Well, here's a shocker. I hope you're sitting down because do you remember those weiner shots that were sent from Anthony Weiner's Twitter account last week? The ones that he strongly denied sending? The ones that he said were a result of his Twitter account being hacked? Yeah, he sent them. Shocking, I know.
He held a little press conference yesterday
where he finally admitted what anyone with half of a brain has known since allegations of Weinergate first surface. In short, he sent pictures of his aroused manhood to some chick that he had become acquainted with online. This is where my first issue comes in. Who does this sort of thing? (And I'm asking serious questions here because I am extremely confused.) What kind of a guy takes a picture of his crank and sends it to some chick with his phone? What is the thought process there? "Hey! Look at this! It's mine! Whaddaya think of that?!" I'm open to suggestions. I really don't get the thought mentality.
Next, how is what the Weiner was doing with his weiner any different than some guy in a trench coat flashing people on the street? I mean, are these things planned out? (If they are, I think that would make it a little bit weirder.) I don't think that they are. It seems like what happens is that there might be a little bit of sexy talk and then the next thing you know...BAM! Weiner in your inbox! (Figuratively speaking, of course...and for now). But really, is he any different from your friendly neighborhood flasher? I'm seeing a lot more similarities than I am differences. (And by the way, if you DO have a friendly neighborhood flasher, perhaps consider relocating to a nicer area. That's no way to go through life, son.)
I'd also like to point out that Weiner did a little "crying". I don't know if actual tears were shed, but his voice did
crack a few times and it was fairly obvious that he knew that he was in trouble. What fascinates me about this is that these jackasses can lie like a rug when they're trying to. They have NO trouble covering up ANY emotions when they are vehemently denying everything that they so totally did. They're emotionless, indignant snakes when they're lying. As soon as they're exposed (literally, in this case) they start crying like a little girl. Does anyone actually "buy" it when they cry? It just pisses me off more.And you know what pisses me off even more than that? Crappy media reporting, that is correct. Every freaking report out there that I have read about these schlong shenanigans tell me that the Weiner finally took responsibility for his actions. You're going to read it here first (and, from what I can tell, NO WHERE ELSE) that that's a bunch of crap. He hadn't talked for an entire minute before he was lying! I'm serious! Why am I the only one who caught that?! He said, "Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle." What?! It was so NOT a joke! Why is everyone just breezing right over that?! He's lying! It wasn't a joke! Later on in his lame little speech, he said, "I have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years." Were those jokes too, you lying piece of crap?! Why is no one calling him on this stuff?!
God, the media sucks. This guy is a weird snake. I hope he has to resign. I don't like people like him in positions of power, especially after blatantly lying to everyone under the sun about showing his wang off on Twitter! Go away, Weiner! And take your weiner with you. (By the way, NBC New York has the transcript of his lame-o apology if you want to read it.
Remember that budget deal that all of those weasels in Congress waited until the very last freaking minute to agree upon? Yeah, that's the one. And remember how they were all smiles afterward and acted like they had accomplished something monumental? (I know that whenever they do nothing they think it's monumental, but this time they were really pleased with their own act.) And then after it was all said and done we were told that they managed to cut about $38 billion dollars? Remember? Of course you do! It was only a couple of days ago for cryin' out loud. It turns out that the $38 billion dollars that they claim to be cutting isn't anywhere close to what they actually cut. No, in fact, the amount that they actually cut is so ridiculous that it seems damn near pointless to cut it at all. It really is a "Why bother?" scenario.
This new but not surprising information comes to us from the fine folks over there at The Washington Post. They learned from the Congressional Budget Office that "A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount". Now look, I'm not one to be someone to claim "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." But, come on! $352 million?! Less than one freaking percent?! How did this happen? I'll tell you how this happened. It happened in part because "...$13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to be tapped in the next decade." Oh, good! They're trying to fix our impending fiscal doom with accounting tricks. Next up? Fun house mirrors! And they act so freaking proud of themselves.
Here's the best part. Even though those $352 million in cuts will happen, for some reason, no one felt like factoring in "emergency" money for military action. You know. Like if we end up in Libya or something like that. (Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Wait. Didn't we....? Yeah. We did. Hmm. Disregard that statement.) Now, I don't know why they wouldn't factor those things in. If I'm doing a household budget and I have emergency money that I have spent or am spending, I'm going to have to factor in that it's going to get used. There's no way around that. You can call it whatever you want, but you still have to count it. But I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't want to count it when they were forming the budget out of snake oil is because if they did then "...the overall spending for this fiscal year may actually increase, by more than $3 billion." Oh, for cryin' out loud!
Their little accounting tricks don't end there. "A Washington Post analysis of the 459-page budget revealed at least 98 cases in which Congress took back unused IOUs and called it a cut." HOW is that a cut? Don't answer that. There's more. "When the Capitol Visitor Center was under construction, lawmakers allotted $621 million to pay for it. The project wound up costing less than $600 million. In the compromise budget, lawmakers took back $15 million of the unused budget authority." Well, I should hope that they took it back! They didn't USE IT!
I'm making myself crazy here. This is insane. Instead of saving any money at all, Congress has very well (and probably very likely) passed a budget that is going to be costing the country MORE money. And people wonder why folks get so up in arms about spending! It's because it is out of control. President Barry said the other day that the greatest threat to our national security was our debt. And if he truly believes that and he ends up signing this budget, then we are so scroomed that there's not even any point. If both sides of Congress are going to flat out lie to us, it's over. And both sides, by saying that this budget cuts $38 billion dollars, are lying to us. Thus, it's over. We're scroomed. Goodbye, sweet America.
If Gloria Allred is involved in something, I usually chalk the 'something' up to really being nothing. Gloria Allred is a reprehensible human being (who probably warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) and a media whore lawyer. If there is a media bandwagon to start up, she will be the first one there to hold a press conference and explain why something has gone horribly awry for her poor, misunderstood and disserviced client. But her latest client might actually have a leg or two to stand on with her claims.
Let's meet Maureen Decker. Ms. Decker was the kindergarten teacher of a one Eldrick Woods, aka Tiger. Now that some of his extra-martial dalliances with any cocktail waitress as far as the eye can see have become known, Ms. Decker has felt the need to set the record straight about a little tale that the aforementioned Eldrick has been telling folks for quite some time. How I missed hearing about this story the first time around is beyond me. But it has apparently been out there since at least 2005, so I'm guessing I must have been extremely busy. It's a whopper.
According to the gossipy folks over there at TMZ, in a "2005 book written by Charles Barkley...the golfer says, "I became aware of my racial identity on my first day of school, on my first day of kindergarten. A group of sixth graders tied me to a tree, spray-painted the word 'nigger' on me, and threw rocks at me. That was my first day of school. And the teacher really didn't do much of anything." Um, wait. What now?
Tiger Woods is claiming that on the first day of kindergarten that he was tied to a tree, spray painted upon with racial epithets and pelted with rocks? And nothing happened?! WHAT?! How is that possible?! Well, if you're asking that very kindergarten teacher, Ms. Decker, it didn't happen. No, she's claiming that it didn't happen at all. Hmmm.
Before I go into why I am tending to believe Ms. Decker, let's look at what the fine folks down under at the Herald Sun tell us about this same incident. They tell us that Tiger also said, "I used to live across the street from school. The teacher said, 'OK, just go home'. So I had to outrun all these kids going home. It was certainly an eye-opening experience." Hmmm again.
So, let me get this straight, Eldrick. I'm supposed to believe that you, a little five year old kindergartener who was attending school at Cerritos Elementary School in Cypress, California, had this happen to him on the first day of school? Really? And I'm also supposed to believe that after you, somehow, managed to untie yourself from the alleged tree, you had to outrun a bunch of sixth graders to get home? And on top of that, I'm supposed to believe that your parents did nothing?! I'm drawing the line right there.
Your parents didn't ask for a conference with the teacher? Your parents didn't go to the police? Your parents didn't go to the media? (This story has all the makings of a national news story if there ever was one. It has at least the makings of a local news story if there ever was one.) Your parents didn't go to the principal? No, you're telling us that instead, your parents (one of whom was Earl Woods, who wanted nothing more than to make his kid a star) sent you BACK to a school where their little golf prodigy was spray painted upon? Really? I'm finding that hard to believe. I don't have children, but I cannot for the life of me ever imagine that if my kid came home from school with the N-word spray painted on him when he was five years old that I would be sending him back to that school ever. Nor can I imagine that I just wouldn't say anything to anyone. That seems highly unlikely. At best.
And speaking of spray paint, what sixth graders were going to school on the first day with cans of spray paint and lengths of rope or string with which to do all of the tying to trees? And where was this tree? Weren't you kind of a little guy, Tiger? Would the N-word even be POSSIBLE to spray paint upon your little scrawny body? How'd you untie yourself? How'd you manage to outrun them? (If he had really outrun them, wouldn't we be hearing today about him being the world's fastest man instead of the world's greatest golfer? That would have been quite the accomplishment, really.) How did any of this happen, really?
I don't blame Ms. Decker for speaking up and saying that this whole thing never happened. Apparently, she's been trying to say something about it for years, but no one would ever listen to her. Now that there is all of this media attention on Tiger, I'd have to say that I agree that the arena is probably a bit more in her favor. But did she really have to get Gloria Allred to represent her? I just can't trust anything that Gloria Allred is involved in.
From what Gloria is saying, all Ms. Decker wants is an apology. That seems reasonable to want, but I certainly don't think that she should be sitting around expecting anything to change. Tiger still won't come out and say what the entire world knows, which is that he cheated on his wife with any and every bimbo that would have him. He can't admit that even though it's beyond common knowledge. And this woman expects him to admit that the whole "first day of school torture story" was a lie? That's not going to happen. And when it doesn't, I guess that's when we'll see what Gloria's next move is. Hopefully, it's to another planet.
Here's a few words I never thought I'd say: Thank goodness for Nancy Pelosi.
No, I haven't completely lost my mind. But I do feel like I've lost a little bit of sleep lately and I'm tired. Fortunately, I can always turn to Nancy Pelosi for something fairly amusing which won't require a whole lot of effort from myself so that I can go to sleep. Granted, my rest, relaxation and nighttime slumber are far from the reasons that she's in that position, but sometimes, like when you're tired, you'll take what you can get.
It would seem that the other day there was a little powwow at the White House amongst the senators. I'm not sure if it was just the Democrats or what the deal was, all I know is that they emerged from their lair and began speaking to the press. There they were Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi, from the TLC series When Plastic Surgery Goes Awry the Speaker of the House, standing next to each other, together as a united front, together as one with the goal of doing...something. Anything. For God's sake, do anything! Well, one of them did something. And the other one apparently didn't like it very much.
According to the folks over there atPolitico.com, "...Reid put his arm around Pelosi to announce that “everyone” would support “whatever” Afghanistan policy the president produces." Not so fast there, Harry Reid. As evidenced by the video below, "...the TV cameras captured the California Democrat rolling her eyes and slightly recoiling from Reid’s grasp as he spoke." It was, in a word, hilarious. Behold!
It would seem that "Back at the Capitol, Pelosi made it clear to staff that she was angry about Reid's unilateral offer of unequivocal support." But later on, when seemingly asked to demonstrate just how much of a politician she actually is, Nancy Pelosi told Politico "...that she was “not upset,” adding: “I don’t know where you would have heard such a thing.” Oh, for cryin' out loud!
Did she not see herself?! Was she not THERE when she was so obviously NOT happy about Mr. Reid's little gesture there? Of course she was! It was akin to Angela Merkel when George W. Bush playfully (I think) and impromptu-ly massaged her shoulders when they were at some world leader meeting. Now that was funny. Behold!
Man, we're going to be getting good stuff out of ol' W for years to come, aren't we? But back to Pelosi. I'm surprised that she could get her face to show that much emotion. Perhaps someone loosened the assumed large knot of skin on the back of her head from having had her face pulled so damn tight that every time she blinks, her jaw drops open. And aren't they supposed to be on the same side? I'm sure if you asked Nancy Pelosi that, she'd tell you that they were. But if you just watched her reactions, I'm sure you'd gather that they're not really.
If there's one thing I despise, it is a lying politician. The only thing I despise more is a lying politician who is obviously lying and blatantly lies to you and says that they're not lying. They're the worst. I firmly believe that Nancy Pelosi is in that category. She is allegedly devoid of a human soul and also allegedly warms her body temperature by sunning herself on a rock like other snakes do. Snakes also tend to recoil when they don't like something and that is exactly what Nancy Pelosi does when Harry Reid actually touches her. She recoils...just like a snake.
Speaking of liars, a lot of stuff coming out about the whole Michael Jackson death is proving to be false. About the only thing that seems to be for certain is that he's dead. Oh, and that his Dad is an A-hole. Other than those two things, it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't. But it's not hard to tell when something doesn't make sense. That doctor that was there when Michael stopped breathing? Yeah, he's not making a whole lot of sense.
I'm referring to a one Dr. Conrad Murray. He was the guy who was there when Michael stopped breathing. For some reason (and I'm thinking it's a reason other than the one that he's giving) it took the guy almost 25-30 minutes to call 911. Why so long? According toABC News, Dr. Murray said that "...none of the phones in the home (were) working "for privacy reasons" and he "...tried to dial 911 on his cell phone but did not have the exact address of Jackson's home." Um, what?
None of the phones worked? What? I suppose that would be fairly easy to ascertain as to whether or not it's true, thus it would be one of the stupidest lies that someone could come up with if they were actually lying (which I'm not saying that he is) about something like that.
But the 911 thing? Now that I have a problem with. According to a one Matt Alford, an attorney who is representing Dr. Murray, as quoted by the Associated Press, " He didn't know where he was, didn't know the physical address. There was no land line, no phone in Jackson's room that would have allowed him to call. It was all happening so fast." Wait. What now?
How did you get yourself to work every day, sir? Hadn't you been working for him for a while? At least a month, if I recall other reports correctly. You didn't know where you were driving yourself to every day? I know that he drove himself there because the LAPD towed his car the evening of Michael's death. How could you not know the address?
The article also cites Mr. Alford as saying that "doesn't know how long Murray performed CPR on the singer before rushing downstairs to find someone to call 911."
I'm really not trying to second guess the guy in this situation. After all, he allegedly just found Michael Jackson not breathing. Sounds stressful. But why wouldn't you yell for someone? Why would you leave him there to go and find someone? THAT I don't get.
"The first person Murray encountered was the chef, who then got one of Jackson's security guards. The security guard went with Murray to Jackson's room."
So....wait. He goes wherever in the house and finds the chef. Rather than having the chef call 911 or telling the chef to get someone to help him up in the room or asking the chef what the address is, he hangs out or whatever until the chef shows up with a security guard and THEN he goes back to the room? Why did he wait? If the chef was going to get someone else, why didn't he go back up to the room and resume doing CPR? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Again, I realize it's a stressful situation, but this guy is a cardiologist. You'd think that they'd be able to handle some stress.
According to Dr. Murray and his attorney, Dr. Murray was performing CPR on Michael and had the security guard call 911. WHY he wouldn't have called 911 AS he was running around to find someone so that they could tell him the address is beyond me. Even if I'm going to believe his story of he didn't know the address (and I don't think I'm believing that at all right now) why he wouldn't have called 911 as soon as possible from his cell phone and handed it to the chef or the security guard when he got there doesn't make any sense. It seems like a lot of time was wasted with this guy doing whatever it was that he was doing.
When you listen to the 911 tapes, the 911 operator asks the person who called (presumably the security guard) where Jackson is and the security guard tells him that he's on the bed. CPR is supposed to be performed on a solid surface. That's why at that point the 911 operator instructs the guy to get Jackson (whom he didn't know was Michael Jackson at that moment) on the floor. Why wouldn't a cardiologist already have him on the floor? If he was doing CPR for whatever amount of time it was (before he decided he should find someone to tell him the freaking address or the house he drove himself to that day,) why in the world was he doing it with him still on the bed? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Although, if the doctor had something to do with why it was that Michael stopped breathing in the first place, then his behavior seems a bit more understandable. Again, pure speculation, but if someone were to administer a medication to someone else and that other person suddenly stopped breathing, your first instinct, depending on how big of an a-hole you were, might be to run around and get rid of anything that could possibly connect you with being partly responsible for the other person's death, should it come to that. That sort of situation might cause one to forget how to do CPR procedures correctly. Perhaps it could even cause one to forget the address of where they had gone to work that morning. Who knows?
While I can understand all of the people that are saying that Michael Jackson wasn't hooked on prescription drugs or painkillers, it seems highly unlikely that they're telling the truth. Go back to 1993 when Michael cut a tour short and announced that he was going to go into "treatment" somewhere for an addiction to painkillers. You never heard a word about it after that, though he did disappear from public view for about a month (even though treatment was supposed to take about 8 weeks). That was in 1993. Fast forward to 2005 where court documents detailing his financial situation for some court case he was involved in give an example of some of his bills: "...a charge of $62,600 from the Mickey Fine Pharmacy, in Beverly Hills". That covered the two prior years worth of prescriptions filled. Then fast forward to 2007 where Jackson is sued by that very same pharmacy because they claimed that he had made his last payment to them in mid-2005 for prescriptions filled over last two years. In 2007, that lawsuit claimed he was once again behind and that he owed them $101,926.66 for prescriptions filled. So the difference between the amount of prescriptions filled between 2003-2005 and 2005-2007 was around 61%. From $62,600 to $101,926.66. That doesn't sound like someone without some sort of a dependency on something.
I don't know what went on there that afternoon, but I do know if the doctor's story is that he didn't call 911 right away because he "didn't know where he was" that it raises more questions that it answers. (One of those questions being how in the world someone so dense was able to become a doctor in the first place?) If the toxicology reports come back and there isn't anything abnormal in Michael's system, I will be shocked. (Who are two of his closest friends? Liza Minnelli and Liz Taylor. They've been known to overindulge in the feel good substances from time to time. Like 1968-2004.) My bets are on at least three different narcotics. Oh, I totally hope that isn't the case, but it's not looking like it is. Not from present behavior and not from past lawsuits.
All right, that's it! President Barry is not, repeat, not allowed to leave the country anymore! At least not until he's read a book or something on how all of this going overseas stuff and interacting with the leaders of foreign countries (who are supposed to be on our side!) is supposed to go. Maybe "Foreign Relations and Home and Abroad for Dummies" or something like that? Because I was able to overlook Gift-gate when President Barry gave Gordon Brown of the UK a bunch of DVDs (which I still think would have been fine if and only if they had been DVDs of the appropriate Region so that Gordon Brown could actually watch them. But they were the wrong region and he cannot watch them, thus rendering the gift inappropriate and wrong.) and I was totally against Grope-gate when Michelle Obama and her new BFF, the Queen of England, actually touched one another (you'd have thought they were in a tub full of Jell-O in the middle of a bar the way everyone was carrying on about it. Though I would like to see that, simply because it'd be so, so strange.). But now President Barry is teetering on the brink of "buffoonage." (Made that up. Just now!) And it has to stop. Soon. Tell me I'm overreacting. I'm not (for once)! Look, I'll spell it out for you.
For example, according to Gadling, whilst President Barry was over there in Europe and taking questions from reporters, an Austrian reporter asked "...about his impressions of European leaders." A simple enough question, right? Regardless as to your real impressions, you always, always say you liked 'em. That's easy. And President Barry pretty much went with that by saying that "...the interaction between European lawmakers was really not all that different than the way in which the US Senate operates." (He didn't say whether that was supposed to mean how the two parties of the US Senate can't get anything done or how the two parties of the US Senate are spending money like drunken sailors on leave or if it meant something completely different. I can't imagine what, however.)
In explaining that answer, he said, "...there's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing -- and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics." He doesn't know what the term is in Austrian?! Perhaps that's because there isn't an Austrian language! ::::sigh:::: Video of Language-gate below. ::::sigh again:::::
Even though that's pretty bad, it's almost like I've come to expect these things. You know, what with 8 years of GW out there saying things that don't make sense to anyone (including himself, I have the feeling). So while I wish he had not implied that he thought Austrian was a language (I'm just glad he wasn't up in Canada, America's Hat, and implied that he thought they spoke Canadian!), there are a few other things that I wish hadn't happened on his little jaunt abroad. Like bowing to the King. Of Saudi freaking Arabia. Huh?
The whole 'to bow or not to bow' thing (and apparently there is a thing) is a tricky one. I was under the impression that all of that Declaration of Independence stuff was to get away from the subservience that accompanies royalty. Besides that, to bow in someone's presence is seen as a sign of respect. Let me just give a brief refresher course on how Saudi Arabia works with King Abdullah in charge:
Corporal punishment, such as lashes, for 'crimes' such as 'sexual deviance' or 'drunkenness'.
There's no set number for these punishments. It's up to the judges. It can range from a few dozen to several thousand.
They're also very behead-y over there.
If a woman is raped, she will can be punished for 'her part' in the rape.
Nice, eh? Those are just a few But my favorite one that shows just how bass-ackwards they are over there is that women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles. They are, however, allowed to fly aircraft! Granted, they have to be driven to the airport, but still! WTF is that all about? Their human rights record is not all that great (that's putting it mildly) and PARADE Magazine named King Abdullah the Number Five World's Worst Dictator for 2009. So if PARADE Magazine says so, it has to be true.
The thing is, the US protocol on bowing is that we don't. So when footage was shown of President Barry allegedly bowing to King Abdullah, some people got their burkas all in a wad. (Naturally, the whole "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim" conspiracy theory reared it's head again with the emergence of this footage. He's not a Muslim!) And really, come on, President Barry! Can we not trust you to leave the White House for just a little while without causing an international stir?! You're the President of the United States! You bowed to King Abdullah as if you were inferior, as if you were subservient. I understand you're new and all, but we don't bow!
It does get worse, by the way. But not before the video. The bowing starts to come in around 0:49 through 0:59 in the video below. It's three minutes long and the commentary is in Spanish (maybe Portuguese, definitely not Austrian), so you might just want to zip ahead to the bow. Video first, then then more bad! Behold!
OK, so what could be worse that the President of the US bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and all of his oil? If you thought George Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia as they went for a leisurely stroll, well, you'd be right, but it wasn't what I had in mind this time. But Behold! anyway.
That's lovely. They're a lovely couple. No, the part that really burns my toast is that the White House is denying that he bowed! How stupid do they think we are? VERY apparently! They're saying he didn't bow. "Didn't bow" as in "did not bow". Right. Why would you lie to us, White House? Why? Why?
Over there atPolitico.com, a one Ben Smith apparently asked, "Why the bow?" and an Obama aide who would only speak on the condition of anonymity (because you never want people to know who you are when you're blatantly lying) answered with: "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." Um, no he didn't. Nor was he looking for a lost contact lens or drop his iPod or comparing shoe size with said King. He was bowing. I have proof. I swear. Behold! Proof!
Here he is starting to go in.
Here he is grasping at the hand which holds all of our fuel in it's oily grasp.
And here he is in the middle of his 'two hand' handshake due to the striking height difference between the two, whatever that means. OH, but what's that?! Why, it's his other hand! It's going to be a bit hard to perform the "two hand handshake" with one of your hands not shaking because you're really bowing!
And there it is again in plainer sight. The uncooperative second hand of Barack Obama. (Is this the part where I get to say "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"? I hope so! I've been dying to say that to someone. Preferably someone I don't know. This works.)
The Washington Times called the bow a "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate." Wow. I'm glad the Washington Times is getting plenty of use out of their thesaurus! Now I need a dictionary. Fealty?(Intense fidelity.) Potentate? (One who has great power or sway.) They also said that "...it violated centuries of American tradition of not deferring to royalty." And it apparently started a new American tradition of lying to the public about something that is blatantly obvious. They say it's protocol to not bow, but he bowed! They're protocol liars,.that's what they are!
Can someone please inform him of the rules around there? I know that's someone's job. Who's Secretary of State? Oh, that's right. I forgot. It's her. Hillary. :::deep breath::: OK, I never thought I'd say this, but where's Hillary when you need her?
Sphere: Related Content
