House of Eratosthenes

Yeah, she’s in my sidebar as a Wonder Woman pinup, and the better her future prospects, the better it is for the country. At this point, it is an impossibility that she’ll go away like some people want her to…and I’m glad for this. But it’s not healthy for EVERYBODY to be talking about ONE PERSON and to be talking about her ALL the time. We have national secrets scattered far and wide, you might as well load ’em into a cropduster and dump the payload over the most crowded street in Manhattan. DPRK is up to shenanigans and so is Iran, or have we forgotten this?

From here forward, no more about the Wonder of Wasilla — unless it’s something meaningful. The latest attention-whore who wants us to stop talking about her now! I really mean it! Stomp my feet and hold my breath until you stop talking about her! — this does not merit notice from anybody else, therefore it does not merit notice from us.

And yes, you can take this as criticism against Memeorandum. Have you been checking their scroll for the last two weeks or so? I just gave a fair description of the items pegged up at the top of it, during that timeframe. They need a check-up from the neck-up.

Back to Palin, when she points out something meaningful, or is imploded by the major scandal that has been so breathlessly anticipated by her enemies for over two years straight now. Or, when she turns out to be right about something and the O-Man turns out to be wrong…which is the trigger most likely to get tripped first.

But some whiny pussykins writing a meandering screed — thereby proving she’s relevant AND electable — is not going to get any notice from us for the foreseeable future. This is just stupid. Someone wants attention so they write “Palin Go Away!” and they just…get it? Enough is enough.

Meanwhile, a not-Palin-related (not quite anyway) question for you to mull over. Submitted: Presidents who are anticipated with a sense of “There’s no way he/she can possibly be electable, what a joke”…compared to other Presidents anticipated with a sense of “Aw man, take it to the bank, that’s our next President, he seems so Presidential, just fits into the office like a hand in a glove. Just so qualified.”

Generally, the former turn out to be better Presidents than the latter, after history has jotted down the final page. They are underestimated by their opponents, they tend to win more often when they are challenged (or do the challenging) over some issue, they arrive with a more discernible identity. The issues they confront, after they’ve worked them over, bear an imprint that says “the outcome is distinctly different because this is the person who had the power when the matter was decided.”

They are more fearless and capable leaders, they are less generic. Perhaps this is because they have more to prove.

But we’ve had a lot of people make it to the Oval Office just because they were really good at brooking compromises, giving speeches, selling things…just acting all dignified, and blandly “Presidential.” That, I submit, has been a long-standing failure. They weren’t even good at staying popular over the long term. Like the suitor of a young lady who tries to woo her over by agreeing with everything — “Oh, whatever you want to do.” The matters that couple decide together, reach an outcome without bearing his imprint, and his paramour becomes bored. That’s the American electorate. Without leadership, decisiveness, an individual imprint, there’s no reason to stay enthused and the presidency ends with a whimper rather than a bang.

My supposition is that all these gentlemen who have seemed “natural” for the office — with the exception of George Washington — have been fated for this pathetic legacy. I’ve seen just enough history to toss that one out there…it will take some research to prove it out some more (although I believe that it would).

Discuss.

Update 12/1/2010: Tammy Bruce notes the irony: To take Scarborough’s screed seriously, you need to re-define “manning up” as having something to do with getting together with the other boys, and beating up on the girl just because you don’t like her being there. Third graders have a better grasp of the manning-up concept.

My take on this is predicated on the extensive thread you were involved with over at Daphne’s.

The Old Guard on both sides believe that there is, and ought to be, a ruling political class of the Right People who went to the Right Schools. If you don’t have an advanced degree from the Right Schools you had better have decades inside the Beltway horsetrading and getting elected over and over. If you don’t have a degree you’re out of luck.

Me? I know plenty of people who are whip smart that didn’t go to the Right Schools and many that didn’t go to any at all. I have no doubt that more than a few are up to the Presidency. Part of being a good leader is surrounding yourself with smart people. Reagan was quite good at that. He was a decisive man who saw things in very clear terms. Frequently between right and wrong not popular and unpopular. Not that he didn’t believe in compromise or heed counsel but he knew when to dig in and when to bend. Those two traits while present in Bush 43 weren’t as developed as they should have been. IMO he tended to put loyalty ahead of somethings too often. (c.f. Harriet Meyers, that “Brownie” guy)

I think Palin is sharp and certainly media savvy. I worry about her electability not because she’s dumb or short on substance. Rather, people are fickle. A few years ago, Quebec was all but assured it was going to vote itself independent of Canada. The vote failed by a narrow margin and the whole issue collapsed. I fear Palin may have peaked and recapturing that magic is going to be tough. I may well be wrong (and probably am) but that’s my only real concern.

I ask, who, other than Palin, has excited anyone on the right in decades? Bush 43? Meh. He seemed OK but not particularly so. Hell, Palin for all she is, excites people on the Left and Right. That tells me there’s something there. When the Left is pouring on the hate it’s out of fear. When they ignore you, you can pack your bags and go home (usually).

Off topic point: I’m amazed that the Right has missed one of their great lexicographal victories of late. The Left has dropped the mantel of “Liberal” in favor of “Progressive”. The Right has shown that Liberal means speech codes, high taxes, more spending, weak foreign policy etc. Liberal has become such a toxic word that any politician running outside S.F. runs from it. They’ve had to start over as “Progressives” because it contains the word progress and everybody likes progress, amirite?
- Duffy | 11/30/2010 @ 09:34
Oh, one more thing: The only other person on the Right who inspires the same sort of response is Chris Christie. He is currently driving Democrats bonkers all over the East Coast and everyone else loves him.
- Duffy | 11/30/2010 @ 09:47
The Old Guard on both sides believe that there is, and ought to be, a ruling political class of the Right People who went to the Right Schools.

Yep. They believe that because it’s true; it is the natural course of events in any large power structure that involves people from lots of different walks of life. It endures by sheer momentum, for it cannot endure by any other means. And it is always temporary.

The situation with the 2012 GOP nomination process is going to be very difficult for this momentum to be sustained. It’s not like predicting what will happen when a cement truck rams a brick wall; this is more like the cement truck hitting a pile of dirt, after the wheels have fallen off. The problem with nominating someone besides Palin, is nobody else has done a lick of work in the “refudiation” midterms. And so, to sell the idea that someone else should pop back into the picture, like a dead soap opera character the writers decided they just had to bring back…you’ve got to sell the Republican voter on this idea of the elites being in charge. Not just sell it, but make true believers out of…well…practically everyone.

I really have a tough time envisioning this. Even to Republicans who hate Palin with a passion, the idea of Mitt Romney taking point on this thing, now that the hard work has all been done, it just isn’t going to sit right. But still. From Palin’s perspective, that battle will be much tougher than unseating Obama, should she emerge as the nominee — capturing the nomination will be the tougher of the two.

Generally speaking, the everyday, man-in-the-street, loyal Republican (or anti-democrat) is doing a rather wretched job of anticipating this stuff. Your analysis is more reasonable than most, IMO. But most people I know are doing a lousy job of feeling out the scenario: “Okay, Palin IS the nominee, it’s her or Obama, and I’m in the voting booth — what do I do?” There’s a lot of reluctance being channeled toward denying how that changes the dynamics of the situation. They want me to believe they’ll vote for four more years of out-of-control debt, out-of-control spending, discouraging businesses from hiring people, appeasing tyrants and bowing to foreign heads of state — because Palin hasn’t gone to the right schools. And most Republicans will do the same thing…or at least, stay home.

This, too, I am having a whole lot of trouble envisioning with a genuine expectation that it’s probable. I’m just not seeing it happen. The need for “change,” to co-opt a favorite word, is just too great.
- mkfreeberg | 11/30/2010 @ 10:11
A couple points:

Or, when she turns out to be right about something and the O-Man turns out to be wrong.

Hey, no fair!! I do love hearing Palin point out Glorious Leader’s absurdities, and I enjoy it all the more because it’s Palin pointing them out, but still… anyone who wasn’t already primed to fall at Holy Man’s feet knew He had no clothes from the second he stepped onto the national stage. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of one thing He has been right about. School choice, maybe? (Before he caved to the unions, of course). Anyway, given his track record pretty much anything he says will be proven wrong in pretty short order. This rule is the fastest way to turn your blog into All Palin, All the Time.

On the presidential/unpresidential question, I’d have to go with Glorious Leader’s putative role model, Mr. Lincoln. Douglas had been “a future president” for years before he got his shot against the GOP upstart. Lincoln wasn’t quite the out-of-nowhere dark horse we’re told he was these days, but he sure didn’t have that “presidential” sheen about him. And speaking of….

….you’ve got to sell the Republican voter on this idea of the elites being in charge. Not just sell it, but make true believers out of…well…practically everyone.

This is precisely what they’re going to do, my e-friend. Well, not the “make true believers” part — that’s really more of a proggie thing, since they’re the ones who are always looking for the next vohzd to fall at the feet of. But the GOP “leadership” will definitely try to parachute in some Ivy League blue-blood with important hair, because that’s just what parties in general, and Republicans in particular, do. I would go further, and argue that this is exactly what they did in 2000. They weren’t looking for change at the top; they were looking to find the most palatable member of the elite to sell to a public which, while sick of Bill Clinton personally, kinda liked Bill Clinton’s America. A nice pedigreed placeholder, in other words. I submit that this is exactly what George W. Bush was always intended to be — and would have been — had events not intervened. I just thank God that he actually had some steel in that “compassionate conservative” spine, against all evidence.

Even if I’m wrong about Bush, I’m right about the GOP establishment not supporting Palin. They’d run against Mom, baseball, ice cream, cute puppies, and apple pie if the standard-bearer of same didn’t at least have an uncle in Skull and Bones. To actually back a popular outsider, the GOP establishment would need both brains and balls. Have they ever had either?
- Severian | 11/30/2010 @ 10:57
PS sorry about some formatting issues above. Me not smart with computer sometimes.
- Severian | 11/30/2010 @ 10:58
A couple points:

Or, when she turns out to be right about something and the O-Man turns out to be wrong.

Hey, no fair!! I do love hearing Palin point out Glorious Leader’s absurdities, and I enjoy it all the more because it’s Palin pointing them out, but still… anyone who wasn’t already primed to fall at Holy Man’s feet knew He had no clothes from the second he stepped onto the national stage. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of one thing He has been right about. School choice, maybe? (Before he caved to the unions, of course). Anyway, given his track record pretty much anything he says will be proven wrong in pretty short order. This rule is the fastest way to turn your blog into All Palin, All the Time.

On the presidential/unpresidential question, I’d have to go with Glorious Leader’s putative role model, Mr. Lincoln. Douglas had been “a future president” for years before he got his shot against the GOP upstart. Lincoln wasn’t quite the out-of-nowhere dark horse we’re told he was these days, but he sure didn’t have that “presidential” sheen about him. And speaking of….

….you’ve got to sell the Republican voter on this idea of the elites being in charge. Not just sell it, but make true believers out of…well…practically everyone.

This is precisely what they’re going to do, my e-friend. Well, not the “make true believers” part — that’s really more of a proggie thing, since they’re the ones who are always looking for the next vohzd to fall at the feet of. But the GOP “leadership” will definitely try to parachute in some Ivy League blue-blood with important hair, because that’s just what parties in general, and Republicans in particular, do. I would go further, and argue that this is exactly what they did in 2000. They weren’t looking for change at the top; they were looking to find the most palatable member of the elite to sell to a public which, while sick of Bill Clinton personally, kinda liked Bill Clinton’s America. A nice pedigreed placeholder, in other words. I submit that this is exactly what George W. Bush was always intended to be — and would have been — had events not intervened. I just thank God that he actually had some steel in that “compassionate conservative” spine, against all evidence.

Even if I’m wrong about Bush, I’m right about the GOP establishment not supporting Palin. They’d run against Mom, baseball, ice cream, cute puppies, and apple pie if the standard-bearer of same didn’t at least have an uncle in Skull and Bones. To actually back a popular outsider, the GOP establishment would need both brains and balls. Have they ever had either?
- Severian | 11/30/2010 @ 10:59
The worst thing about the Palinization of the Right is the hazard of people deciding that Palin would make a good, trustworthy President.

She wouldn’t, of course, no one would, and no one could live up to the hype Palin’s gotten from so many of us.

But I think there’s a real risk of her becoming the Right Perfect One in the sense that Obama did on the Left. Everything she does is magic, all her decisions must be defended at any cost, poor or inconsistent decisions must be ignored, even covered up; opponents must be demonized.

There’s a similar risk with Chris Christie, BTW. He’s so good on fiscal matters that people aren’t looking at other, less desirable aspects of his policy — I don’t think he’s all that strong on the Second Amendment, for instance.

Some politicians are better than others, no question, and no question at all that Palin and Christie are far more competent and experienced than Obama, and of course their principles (as far as any politician can have them) are no where near as destructive as the O’s. That doesn’t mean, however, that they, or anyone, are fit to rule the rest of us. No one is, and that’s why it’s crucial to reduce the influence they have over us.
- djmoore | 11/30/2010 @ 12:08
Well, I see what you’re saying dj, but I must say I’m hard pressed to find examples of it. I do see some Palinistas out there who throw out the same hype about her that I heard about Obama two years ago…exciting…charismatic…air cackles with energy…blah blah blah. And I don’t like it.

But I’ cannot name any examples of people who would rush to excuse something she did that was blatantly wrong. The North vs. South Korea, for example. There are people who deny this is evidence she’s in over her head — I am in this camp — but I don’t know of anybody who would rationalize away her flub-up, including Palin herself. She screwed up, went back, admitted it and corrected it.

For examples of hysteria and fanaticism, denial of right vs. wrong, I’m going to make a bee line for her detractors. First one off the top of my head, this “Party Like It’s 1773” thing…although there are others. These people are just nuts, some of ’em. They think Palin screwed something up, they have to be the first to announce it — can’t even wait to go research the issue. And the worst part is, they tend to show the same behavior month after month, year by year. Never learning.
- mkfreeberg | 11/30/2010 @ 12:15
I have two words for you and they ain’t Chris Christie. They are Col West. In my whole life, there has been no one other then RR and Sarah that expresses American Exceptionalism, Natural Law, and conservative values as well and as inspiring as this man. He is a born leader.

And I can 100% guarantee you that we will never see him bow to anyone. NEVER
- MM | 11/30/2010 @ 12:26
If you don’t have a degree you’re out of luck.

Ah, but she does have a degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism. And we all know how qualified journalists seem to think they are, so why would they have an objection to Palin?
- philmon | 11/30/2010 @ 14:55
As to “Palin” and “unqualified.” To quote a comment I saw on some other blog a few days ago….”the other side threw that argument away during the last election.” By nominating a single-term US Senator, whose only prior political experience was a short stint in the Illinois statehouse, who’d never run so much as a hot dog stand, much less a state or some major corporation…

…they forever forewent any right whatever to make that argument about any Republican or conservative presidential contender again, ever. No, I’m serious. I’m COMPLETELY out of patience with this “unqualified” business. The Left doesn’t get to say this any more. They’ve squandered it forever. They don’t get to lecture us about our rumblings on sending up a woman who’s been a mayor AND a governor, who energizes the conservative base, who’s charismatic, like-able, down-to-earth, principled, courageous, and in possession of inordinate amounts of common sense & steel backbone.

No, I’ve had it with this. They don’t EVER get to outline for us what the “qualifications” for POTUS are supposed to be, other than the legal ones – over 35, natural-born US citizen, etc. But they have nothing more to say on who is experienced enough to lead this country and who is not. After sending up this wet-behind-the-ears, green-horned intellectual featherweight, they’ve forfeited the words “qualification” and “experience” from this moment until our sun goes nova.

I was tired of it during the 2008 presidential campaign, when they criticized us for sending up a veep candidate when the bottom half of our ticket had more executive experience than their top and bottom halves put together. It struck me as the complete epitome of, pardon the word, audacity.

If I was tired of it then, I’m completely beyond sick of it now. I want to smack the next left-winger who brings it up with regard to Palin. I want to knock him down, reach down, grab him by the collar and scream in his face, “YOU DO. NOT. MENTION. THIS. AGAIN. EVER. THAT GOES FOR ALL 50 MILLION OF YOU. GOT IT?
- cylarz | 12/01/2010 @ 03:30
The worst thing about the Palinization of the Right is the hazard of people deciding that Palin would make a good, trustworthy President.

Why? Afraid she’ll run?

Piss off.
- cylarz | 12/01/2010 @ 03:32
Cy, most of this “unqualified” stuff I’m hearing nowadays comes from Scarborough and other so-called conservatives like him. And then, it usually turns out to be the case that that person did not support Chairman Zero. Not always, but usually.
- mkfreeberg | 12/01/2010 @ 08:24
Yes, I would like to know just what it is about Palin that tells us she’d be “untrustworthy”. Let’s have it. Cause I got nothin’.

I don’t think the right has been “Palinized”. Palin has the same basic worldview that those of us who have been labeled “right” have. We don’t tend to buy the beliefs of our “leaders” — but rather, we tend to pick leaders whose views most closely match ours. Palin is Palin and the reason she is liked is that she is us, in general. There are those of us who recognize this, and those of us who seem to be embarrased by her folksy language and who is unapologetically Christian. I’m not one of the latter crowd. Call me “tolerant” and “diverse” enough that I think a plain speaking housewife from Wasilla who has helped run a business, run a city, and then a State isn’t disqualified because she says “gosh darn” and looks as sharp in a denim shirt as she does in a dress suit. Which is really all they’ve got on her. You can tell because it’s all they harp on.

This was well covered in Morgan’s preceeding recent Palin Post especially in that last quoted paragraph with all the links.

And I’m going to point to cylarz’ comment above on “Palin” and “Unqualified” as one of my favorite comments, anywhere, evah. Because it echoes my feeling on the subject.

I’ve got no skin in the game as to whether she runs or not. She’s not, and nobody is at this moment, my favorite to run for president (well, ok, I’d take John Bolton). But if she runs, and if she’s nominated, I got no problems voting for the woman. She’d pick a good staff, and they’d clean some house. It’d only be a first step, but a necessary one.
- philmon | 12/01/2010 @ 08:25
Morgan, I don’t like hearing “unqualified” about Palin from the likes of Scarborough either, but at least he and like-minded individuals might have a leg to stand on. My comment was directed at those who voted for Obama in their state’s primary in 2008 or in the general election.

If the 2008 Democratic ticket had been the other way around – with Biden for POTUS and Obama for veep, it would have taken most of the wind out of my argument. Biden, while light on “executive” experience per se, at least has all those years as a Delaware senator. Even if he was and is a walking gaffe machine and ardent left-winger, he at least had significant federal government experience. Much the same could be said of John McCain. What bothered me during the 2008 campaign was the particular use of the phrase “executive experience.” Palin had some. The three men (one ally and two opponents) had little or none.

I have trouble deciding which infuriates me more about the Left – the maddening arrogance, or the rank hypocrisy. At the moment I’m leaning toward the latter. It irritates the hell of me to go into debates with standards and a conscience and try to argue logically, only to have to sit here and listen to the other side say patently absurd things about people you respect. Like Palin. It would be one thing if any of their arguments actually made a modicum of sense, but this “unqualified” stuff? Nuh-uh.

Phil, I appreciate the kind words, and I agree with your post in like manner.
- cylarz | 12/01/2010 @ 14:43
Yeah, well you have to let them have their double-standards. Without the doubled-up ones, they wouldn’t have any at all.
- mkfreeberg | 12/01/2010 @ 16:03
@philmon:

“Ah, but she does have a degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism. And we all know how qualified journalists seem to think they are, so why would they have an objection to Palin?”

I wasn’t speaking specifically about Palin on that one but yes, your point is well taken.
- Duffy | 12/02/2010 @ 08:34
I said: “The worst thing about the Palinization of the Right is the hazard of people deciding that Palin would make a good, trustworthy President.”

cylarz responded: “Why? Afraid she’ll run?”

No, I’d love to see her run. As you’ve pointed out, she’s vastly more qualified than Obama.

My comment has to do with placing too much faith in any candidate, and giving any President too much power. Palin is probably as well qualified as any human being can be, but as I said, no human being can remotely be qualified for the office as it now operates. (Although Obama is in my mind is actively disqualified; not only is he grossly inexperienced and incompetent, but his background shows he is militantly opposed to American founding ideals.)

I believe there’s a real danger of a cult of personality arising around her. This has nothing to do with her, or with Republican Party policy, or anything like that, but with human nature, and with the way political campaigns are being run. Her TV show really worries me — not anything about its content, specifically, just the fact that it exists.

I want to see people vote for Palin to the degree she espouses minimizing government control over us, not because people like her. She’s a politician; that automatically means she can’t be trusted.
- djmoore | 12/03/2010 @ 10:15
DJMoore, you seem to be sincere, and you’ve been more civil to me than I was to you, so I’ll try to be polite here. Let’s break it down:

Palin is probably as well qualified as any human being can be, but as I said, no human being can remotely be qualified for the office as it now operates.

I vaguely understand what you’re getting at – the office of President never was intended in the Constitution to be where one “managed the economy” or head all these commissions and czars and whatnot that have arisen over the years. Whole agencies have appeared in the Executive Branch that don’t belong there. Yes.

That said, I believe it was said somewhere not long ago (maybe on these pages) that the only real qualification for being president (aside from a handful of legal requirements) is “having enough sense to listen to good advice.” A president doesn’t have to be an expert on everything. She just needs to have people around her who have some understanding of our nation’s problems. This is one of Obama’s major weaknesses – in addition to himself being incompetent and inexperienced, he has surrounded himself with committed Marxists, tax cheats, and socialists of various stripes. He hasn’t got enough sense to put qualified people in subordinate positions. His upcoming pick for head of the BATFE is a gun control nut, and he just put someone on the Supreme Court who hasn’t even been a judge. And Hillary. Yeah, I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me what she knows about diplomacy or running the US Dept of State.

Palin wouldn’t do this. She’ll find people at the federal and state level who have some qualification to be in the posts they are in. And then she’ll either accept or reject their advice, based on how consistent it is with her core values – small government, low taxes, freedom.

Additionally, she’ll give us what we’ve been yearning for – a hands-off approach to governing. What few modern presidents seem to understand is that they don’t have to “solve” our national problems themselves. What they need to do is get government out of the way and let the American people solve our national problems. Unemployment, for instance. Cut taxes, and start repealing regulations that strangle business and arrest hiring. That’s it.

Our nation suffers from a surplus of activist government – and I indict Bush I and II here as well as the recent Democrat administrations. Presidents of both parties seem to think the answer to all our national ills is more federal funding, more regulations, another blue-ribbon commission. They don’t seem to understand that central planning is causing all these issues, not making them better. Pretty much every major domestic issue facing us right now – from foreclosures to unemployment to inflation to gas prices – can be blamed on excessive but well-intentioned government getting in our way.

Palin seems to grasp this better than anyone else who’s speaking right now. I want her in power so she can start reigning in the problem of runaway government.

(Although Obama is in my mind is actively disqualified; not only is he grossly inexperienced and incompetent, but his background shows he is militantly opposed to American founding ideals.)

Glad we’re on the same page with this one.

I believe there’s a real danger of a cult of personality arising around her. This has nothing to do with her, or with Republican Party policy, or anything like that, but with human nature, and with the way political campaigns are being run.

This is a misplaced concern on your part. Take the Tea Party coalition, for instance, which as closely overlaps with Palin’s supporters as any other group I can name. These individuals have allegiance not to a person, but to a set of ideas. The moment Palin abandoned those ideas – small government, low taxes, faith in the American people – they’ll turn on her.

Her TV show really worries me — not anything about its content, specifically, just the fact that it exists.

Granted I haven’t seen the show (been waiting for the Blu-Ray) but are you serious with this? You’re bothered – and you can’t even tell me why – by a TV show that depicts Palin and her family gallivanting about in wild parts of Alaska? From what I understand, the show isn’t even political. It’s about her family and the state in which they live, a state that many Americans know little about. The TV commercial that I keep seeing for it, shows her using a hunting rifle to take aim at a caribou…and every time I see the ad, I start yelling, “Get him, Sarah! Shoot! Shoot!”

I want to see people vote for Palin to the degree she espouses minimizing government control over us, not because people like her. She’s a politician; that automatically means she can’t be trusted.

She isn’t a politician, actually. A politician is someone who currently holds elected or appointed office. She’s a private citizen who’s got a gig on FOX and another with The Learning Channel. She goes about making speeches.
- cylarz | 12/03/2010 @ 12:22
[…] Don’t Hate Rich People The Repeal Amendment Cleaning House “Dead Enders” Partial Moratorium “It’s Impossible for Hillary Clinton to Continue as Secretary of State” Your […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/04/2010 @ 12:20
[…] and yet we’ve been on a Palin moratorium since long before a Palin moratorium was cool. November of last year, to be […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/17/2011 @ 20:26

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Partial MoratoriumTuesday, November 30th, 2010

Partial Moratorium
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010