Diggy Duggy suggy Digg.com: comments, because Digg didn't seem to keep them.

I copied these comments, since Digg apparently forgets to post them sometimes. What a joke that is.

I am voting for McCain because I believe stubborn extremes in the GOP have distracted McCain, not the other way around.

Bush is not McCain, and that is the dirtiest tag that Obama's campaign has so sarcastically put on McCain. (Sadly, the same can be said the other way around, but at least they aren't calling him a Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter). I think the GOP has forced McCain out of his element, not that McCain has pulled the party from its core.

I think a McCain presidency will help set the GOP on a course away from a silver-spoon leadership (a curse, if you ask me) of GHW Bush and GW Bush toward more of a realist, common-man party as it had started out. Even if he loses, that change in the GOP has begun.

Or, I can only hope it has. That, or I will be registered Independent come the new national, the 2010, election. So, look out so-called mid-term politicians. Boogedy!

Orlando Sentinel endorses Barack Obama for president

Powered by ScribeFire.

Orlando daily stands behind Obama

Orlando Sentinel endorses Barack Obama for president

In this White House race, there is (at least) one Florida paper, so far, that has endorsed Obama in an impressive fashion, despite my views. I tried to shoot down all the garbage that the Miami Herald placed in their inane endorsement of Obama. I ran out of energy and sheer will to resist. It was like pitting myself, with a lack of coffee, against the Darth Vader of bad endorsements.

Regretfully, one of my favorite papers while I grew up and in my early adult years has increase their editorial value through their endorsement of Obama. Regretfully, because I don't share the total views, but not because I disagree with their handling of the endorsement. I favor a McCain presidency, and I will stay that well after Nov. 4, 2008, no matter what the election results. That is being sincere, as opposed to being covertly biased.

To the Orl Sent: I hope you're wrong today, but come the morning Nov. 5, or whenever the election is finally decided, I will certainly be more willing to look to your pages than those of the Miami Herald.
As the primary season began, the candidate who seemed best qualified to be that leader was Republican John McCain. But Mr. McCain then was a different candidate from the one before us now. He has abandoned positions we admired. He has reacted inconsistently, even haphazardly, to events. In making the most important decision of his campaign, he showed shockingly poor judgment.

In contrast to Mr. McCain, Democrat Barack Obama has exceeded our expectations during this campaign. He has demonstrated sound judgment and grace under pressure. Because we are now more confident in his ability to steer America through the rough waters ahead, the Orlando Sentinel is endorsing Barack Obama for president.
Welcome "back," Orlando Sentinel. Your words in favor of Obama are complimentary without being sycophantic, your endorsement is sensible. Your move away from McCain, in my thinking, is not practical or prudent, or taking in the big picture, but it is not idiotic.

In this election period, "it is not idiotic" is nearly the highest compliment I can offer a newspaper's editorial staff regarding an endorsement. If the Miami Herald is any example, it is a wasteland out there. Not only does our politics need to change, but much about our mainstream media needs to as well.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Republicans in Hollywood feel bullied

Rabid liberality?

Republicans in Hollywood feel bullied

One "Big Hollywood" blogger is Andrew Klavan, an accomplished novelist-screenwriter who made a splash with a Wall Street Journal article comparing Batman and the "The Dark Knight" to President Bush and the war on terror.

"It's not easy being different," he said. "The liberals aren't all that liberal. We think they're wrong, but they think we're evil, and they behave like it."

Klavan said a producer, worried that Klavan's political reputation had become common knowledge, asked recently whether he could pitch something Klavan wrote but under an assumed name. Klavan declined.

"I don't want to be the Dalton Trumbo of the right," he said, referring to a notable screenwriter who fell victim to Hollywood's blacklist during the anti-communist hysteria of the 1940s and 1950s.

If you lean right, pitch to those who are sympathetic, or at least tolerant of conservative viewpoints, Klavan said. Mel Gibson, Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Surnow come to mind.

Klavan also said liberalism seeps into too much Hollywood content nowadays and offers as proof the several anti-Iraq war movies that have been boxoffice bombs.

"These aren't even movies about the war on terror," he said. "They're Vietnam War movies, made by people who sit around at Skybar discussing their pacifist world view."

TV also is too one-sided, he said. "They don't even make fun of Barack Obama," he noted. "How is that possible? The guy's hilarious."

Another "Big Hollywood" blogger is Evan Sayet, whose writing credits include "Win Ben Stein's Money" and "Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher."

Six years ago, while a staff writer for a popular talk show, Sayet said, "I was informed I could not write jokes about ebonics, global warming or any other cause coming from the left."

Kool-Aid's good in Miami these days

I can't do this for all of the tasteless endorsements out there, but I can try to get through just one of these strange coming-out announcements by some one-sided newspapers. I've decided to pick on the Miami Herald. Actually, I think they forced me into it -- their endorsement of Obama is just so full of holes!

We are, as always, living in a time of mirrors which reflect the same facts to alternative opinions.

"Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans."

So "Change we can believe in" is not worn out? How about the "hope" slogan - that was used since 1992 by the Democrats alone! This is just more "Yay for the mouths that keep talking" -- even though they say so little and are condescending and smug and incapable of humility of most any kind - and do so with a big, cheery smile! SUCKERS. You leftists deserve Obama's childish blind ambition and the higher taxes he'll bring with him. JUST leave me out of it. I don't have any wealth to share.

Again with the alternative mirror! "McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story.... McCain was among the first to call for more troops [in Iraq]. He draws strength from the success of the 'surge.' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success."

The Herald - shocking, seeing its partial role as an international newspaper -- has an utter lack of a realistic world view. (That, or is this horrifically dumbed down for elementary-level reading?) We all know that entering Iraq was a mistake - in retrospect. You apologists (what else can I call it?) for America's strength and actions are beyond ignorant beyond the fact that intelligence was wrong (and you cannot leave it at bad intel, accusing Bush of outright crime). Obama's magic wand (lacking a record and saying ANYTHING to be elected) will be put to the test, day one! Will you be there to test him?


Wow. Shocking. A note for those "brave" enough to track facts: Barack Obama was not a U.S. senator in 2002-2003, though he was likely running for U.S. Senate at the time.

"Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage." That is some cheery wordplay by the Miami Herald. Since he was not a Florida state senator at the time, either, they ought to have been accurate. But why, when they can get by being half-accurate. Obama, however, was apparently running for U.S. Senate when he entered state senate in Illinois (1998?). He had political agents falling all over themselves to give him a boost, after all. A no-brainer.

"His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources." So, since we got in there, and we were wrong, it would be right to exit, and let them tear each other apart. Who cares if after 30 years of a terrorist regime they would fall into total anarchy and be overtaken by Iran? Go for it, Iran - that's the Herald's stand.
With 90 percent of Americans telling pollsters that the nation is heading in the wrong direction, it is no surprise that both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have staked their presidential candidacies on the promise of delivering change. Both have qualities that qualify them to lead the country, but they differ significantly in temperament and on many issues. Even the way they have run their campaigns is indicative of their judgment, decision-making and leadership styles.

When he began his campaign in February of 2007, Sen. Obama was viewed as an upstart. He built his candidacy one victory at a time, aided by an excellent campaign staff and fueled by an impressive ability to raise funds on the Internet. He displayed inspiring eloquence and a sure grasp of detail on issues. Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans.

Foreign policy differences

Sen. McCain also showed strength in the primaries. Deemed political roadkill at one time, he revived his fortunes with a strong showing in New Hampshire and clinched victory in Florida with straight talk and a surer feel for what voters wanted. A turning point came during the Republican convention, when he chose a long-shot for a running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, out of an apparent need to appease the right wing of the party. For all of her rhetorical skills on the campaign trail -- particularly in the attack mode -- Gov. Palin appears to know little about the issues and simply is not qualified to be commander in chief.Much has been made of Sen. Obama's relative inexperience, particularly in foreign policy. His résumé is thin, but he surrounds himself with experienced advisors -- as evidenced in his choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be vice president -- and with people who offer differing points of view. His style is to build consensus and seek workable, pragmatic solutions -- a refreshing change from the last eight years.

Because of the current administration's incompetence, arrogance -- or both -- American prestige abroad has never been as low. The effusive response from audiences during Sen. Obama's recent tour of Europe suggests he could help restore our lost influence. Clearly, traditional U.S. allies are more than ready to work with an American president who replaces unilateral policies and preemptive wars with vigorous diplomacy on behalf of common interests.

Sen. McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story dating back to his days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. An avid supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. McCain was among the first to call for more troops. He draws strength from the success of the ''surge.'' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success.

Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage. It reflects a clear-eyed appreciation for the proper use of U.S firepower and a cool temperament that rejects employing military force except as a last, necessary resort. His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources.

Sen. McCain has long been an outspoken supporter of Israel, and so has Sen. Biden, whose selection as a running mate for Sen. Obama should erase any doubts about where the Illinois senator stands on this important issue.

Closer to home, Sen. McCain strongly supports Bush administration policies on Cuba. Sen. Obama also supports the embargo, but would be more likely to dissolve recently imposed restraints on travel and remittances to Cuba. On Latin America, the biggest concern with Mr. Obama's policies involves his failure to support the Colombia free-trade pact, which Sen. McCain champions. Anti-trade rhetoric and protectionist policies are not going to help the United States overcome the current economic crisis.

That crisis overshadows all other concerns, domestic and foreign. Sen. Obama deserves credit for supporting the administration's rescue package instead of siding with some Democrats who draped themselves in the mantle of Main Street populism and refused to go along. Well before this crisis developed, he called for regulatory reform and demonstrated a clear sense that the economy was headed over a cliff.

A clear choice

Indeed, the way the two candidates responded to the economic meltdown offers a lesson in contrasting styles of leadership. Both have put forth a series of worthwhile policy options, but where Sen. Obama was calm, Sen. McCain was frantic. He first put his campaign ''on hold'' and suggested he would cancel the first debate, and then suddenly decided to take part even as the first bailout deal cratered. He said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, then a few days later vowed to ''name the names'' of those responsible for the financial crisis.

In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates.
That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.
And he smiles nice, too. If only presidencies were suitably made in Hollywood, this would be a good endorsement. But in the real world, this fawning over a professional candidate who is auditioning, at great expense, for world adoration, is worthy of campy fiction. I knew the Herald had liberal leanings, and not the good kind. This endorsement emphasizes it.

- jR

Judicial Watch Calls on Barack Obama to Disclose Names of Donors

This is an important piece of news -- I hope I am right, but it gives me the creeps, too.

This stinks -- why doesn't anyone go after the Obama campaign on this?!
This is breaking the law. This is being "above the law". Forget Bill Ayers, forget ACORN, DON'T forget the whole "spreading the wealth" attack!, DON'T let up on Obama for not giving a damn that his surrogates and Democrats attack McCain and Palin as if they are George Wallace (and the similar creepiness), but add this troubling news to the speeches and statements. Worth it, isn't it?!!

Illegal foreign contributions are flooding into Obama's campaign ... Senator Obama refuses to divulge the names of all of his donors. ... Spokesperson David Axelrod said, "We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone." ... Not true. ... John McCain has had problems of his own [but] ... McCain does publish the names of all donors to his presidential campaign on his Internet site.


Judicial Watch Calls on Barack Obama to Disclose Names of Donors

Written by Tom Fitten

Last week, I told you about allegations of massive voter fraud involving ACORN, a radical leftist organization with deep ties to Senator Barack Obama. (At last count, I believe authorities are investigating voter fraud allegations against ACORN in 14 states. Now, the FBI is also investigating.) But so far, another scandal involving the Obama campaign has flown a bit under the radar. And it is equally disturbing. According to The Associated Press:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission…

The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.

In other words, while the evidence suggests illegal foreign contributions are flooding into Obama's campaign coffers, we have no idea as to the extent of the problem because Senator Obama refuses to divulge the names of all of his donors. When asked about the decision to keep these donor names secret, Obama campaign spokesperson David Axelrod said, "We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone."

Not true.

While John McCain has had problems of his own for allegedly accepting foreign donations - see Judicial Watch FEC complaint here - to his credit, Senator McCain does publish the names of all donors to his presidential campaign on his Internet site, regardless of the size of the contribution.

Here's the bottom line: The Obama campaign appears to be playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws and it has to stop. The FEC should immediately investigate these allegations. And, of course, in the interest of transparency, the Obama campaign should publicly list the source of every single campaign contribution. Frankly, it is suspicious that these names have not already been made public.

There is something deeply unsettling about the fact that foreign nationals can so easily corrupt our presidential election through illegal contributions, while American service men and women stationed overseas may be deprived of the opportunity to even vote (see above).


This needs to enter the campaign speeches, don't you think? To hide the money sources means the campaign is hiding a whole lot more about the money. Why, pray tell, WHY is this only NOW coming out? To add to my shock, I am not hearing about this on TV news; the Houston Chronicle site had a link to it -- the Judicial Watch statement. Where else is it? It should be coming out of the mouths of GOP campaigners, true?

I don't understand the major malfunction -- Obama's campaign is all over themselves about race-baiting this, negative campaign that, and lookee -- for Obama's team it is all about the money. (I don't mean saving our money, either: not watching our tax dollars and the nation's economy.) That's their dirtiest little secret, it would appear.

Secrecy and money are not savory friends. ESPECIALLY in politics. Isn't this a free country? Isn't this a place where politicians have been expected to divulge donors -- for a long time? The cronyism and "boss" systems mostly pushed out for something that better resembles the democracy the Founding Fathers preferred? I know Obama is from the political world of Chicago, but this is not Chicago, but national and world politics.

In Chicago, Democratic influentials have openly have said that they saw great things for Obama and thus kept him away from anything (their word!) "controversial." Oh, boy. Obama has a short-time national career, still hiding from controversy, and then becomes president? Please, no!

He is driven NOT by an ambition to serve, but by BLIND AMBITION. That's it. How else does he get a party to dump a Clinton or a longtime senator like Edwards (the naughty boy : ) ) and throw him up to the top as "the ONE"? He won the primary fair and square, true. But what about the machinations that kept him out of anything controversial in Illinois State Senate? The fog of campaigns: it is like the fog of war. Creepy.

So? Stealing the election with money, is he? In more ways than one, I should note -- mighty expert way that Congressional leaders have dumped the whole bag of the mortgage crisis on the Executive Branch. So, the money crisis and the moneybags are all in Obama's favor, and who's he doing any favors for? We'll never know, since he won't divulge the names of his benefactors to the White House. IF he wins.

Another comment:
Obama cannot win! ... Pelosi, Reid and Obama, this is a triumvirate I want nowhere near tax money! We already have enough problems with taxes and spending. It is time to stop the "war on the middle class" -- but it makes no sense to go from that to a war on reinvestment in small businesses. That's what Obama will offer with his tax approach, which is guaranteed to be the Pelosi and Reid approach, too.

Find it at the site:

'Taking care of (Obama's) business, every day...'

I get twisted up when I think that a professional candidate, a man who has run for three and held two offices in a period less than three presidential terms, may be president. It just has an air of deception to it -- not on Obama's part, while his being disingenuous certainly has a hand in it.

It is a shame that it comes down to him and a long-time leader and individual-thinker -- McCain (I can still hope for the maverick to be there, in his soul, can't I?), because Obama is no dummy and I have genuinely liked him, in hits and misses, during the campaigning. His smug language, and his smug grins, I can do without; his glib brushing off of credible criticisms, and refusal to take a stand on any number of things, I do not appreciate. He is no world-class leader, in short.

Obama has enjoyed the crudest of attacks on McCain, Palin, and even "Joe the Plumber" by surrogates who are falling all over themselves to be insulting and outrageous and insulting for him, so he need not say anything controversial.
The media is doing it for him. By contrast, where's the attack machine that makes fun of Biden the flake, and Obama the indecisive and naive? Not on TV, folks. Not even on Fox News!

That Obama avoids anything controversial is nothing new. How he will avoid candid and awkward face time when the heat gets turned up if he becomes president, I cannot be sure. If he wins, perhaps he will redefine the job an elected honorable chairmanship: staff and surrogates would do all of the tricky work and make all the statements he thinks might dirty his reputation, or he would simply move to something less controversial (just like the old days in the state senate). Won't miss those great chats at the podium, though, with foreign leaders. Just what those will be about -- who knows! Redistribution of wealth? Eek!

It seems, based on what people who worked with him have said, that the party gave Obama lots of protection, going all the way back to his first state senate run. He didn't only cover himself with it, he didn't bat an eye to use that cover against anyone to get where he wanted to be. That's called blind ambition. Ambition is admirable to a point, but me-thinks Obama has taken it too far. Politicians who are given too much coverage to travel within without the friction usually given are not generous in their leadership, they are often autocratic. Hitler was given a role in government, and then some added power, then he took more. I am not trying to say he is in other ways similar to Hitler, such as ideologically or in mental stability, most people understand that Hitler came to power because they were trying to shut him up. Obama is not the same deal, but I lack another example of such a sheltered political rise, frankly. He takes a position, then changes it, and has not even got a voting record to fall back on. He is a perfect candidate in one sense: he has little shame and is not bothered by not having a long record of consistency or of voting, period.

Obama has been given a lot of latitude in his political career. He used it, calculatingly, and coolly, and he is handling this campaign with excellence. He has also been given some golden advantages. The economic crisis, while hardly the fault of the GOP, nor GW Bush, and certainly not McCain, is like the final gift for Obama in his campaign against GW Bush. Too bad McCain cannot also campaign against GW Bush, however inaccurate it is in any case.

Obama talks of how the election is about all of us, that it is not about him. Well, it seems to be about him an awful lot. He cannot even define the change he made the center of his campaign. Sadly, change from eight years of GW Bush is all a lot of people care about. But for what? Spreading the wealth? No thanks. I know how business works, and good businesses want to expand, not sit on their butts, so they will invest back into their business, which means more jobs. In his world, that investment would instead go to the government, in the form of taxes, for all but the smallest of small businesses. That's bad economics.

This campaign, such as it is with this giant financial "gift", is only the prologue, though. What about after the campaign? Where is the sign of the excellence while in office? He lacks a record of doing much other than campaigning and speaking and writing books about -- himself. But this campaign is not about him, it is about "us."

Barack Obama is going to make things change. Because change is always good. Just ask 1977-1980 what they thought of Jimmy Carter's work as president. That was quite a change. Twenty-one percent loan rates and Billy Carter. Change, change, and more change. And less change in your pockets.

Economy of Scale in Change in the Country: Politics, political parties, media influence, 'popularity' opinion

Interregnum: a beautifully Latin term for "leadership vacancy" (see definition).

This first segment was written in the context of the market meltdown ...

'My final newspaper article' - Dan Connelly on Xark!

Shumaker, the real-life model for the comic-strip character Shu, was a walking indoctrination into a culture of journalism that once held sway in America: Confident, straight-talking, blue-collar, irreverent, abrasive — but also undeniably talented and privately idealistic.

That's good stuff. And exactly what journalism is NOT any longer, except with rarity, in local dailies or TV, or in national dailies ("national" meaning stuff like USA Today and Wall Street Journal, but of course that includes LA Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Washtingon Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and the likes).

The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.

How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.

The Future of The Republican Party « Jon Taplin’s Blog
Chris Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservative thought William Buckley, just announced he was going to vote for Obama, partly because the right wing kooks scared the bejesus out of him.
My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:

Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online
Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do.

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.

Powered by ScribeFire.