his post was racist.

I took his phrase "so-called black preacher" to be referring to the fact that some people act as if all black preachers have the same opinion, which is obviously not true.

October 08, 2009 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Level Headed said...

He probably means "so-called" black preacher as in a "so-called" male or a "so-called" female.

October 08, 2009 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I guess with headlines like these it's time for Sybil to pick on gays again.

AP Poll: Obama's job approval rises amid concerns

Schwarzenegger Endorses Obama Health Care Effort

Bloomberg Backs ObamaCare

No Exit: The never-ending lunacy of Betsy McCaughey

October 08, 2009 2:22 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

the AP is an outlier; no other poll taken that day agreed

the RCP average is currently 51 percent approval

not great

having the mayor of NYC and governor of California support socialized medicine is no shock

the idea that we should save money for some by disallowing certain procedures for the very sick remains a legitimate concern

the new name of the old anon is "deluxe"

"level-headed" is someone else

whoever it is, they don't appear fond of you

according to the CBO yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee bill, the only one to not increase the deficit, will raise the percent of non-elderly uninsured from 83% to 94%

not 100% and this will cost 830 billion over 10 years

paid for by taxing insurance companies, which will be passed on to all of us in our premiums, and cutting benefits for the elderly

we'll see how everyone likes it

personally, I think everyone's main problem with our health care system is that we pay too much

this looks to make that problem worse

October 08, 2009 3:46 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

"I guess with headlines like these it's time for Sybil to pick on gays again."

The problem with a nut like anon-B is: you give 'em an inch, they take a mile. I've toned the comments lately and anon-B is claiming everything's roses for lunacy:

"Republican Robert F. McDonnell has taken a commanding lead over R. Creigh Deeds in the race for governor of Virginia, as momentum the Democrat had built with an attack on his opponent's conservative social views has dissipated, according to a new Washington Post poll.

McDonnell leads 53 to 44 percent among likely voters, expanding on the four-point lead he held in mid-September. Deeds's advantage with female voters has disappeared and McDonnell has grown his already wide margin among independents. Deeds, a state senator from western Virginia, is widely seen by voters as running a negative campaign, a finding that might indicate his aggressive efforts to exploit McDonnell's 20-year-old graduate thesis are turning voters away.

Republicans are also well positioned to sweep the other two statewide races, with Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli each holding identical 49 to 40 percent leads over Democrats Jody Wagner and Steve Shannon for lieutenant governor and attorney general.

The new poll comes at a particularly critical moment for Deeds, whose campaign has stumbled in recent weeks. Deeds has struggled in several appearances in Northern Virginia, including a debate last month in Fairfax County that he followed by bungling questions from reporters about whether he supports a tax increase. That scene has been turned into a campaign commercial by Republicans and is airing across the state.

Prominent party members have also been openly criticizing the focus and tone of Deeds's campaign. He also failed to win the endorsement of fellow Democrat L. Douglas Wilder, likely dampening his support among African Americans, and President Obama has not committed to campaigning for him in the final weeks of the race."

Guess those "working women" know who their friends are and it's not a guy who snaps "look, young lady" at middle age female journalists.

Virginia was an Obama win.

2010 looks like a return to the Republican Party at many places across the USA.

R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A.!

October 08, 2009 5:44 PM  
Anonymous like moonlight through the pines said...

that's not all

Maine, one of the few states to legalize "gay" marriage by legislature instead of judiciary will have a referendum to overturn it

democracy is making a comeback

that can't be good for the gay agenda

that can't be good for lunacy

October 09, 2009 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

the RCP average is currently 51 percent approval

not great

Actually, Obama's average at RCP is 51.5, even after the fire and brimstone predictions of the August town hells.

If you think 51.5% is not great, how do you explain Bush's 50.7% victory over John Kerry being called
"a mandate?"

If 50.7% was a mandate, 51.5% is an even greater mandate to enact this President's policies.

having the mayor of NYC and governor of California support socialized medicine is no shock

Maybe you prefer former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson, and Mark McClelland, or maybe you like Bob Dole and Howard Baker better.

Now that the rants and guns of August's town hell meeting have had their say, the direction of movement on this issue is clear. More and more leaders are realizing that the majority of Americans want health care reform without any further delay. 44,789 Americans die each year due to a lack of health care. Every day we do not reform our system, another 122 people die. Every day.

the idea that we should save money for some by disallowing certain procedures for the very sick remains a legitimate concern

I see you didn't bother with Page and Line numbers in HR 3200 or any other version of the bill this time because you know your lies will be refuted by the facts.

the new name of the old anon is "deluxe"

For now, right Sybil?

raise the percent of non-elderly uninsured from 83% to 94%

Uh Sybil, do you really think that 83% of non-elderly Americans are uninsured and that percentage will rise to 94% when health care reform passes? That's a real live reading comprehension problem you are displaying there, Sybil dear.

In fact, what CBO’s director, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, said was (emphasis added): “Under the proposal, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent.”

paid for by taxing insurance companies, which will be passed on to all of us in our premiums, and cutting benefits for the elderly

Uh Sybil, where do you get your information from? According to Dr. Elmendorf again, "...Among other things, the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would...substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law);...would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period...costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans [not companies] and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes...

...All told, the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $12 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion. Consequently, CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. "

October 09, 2009 10:02 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

usual drivel from anon-B

"Actually, Obama's average at RCP is 51.5, even after the fire and brimstone predictions of the August town hells."

hmmm...right you are

it's 51.5 not 51

you know us conservatives

always rounding the difference

point is, Obama hasn't recovered from his insults to the American people who attended the town hall meetings

"Now that the rants and guns of August's town hell meeting have had their say, the direction of movement on this issue is clear."

I think most would describe your post here as a "rant".

No one dies because of lack of health care. They get treated anyway if they want to be.

Under the bill, the government will dictate what kind of insurance is acceptable and many will not get treatment they want as a result.

Will some be saved by preventive care? Perhaps but remember, cost is not the only reason people don't take care of themselves. Those who don't bother with helath insurance now won't be forced to sign up for one of those appointment that will now take months to get.

Taxes in the bill will wind up being paid by consumers and premiums will go up.

The cuts in Medicare won't happen. Every year Congress votes to cut reimbursements to doctors and then changes its mind at the last minute.

Look for them to cave on Medicare Advantage at the last minute too.

If not, they're shifting benefits from elderly who have paid their Medicare taxes all their lives and giving to low income people who will be penalized if they don't take them.

Makes sense, right?

Six percent will still be uninsured after the 800 billion dollars so you'll still be griping next year.

October 09, 2009 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

paid for by taxing insurance companies, which will be passed on to all of us in our premiums

A day later morphs into

Taxes in the bill will wind up being paid by consumers and premiums will go up.

Keep spinning, Sybil honey. You're sure to hit on something that makes sense, maybe even before President Obama signs health reform with a public option into law.

October 09, 2009 11:44 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

we're all spinning, you crazy old bat

America's future is being flushed down the drain by an elitist who is taking advantage of a difficult time to push a socialist agenda that will end our children chance of living as well as we did:

"Washington spent the week waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to roll in with its new cost estimates of the Senate health-care bill, and what a carnival.

Behold: a new $829 billion entitlement that will subsidize insurance for tens of millions of people—and reduce deficits by $81 billion at the same time.

In the next tent, see the mermaid and a two-headed cow.

The political and media classes are proving they'll believe anything, as they are now pronouncing that this never-before-seen miracle is a "green light" for ObamaCare. (What isn't these days?)

The irony is that the CBO's guesstimate exposes the fraudulence and fiscal sleight-of-hand underlying this whole exercise. Anyone who reads beyond the top-line numbers will find that the bill creates massive new spending commitments that will inevitably explode over time, and that this is "paid for" with huge tax increases plus phantom spending cuts that will never happen in practice.

The better part of the 10-year $829 billion overall cost will finance insurance "exchanges" where individuals and families could purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus kept a lid on the cost by making this program non-universal: Enrollment is limited to those who aren't offered employer-sponsored insurance and earn under 400% of the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four. CBO expects some 23 million people to sign up by 2019.

But this "firewall" is unlikely to last even that long. Liberals are demanding heftier subsidies, and once people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care, they too will want in. Even CBO seems to find this unrealistic, noting "These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation." Scratch "often."

Then there are the many budget gimmicks. Take the "failsafe budgeting mechanism" that would require automatic cuts in exchange spending if it increases the deficit. CBO expects 15% reductions in exchange subsidies each year from 2015 to 2018, even though the exchanges don't open until 2014. That kind of re-gifting should have been laughed out of the committee room, but the ruse helps to move future spending off the current budget "score."

Mr. Baucus spends $10.9 billion to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts to physician payments—but only for next year. In 2011, he assumes they'll be reduced by 25%, with even deeper cuts later. Congress has overridden this "sustainable growth rate" every year since 2003 and will continue to do so because deeper cuts in Medicare's price controls will cause many doctors to quit the program. Fixing this alone would add $245 billion to the bill's costs, according to an earlier CBO estimate.

The Baucus bill also expands ailing Medicaid by $345 billion—even as it busts state budgets by imposing an additional $33 billion unfunded mandate. The only Medicare cut that isn't made merely on paper is $117 billion in Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate because it gives one of five seniors private insurance options.

Recall that when President Obama started the health-care debate, the goal was "bending the curve"—finding a way to reduce both Medicare and overall health spending. Budget director Peter Orszag talked about "game changers," which CBO has now outed as nonchangers. Comparative effectiveness research about what treatments work best? That will save all of $300 million in Medicare, even as it costs $2.6 billion in new taxes on premiums. More prevention and primary care will increase spending by $4.2 billion."

October 09, 2009 12:41 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

"Meanwhile, the bill piles on new taxes, albeit on health-care businesses so the costs are hidden from customers. Insurance companies offering policies that cost more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families will pay $201 billion per a 40% excise tax, which will be passed down to all policy holders in higher premiums. Another $180 billion will hit the likes of drug and device makers, including $29 billion because companies won't be allowed to deduct these "fees" from their corporate income taxes. Then there's the $4 billion in penalty payments on those who don't buy insurance because all of ObamaCare's other new taxes and mandates have made it more expensive.

Senate Finance votes next week, and no doubt this freak of political nature will pass amid fanfare and self-congratulation that their new entitlement will reduce deficits. Never mind that such a spectacle has never happened in the history of the republic. P.T. Barnum had nothing on this crowd, and the bill hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet."

October 09, 2009 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Well well well, even the WSJ can read the writing on the wall. Health care reform "will pass amid fanfare!"

Yes we can!

October 09, 2009 3:27 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

even them....

gee, you don't care what passes, do you, anonymous plan B

as long as Obama can say something passed

maybe he'll get a Nobel Prize for medicine next year

they were talking about getting it out of the Finance Committee

we all knew something would eventually emerge from the Committee

the details keep changing so don't speak too soon cause the wheel's still in spin (wink-wink)

October 10, 2009 5:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home