Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Atrios narrowly avoids fatal case of irony
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Atrios, writing about Washington Times owner Sun Myung Moon...
Some day I'll understand how some idiot on the left that no one's ever heard of can be turned into a national symbol when he says something stupid, and the billionaire owner of the premier propaganda outlet of the right is completely ignored.
When did the Washington Times become the "premier propaganda outlet of the right"?!?! As of 2004, it had a daily circulation of "100,603"...approximately 1/10th that of the Washington Post, and a bit behind Melbourne, FL's "Florida Today" publication. If Atrios wants to continue his vast "Right Wing Media" meme, he's going to need a more popular standard bearer than the Washington Times.

But, hey, I'll trade you one Sun Myung Moon for a Sulzberger, a Ted Turner, or an Al Neuharth. And it's not like the Left has any shortage of quirky "billionaire" owners—Peter Lewis, George Soros—willing to cough up 30 pieces of silver to start a new "premier propaganda outlet".

But the real irony lies in Atrios writing "[some] day I'll understand how some idiot on the left that no one's ever heard of can be turned into a national symbol when he says something stupid"....immediately after putting up yet another post about Jeff Gannon.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Oh yes. I love how much coverage has come about Gannon. I love how the White House has been forced to answer about how they allowed him in. I love how it got entirely more then one week of coverage and stuff. . . I love how the media is still talking about it. . . I love how the most coverage it got was not on the Daily Show. . . Ah what ever.
 
Written By: Ragdrazi
URL: http://
I love how Gannon is not going to be included on the panel of April 8th meeting of the National Press Club.

I also love how cult leader = quirky guy! Ah dear me.
Wish I could pull truth around and around like taffy.
 
Written By: Ragdrazi
URL: http://
I love how the White House has been forced to answer about how they allowed him in. I love how it got entirely more then one week of coverage and stuff.
[shrug] He worked for a media company, and applied for a day pass. Even the White House correspondents, though they didnt like him, didn’t have a problem with that. Why shouldn’t he have been let into the press briefings? Is there a rule against partisans of which I was previously unaware? If it got a weekend of coverage—and it got far more—then that’s more than it deserved. He was a nobody, who worked for a nothing company. Big F*ing deal.
I love how Gannon is not going to be included on the panel of April 8th meeting of the National Press Club.
That does seem a strange occurrence. But, so what? I mean, the guy was a major news story for awhile. And he’s on a panel with, iirc, Wonkette.

So, again, so what? Which is kinda my point. How is it that this nobody was escalated to such a status?
I also love how cult leader = quirky guy!
Do you? Why? Peter Lewis has pictures of Mao on his wall. George Soros has broken records for breaking Godwins law. It seems to me the problem with Moon was that he operated a "right wing propaganda outlet", and not that he holds exceedingly strange religious beliefs.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Actually, Moon owns UPI - no small outfit there. And last March Moon was coronated King of the World, or something like that, in a Senate office building attended by several members of Congress. No, I am not making this up.

Tell you what: When Ted Turner is crowned Emperor of the Universe in a government building supported by taxpayer dollars with several lawmakers in attendance you may have a point. But something tells me that the owner of "Florida Today" would not rate the same treatment.

Just another example of false moral equivalency.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Actually, Moon owns UPI
Yes, I’m aware of that. But considering the fact that it’s the WaTimes which is widely regarded as a rightwing publication, and not UPI, I’m going to assume Atrios meant the WaTimes. I’d also note that Atrios has previously cited UPI sources, despite, you know, all that evil at the head of the corporate structure.
And last March Moon was coronated King of the World, or something like that, in a Senate office building attended by several members of Congress. No, I am not making this up.
Yep. It recieved widespread attention. It was attended by a bipartisan group of congressmen, and it was actually a Democrat, iirc, who held the pillow that held the crown. All involved claim they were taken by surprise at the proceedings. I’m inclined to accept that.
But something tells me that the owner of "Florida Today" would not rate the same treatment. Just another example of false moral equivalency.
Please read for comprehension. The equivalence referred to the word "premier". In terms of readership, WT is equivalent to FT. Nobody said jack about equivalency between their owners.

Please, try to improve the quality of your criticism.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The quality of my criticism is lacking because I equated the owner of one paper with the owner of another, while the post equated the two papers themselves? Is that the best you got?

Please try to improve your criticism. Atrios posted about the papers. You guys posted about the owners. I responded with a point about the owners.

The basic point - one you avoided - is that a right-wing propagandist was crowned the King of the World in a public building, in a ceremony attended by lawmakers. Whether they knew it would turn into some kind of cultish ceremony is beside the point. So too is the fact that Dems attended.

The point is that this propagandist was given such "royal" treatment even though he owns a newspaper with such a small circulation. The reason? Because he is an outlet for the right wing - no doubt. No "left wing" owner would be given such treatment, even if one existed. (Al Neurath a left winger? You have got to be kidding.) This treatment simply makes Atrios’s point.

There are forests and there are trees. Please focus on the former. Thank you.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Yep. It recieved widespread attention. It was attended by a bipartisan group of congressmen, and it was actually a Democrat, iirc, who held the pillow that held the crown. All involved claim they were taken by surprise at the proceedings. I’m inclined to accept that.
You mean to tell me you’re inclined to accept that congressmen were bound to their chairs or something during the entire thing? That the congresscritter who crowned Moon did so involuntarily? Please improve the level of your cynicism- every congresscritter who voluntarily went to a Moonie event, then stayed through the bizarre ceremonies has no right to say they were surprised by any of it. They all have two feet and could easily have left. They also all have staff who should be able to tell them that going to a Unification Church event might just lead to public embarassment.
 
Written By: rjhatl
URL: http://
propagandist was crowned the King of the World in a public building, in a ceremony attended by lawmakers.
And according to Jon, a democratic lawmaker was holding that crown. No wonder you guys lost the election.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The quality of my criticism is lacking because I equated the owner of one paper with the owner of another, while the post equated the two papers themselves?
The relevant matter is the prominence of the respective papers, MK, not the prominence of their owners. Either the relatively tiny WaTimes is the "premiere" right wing propaganda outlet, and the idea of a "right wing media" is laughable, or it is not a "premiere etc etc" outlet. It’s not even the premiere paper in its own city.
The basic point - one you avoided - is that a right-wing propagandist was crowned the King of the World in a public building, in a ceremony attended by lawmakers. Whether they knew it would turn into some kind of cultish ceremony is beside the point. So too is the fact that Dems attended.
I "tried to avoid" it? MK, I responded to it directly. Christ, read for comprehension. Yes, it is directly to the point that the Congressmen thought it was going to be the kind of meet and greet meeting that lawmakers in DC have on a exceedingly regular basis, and it is directly to the point that they—Republican and Democrat—did not intend to attent a silly faux "crowning". (you do know that putting a crown on his head doesn’t actually make him King of the World, right?)
The point is that this propagandist was given such "royal" treatment even though he owns a newspaper with such a small circulation.
No, he was given "royal treatment" because his people wanted to do something outlandish. If you think it was under the direction of the Congressmen, then I’ll ask you to present your evidence. Otherwise, I’m going with "some kook got his kooks to be kooky around other people". It’s the least implausible explanation.
You mean to tell me you’re inclined to accept that congressmen were bound to their chairs or something during the entire thing?
No, I mean to imply that they decided to sit and watch, rather than get up and walk out. Who the hell cares? I’d have sat and watched the nutbar, too.



 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
You people are a laff riot.

William F. Buckley told a Vanity Fair reporter in 1992: "Quite simply, life in Washington would be hell without it."

It’s widely recognized as having influence far and beyond its piddling circulation, as the springboard for news stories, pundits and Washington charities.
 
Written By: John G
URL: http://
Lots of foam in the last two posts. Foam is only really good on capuccino and beer and so it rarely does one credit in conversation.

Perney, Jon’s post was to qualify the magazine comparison not to praise Moon as his personal lord and saviour. If you had bothered to read (if and the capability thereof), you would have gathered that. It is quite amazing to see someone with less reading comprehension than old mk, our resident car chasing barker.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Don’t tell me you’re not a conservative, you’re a "libertarian". Libertarians are Republicans who are too cowardly to take the blame for what the republicans do.

Maybe like most conservatives you can’t see the past very well. That and a sense of proportion are lacking in today’s conservative. Your comments about the influence of the Washington Times lead me to believe you are not very informed about Moon or you’re very young.

You see, it’s not just the drooling over the WT, it’s that conservatives have been working with his organization to drive our nation right and theocratic for years. Their relationship has worked, too bad the soul sellers didn’t understand Moon and helped him screw the nation. He outspent Scaife and had a much more defined agenda which you may learn about when you go through your rationalizing exercises.

Conservatives are getting the world they are asking for, they just have no idea what it is they are asking for.

What the right has become, these things you are trained to defend at all costs, didn’t happen overnight. Moon spent billions and created a lot of fronts molding it. The WT is just one piece of the soul selling story.

This is a quote from “Rev. Moon’s Rising Political Influence - His empire is spending big money trying to win favor with conservatives.” U.S. News & World Report, March 27, 1989:

...the church (Unification) has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration. ... As the Washington Times has become the voice of capital conservatives, the Heritage Foundation has become far more tolerant of church ties. ....

“Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don’t want to publicize the extent of the church’s involvement,” says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church’s role.
 
Written By: Pernell
URL: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html
Jon’s post was to qualify the magazine comparison not to praise Moon as his personal lord and saviour.

You don’t undertsand what you are saying. You don’t know who nor what John IS defending.

Moon is the right’s saviour. That is a sad fact.
 
Written By: Pernell
URL: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html
You don’t undertsand what you are saying. You don’t know who nor what John IS defending.
I think I do and I know you don’t. You do know that you are in full craft of one humongous strawman, don’t you?

All that foam and lather does nothing for your argument
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
turn our nation into a theocratic hell
That must explain why all the Christian symbols (exclusively) are being removed from government land and institutions. Did you hear about that recent court case in Colorado in which the jury’s recommendation for the death penalty was set aside because they discussed the bible in their deliberations? I mean, seriously, can you please name one real example of how we are living in a theocracy? Do you not recognize that statements like that just make you look kooky and encourage people to dismiss the rest of your points out of hand?
Libertarians are Republicans who are too cowardly to take the blame for what the republicans do.
Um, do you realize how stupid that is, especially given your fear of a theocracy? Yeah, those damn libertarians spend way too much time trying to outlaw abortion and porn.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://www.qando.net
So guys, now you know that when you link to Atrios all you get are Mkultra’s brethren dropping a lot of turds. It’s really not a pretty sight.
 
Written By: David Andersen
URL: http://
It’s widely recognized as having influence far and beyond its piddling circulation, as the springboard for news stories, pundits and Washington charities.
Oh, I’m sure it’s probably more influential than its circulation. It is, after all, a DC paper. And a few good pundits have arisen from its pages. But, next to virtually any other major paper, it’s diminutive.
You get mad at Soros, and you literally would NOT be in power without Moon deciding he needed you to be and paid your way.
I’m not mad at Soros. I disagree with him, and I point out his foibles, but I think he has every right to sink tens of millions into political activism. I’m not sure how you can argue that Moon, on the basis of sponsoring the WaTimes, and a few other things, has put the Right in power. At any rate, *my* ideology is certainly not in power.
Moon paid and guided your way because you helped him. Conservatives are his chumps.
What, exactly, has Moon gotten out of this? Invited to some high-powered dinners? His name on important rolodexes? And then what?
a theocratic hell
LOL. Uh-huh. Look, I’m agnostic, and my position on the separation of Church and State is *much* closer to the ACLUs position than that of the Religious right. And if you think we’re anything close to—or even moving in the direction of—a "theocracy", then you’re simply a fool.
Do you call yourself a "Christain" also?
No. Do you?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
While I certainly agree that the Gannon thing has reached the level of beating a dead horse beyond all recognition I can’t really fault the content of the Artrios post under the assumption that the left wing nobody he’s referring to is Professor Churchill (as far as I can tell, today’s flavor of nobody liberal idiot who’s said something stupid— but it’s so hard to keep up).

Firstly, comparing the circulation of Washington Times to the Washington Post or the Florida Today is fine if you consider those other publications right wing propaganda outlets as well. The fact is they aren’t so you’re comparing apple to oranges. So if UPI and the Washington Times are not the premier right wing propaganda outlet, what is? The only possibility I can think of is Fox News and while they certainly have a conservative slant, I wouldn’t consider them to be on the same level. Fox News is primarily concerned with making money. They just tout the right wing spin along the way. The Washington Times sole purpose is to further the conservative cause. For them making money isn’t secondary, it’s a non-issue.

Secondly Professor Churchill, as far as I can tell, has little to no contacts or influence within the left wing/Democratic establishment. When you boil it all down these attacks are not really about Gannon or Churchill, they are about defining the other side. But Churchill wasn’t the one who was given a national platform by the establishment, Gannon was. Churchill is not the one who was echoing the establishment line, Gannon was. Unfortunately for Gannon, he has been left to hang by an administration which was willing to turn a surprisingly blind eye in exchange for a sympathetic voice in the press core. It’s unfortunately the left continues to beat on him despite the fact that doing so is provoking little damage to their real target. Still, in order to criticize the administration for such lapses in judgment Gannon must be involved. And while Churchill may be considered a valid example for arguing that academic freedom has gone too far, the right wing has used him also as a springboard both to complain about the liberal domination of college faculties and to bolster the idea that the left is a "blame America first" crowd. Churchill in effect has become a national symbol for what’s wrong with the American left when in fact not only does he have no relationship to the Democratic establishment, the vast majority of liberals disagree with his statements.

While each of these individuals may be emblematic of a larger problem exhibited on opposite sides of the political spectrum (and thus fair game to a certain extent), Gannon was the one taken up under the fold and used as a tool of the right wing political establishment. That puts him in squarely in the path of partisan pundits aiming at the Bush administration regardless of his being "a nobody".
 
Written By: jwmullis
URL: http://
What, exactly, has Moon gotten out of this?
He’s king of the world, baby! Something like that just doesn’t come out of a cracker jack box!

No, actually, it does, sorry. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Firstly, comparing the circulation of Washington Times to the Washington Post or the Florida Today is fine if you consider those other publications right wing propaganda outlets as well. ... The fact is they aren’t so you’re comparing apple to oranges. So if UPI and the Washington Times are not the premier right wing propaganda outlet, what is?
Well, they may well be the "premier right wing propaganda outlets". But if so, then that sorta negates Atrios’ "Right Wing Media" accusations. If they best of the RWM is a relatively small newspaper, then we’ve got one very tiny Right Wing Media. Not to mention the fact that the WaTimes is quite freqently critical of the administration. I’d agree that they are right-of-center, but they’re hardly a "propaganda organ" of the administration. In any event, I’d always thought that Atrios and his ilk thought the WSJ or Foxnews would carry that banner.
Secondly Professor Churchill, as far as I can tell, has little to no contacts or influence within the left wing/Democratic establishment. When you boil it all down these attacks are not really about Gannon or Churchill, they are about defining the other side. But Churchill wasn’t the one who was given a national platform by the establishment, Gannon was.
See, I don’t get this. Gannon was picked up by some tiny media outlet of a GOP activist. He wrote for them, so he was allowed to get daily press passes. This is a "national platform"? Why wouldn’t he have been given a daily press pass? If the White House had nothing at all to do with Gannon, how would things have gone differently? It’s not like getting a daily pass is an almost insurmountable task. Even the White House press corps said, dislike him as they might, he had a right to the daily pass.


Ultimately, why the hell would the White House have done that? What’s the percentage for them in having a single right winger ask a question now and then? Were other reporters so blown away by his questions that they immediately lost their train of thought? What’s the percentage? If this is a WH conspiracy, it’s the most pointless conspiracy ever.
Churchill in effect has become a national symbol for what’s wrong with the American left when in fact not only does he have no relationship to the Democratic establishment, the vast majority of liberals disagree with his statements.
[shrug] alright, then how about the Bob Tierney guy the Democrat bloggers have been going after? Why are they doing that? Is he representative of the Right or the Republicans?

I think the Right is going after Churchill because 1) he’s representative of a larger problem they have, and 2) his is a story that just keeps on giving. If he’d only published—and defended—his essay, it’d have been over by now. Turns out, he wasn’t an agitator. He was a fraudulent agitator.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
James D. Guckert has some questions to answer, including the following:

1. Given that he advertised himself as a prostitute on the Internet, why does he consider his prostitution a "private" matter?

2. The Daily Kos has suggested that Mr. Guckert never served in the Marine Corps, as his prostitution ads claimed. What is the truth?

3. Mr. Guckert’s main prostitution side, "USMCPT.com" was not deactived until May 2003. Mr. Guckert was seen on national TV in February 2003. Was Mr. Guckert engaging in prostitution during the same time as he was posing as a reporter?

4. When was the last time that Mr. Guckert engaged in commercial sex?

5. Mr. Guckert has said that he created sexually-oriented websites for a prior employer. What was the employer’s name? If he did this, then why did he hire a third party to create USMCPT.com?

6. Mr. Guckert has said he will not talk about "the past." What does he consider to be the statute of limitations?

7. Did Mr. Guckert work as a prostitute for anyone at the White House or within GOPUSA?
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://
And while we’re asking questions, here are a couple more:

1. Why are right-wing "Christians" so eager to rush to the side of a male prostitute whose stocks in trade were playing dress-up Marine during wartime and playing dress-up reporter at the White House?

2. Why were right-wing "Christians" so eager to promote the Schindler’s family’s version of the the Teri Schiavo story when the woman’s father had pulled the plug on his own mother?

3. Why did Rep. Tom DeLay hop on that bandwagon when he had pulled the plug on his own father some years back?

Inquiring minds beg to know.
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://
Well, you’d probably be better served addressing those questions to Jeff Gannon or right wing Christians, respectively. I can’t really imagine why you’re asking them here.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In fact, I have addressed the questions about James D. Guckert ("Jeff Gannon" is a fictional identity) to Mr. Guckert, but he has refused to answer them. Since he published a link on his website this discussion, I thought I’d post the questions here, too.

In addition to having been a prostitute, a plagiarist, a propagandist and a phony reporter, Mr. Guckert is a coward. Since this website is cited by Mr. Guckert as an ally to his effort to sweep his lying and lawbreaking under the rug, it’s fair to post the questions here.
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://
it’s fair to post the questions here
Uh, yeah. Good luck with that.

Geez. At least MK is fun and kind of interesting!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://www.qando.net
Well, there are always silver linings. We now know that the Republicans are o.k. with homosexuals as long as they pay homage to masculinity; that federalism and limited government need not stand in the way of their desire to install their leaders or impose theocracy; that deficits and government spending aren’t issues as long as the drug companies and military contractors do well and the rich get big tax cuts.

Principles. Who needs them after all?
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://
Since he published a link on his website this discussion, I thought I’d post the questions here, too.
Well, you know, this’ll probably come as a shock to you, but we don’t actually have any control over what Mr. Guckert writes on his web site. Nor are we in a position to answer questions about thinhgs that only Mr. Guckert knows.

You see, here’s how blogs work. You quote other bloggers and link to things they say that you agree or disagree with. They can’t actually stop you from doing that, even if they want to.
Well, there are always silver linings. We now know that the Republicans are o.k. with homosexuals as long as they pay homage to masculinity; that federalism and limited government need not stand in the way of their desire to install their leaders or impose theocracy; that deficits and government spending aren’t issues as long as the drug companies and military contractors do well and the rich get big tax cuts.
Huh. Yeah. You don’t actually read this blog at all, do you? I mean, you clearly have no freakin’ clue what our positions are on any of the issues above.

  • Jon and I support Gay Marriage. McQ Supports Civil Unions.
  • Jon and I aren’t even Christians, and just yesterday I wrote a post frowning on the Republican’s increasing tendency to cater to the religious right, rather than keeping a more big tent philosophy.
  • We rail about big government, subsidies, and government spending all the time, and regularly declare our disgust with the Republicans for becoming big government conservatives.
So, when you come popping out from wherever it was you came from, and start tossing out your little bon mots, it doesn’t make you look like the sharpest knife in the drawer. You wanna cricize Republicans for the above, then maybe you should make your points somehwere where those things are actually defended.

But, hey, thanks for dropping by, there, Willie. Appreciate the input.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Gannon was picked up by some tiny media outlet of a GOP activist. He wrote for them, so he was allowed to get daily press passes.
If that were all there was to it not only would I’d agree with you but I don’t think it would have been a story in the first place. The problem lies in the fact he was able to get a day pass day after day after day for over a year. That, as I understand it, is against White House guidelines.

I must say the comments left by Mr. Kolb lead me to concede you do have point. Personally I don’t think Gannon need answer any of those questions. For me the problem is not Gannon’s behavior, it’s the way the administration handles the press core. Obviously there are some who don’t stop there and are taking an almost perverse pleasure in investigating everything the man has ever done. I don’t know if that is the case with Atrios because haven’t been reading his Gannon related posts. The bottom line for me is that Gannon is a valid story in so much as he relates to how the WH handles the press core. Because of that his private life does have bearing in the matter. Obviously there are some who have taken the story overboard. Did Mr. Guckert work as a prostitute for anyone at the White House or within GOPUSA? Give be a break!
 
Written By: jwmullis
URL: http://
When James D. Guckert (remember, Jeff Gannon is a fiction) injected himself into the public arena, ALL of his activities became legally fair game. But I believe in some measure of privacy even for public figures, so I’ve only asked about Mr. Guckert’s public activities.

His prostitution was conducted in private, but it was a public activity because he advertised it on the Internet. His true identity and occupation are matters of legitimate public interest, and given the special treatment he received at the White House it’s legitimate to ask whether he had johns there.

It goes to possible motive for the granting of special favors that he received, i.e., being the only White House regular to get access on a day pass; getting such access for two years, at variance with the stated rationale for day passes; his recognition by the president; his receipt of news "scoops" from insiders.

The fact that the right-wingers here and elsewhere want to protray these questions as bizarre ("oh come on ...") doesn’t change anything. You and your buddy Jeff can run, but you can’t hide.
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://
You and your buddy Jeff
Wait...I thought Jeff was "a fiction". I’m so confused :-b
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://www.qando.net
No confusion at all. Jeff is sort of like an imaginary friend. And, given the business he was in and the particular subspecialty of that business, I think it’s especially appropriate to use a juvenile metaphor.
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://
does anyone know jeff gannon’s hourly rate?
 
Written By: gayRich
URL: http://
He advertised at $200 an hour or $1,200 per weekend. I’m not sure if that included the dry-cleaning bill for his Marine Corps uniform.
 
Written By: Wilson Kolb
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider