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

 
Steamed Rice
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Anyone else catch this last week?
Speaking with Pravda this week, [Vladimir] Zhirinovsky chastised [Condoleezza] Rice for calling on Russia to "act responsibly" in supplying natural gas to Ukraine.

The fascistic pol attributed that "coarse anti-Russian statement" to Rice being "a single woman who has no children."

"If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear," Zhirinovsky ranted on. "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.

"Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention," he added. "Such women are very rough. … They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: 'Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian!'

"Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though."
Not to make too much of it, but can you imagine a major politician in a western country indulging openly in such language and remaining in his position of power? Heck, it doesn't even have to be a politician ... ask Larry Summers.

Yes, Zhirinovsky is totally whacked. But the man heads Russia's Liberal and Democratic Party. The lack of an outcry against his words means he has a pretty big faction who at least tacitly agree with is thoughts.

Simply amazing in this day and time. I haven't seen anything written like that since about the "barefoot and pregnant" days.

Rice?
A State Department spokesman told us Rice would not "dignify the article with a response."
So says the "single and childless political persona" in search of a barracks full of soldiers.

UPDATE: Thanks to a QandO reader we have another example of a scummy politician making crude remarks about Rice. None other than the darling of the left, Hugo Chavez:
Chavez has saved some of his most biting sarcasm for Rice, whom he refers to as "Condolencia," which means "condolence." In speeches, he has called her "pathetic" and illiterate and made oblique sexual references to her. "I cannot marry Condolencia, because I am much too busy," he said in a recent speech. "I have been told that she dreams about me," he said on another occasion.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Condi seems to be a magnet for this sort of thing from scummy pols:

(Venezuela President Hugo) Chavez has saved some of his most biting sarcasm for Rice, whom he refers to as "Condolencia," which means "condolence." In speeches, he has called her "pathetic" and illiterate and made oblique sexual references to her. "I cannot marry Condolencia, because I am much too busy," he said in a recent speech. "I have been told that she dreams about me," he said on another occasion.
 
Written By: The Gringo
URL: http://gringounleashed.typepad.com
You know, as a woman, it really ticks me off when female public figures are treated in this manner. One does not hear other powerful political figures saying McCain just needs to get laid, or that Bush would be a whole lot better off if they would lift the white house ban on BJs.


The fact that she disagrees with russia’s policies can be marginalized as the hormonal rantings of an old maid. But if she had kids they’d go the other direction "she’s just a puppet of her husband." It would always be something besides what it is. Though male political figures have these things too obviously, they just seem a little less... blatantly sexist.

Maybe Vlad’s the one who should spend an afternoon in a barraks of horny soldiers. Don’t drop the soap.
 
Written By: Shinobi
URL: http://liesandstatistics.blogspot.com
When is the last time comments of this sort were directed at Hillary Clinton by such people?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
When is the last time comments of this sort were directed at Hillary Clinton by such people?
That’d be in the Regnery book Unlimited Access, by Gary Aldich.
The most infamous of the Regnery titles is undoubtedly Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, which included such "revelations" as lesbian encounters in the White House’s basement showers, Hillary Clinton ordering miniature crack pipes to hang on the White House Christmas tree, and the claim—backed by anonymous sources—that Clinton made frequent trips to the nearby Marriott to shack up with a mistress "who may be a celebrity." That last bit helped catapult Unlimited Access to the top of The New York Times’s best-seller list, though Aldrich soon revealed to The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer that the Marriott story was "not quite solid" and, indeed, was "hypothetical." But according to Aldrich, it was Regnery editor Richard Vigilante who had moved the Marriott bit out of the epilogue (where it had been presented as a "mock investigation") and into the middle of the book (where it was presented as an actual occurrence). Vigilante, Aldrich told Mayer, threatened not to publish the book if Aldrich didn’t agree to the changes.
That’s where.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Here is what Rush Limbaugh had to say on September 19, 2005:
She [Sheehan] had, she had tough words for the military, the Bush administration, and even Democratic liberals such as Hillary Rodham [sic], whom she said voters should "reject" if she fails to toughen her stance against the war. She said, "We have to stop making war profitable."

She also took issue with the media, which she said has spent more time scrutinizing her past than Bush’s policies. The woman’s clearly deranged, and I say that not because of the statement about the media but daring to criticize Hillary. If she’s not careful — let me, let me just make you a prediction: If she calls Hillary out one more time — one more time — you are never going to see the words "Cindy Sheehan" in the U.S. media ever again.

I will guarantee you she’s already had the talking-to. Somebody has gotten to her and said, "Do the words ’Fort Marcy Park’ mean anything to you?" I will guarantee you, my friends, that by the time all is said and done — if she calls her out one more time — that’s it for Cindy Sheehan. No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to find her name except on some extremist, kook, left-wing blog.

But you won’t find it anywhere in the mainstream press. You just don’t do this. You don’t call out Hillary Rodham Clinton. You don’t call out a Clinton like this. Not, not when you’re supposedly on their side.
What happened in Fort Marcy Park? Well, that’s where Vince Foster killed himself. So what is Rush saying? Hillary was part of a murder conspiracy.

Now - Rush is listened to by millions of wingers. Right wing pols are frequently guests on his show. He is a spokesperson for the right wing. He’s not some unknown Russian hack who no one has ever heard of. And he isn’t saying that Hillary needs to get laid, or anything harmless like that. He is suggesting she is guilty of murder.

And you of course recall the outcry when Rush made these remarks, don’t you? Right? Remember? Remember?

To quote McQ:
The lack of an outcry against his words means he has a pretty big faction who at least tacitly agree with is thoughts.
Imagine for just one moment that a prominent media figure on the left had accused Rice of murder. Wingers would go into hysterics. But when the prominent media figure on the right accuses Hillary of murder - 12 years after the death - it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.

Why am I not surprised.





 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
But when the prominent media figure on the right accuses Hillary of murder - 12 years after the death - it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.

Why am I not surprised.
Maybe because you have confirmation bias?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
More than granted, Jon... in fact, your response actually furthers my point, which you apparently missed.... no fault to you. By "Such people" I was implying leftists, ya see.

I’m not suggesting there’s not back and forth across the isle with such comments, by any stretch... Indeed, I’m suggesting that’s ALL there is... it seems to be limited to back and forth across the isle.

As an example, while I don’t doubt that there’s no shortage of rightists that will make such comments about Clinton or Albright (Offhanded examples) I doubt we’d ever see a Hugo Chavez making such comments about those two specific cases. (Taking Gringo’s example)

Rice, OTOH... and other Republicans, would be open season for a Chavez. And apparently, a Zhirinovsky.

What I’m suggesting is that while looney and sexist... part of the motivation for Zhirinovsky speaking so, is also political. While having no solid proof that Zhirinovsky’s comments are that way, it would seem logical, given Russia’s political history, that he’s speaking from the perspective of a leftist, and that this is part of his motivation.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Maybe because you have confirmation bias?
The link you sent me to was from 2004. Rush made his remarks in 2005. Sorry, but that you have to go back to 2004 only proves my point: there was no criticism from the right when Rush made his remarks in 2005.

And again - look at the substance of the remarks. The one about Rice expresses an opinion: she should get laid. The one from Rush expresses a fact: Hillary participated in a murder. One is defamatory; the other is not.







 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
That’s nice Jon but which of those revelations was directed at Hillary? That was the question that you blockquoted. Are you saying that Aldrich wrote that Hillary was participating in lesbian encounters in the basement? As to the story of the crack pipe tree decorations what I’ve read is that Hillary invited a bunch of artsy types to design Christmas ornaments. Page 105 Unlimited Access.
Some of the ornaments were silly, and some were dangerous, like the crack pipes hung on a string. We couldn’t figure what the crack pipes had to do with Christmas no matter how hard we tried, so we threw them back in the box. End of story on crack pipes. Where did Aldrich Ames write that Hillary ordered the crack pipes to be hung? The rest of you quoted material has nothing to do with what you’re responding to. This is as haphazard, slipshod, and sloppy as Radley Balko’s Corey Mayes story. You know, warrantless search, all white jury, etc.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
FWIW, Jon’s Rush link shows just the opposite. The windbag was dismissed as risible in ’04. Ergo, whatever he had to say in ’05 was just water under the bridge. Fair enough, Jon?

Speaking as a "winger" here I have long felt that Rush, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Jon Stewart, et. al. merely provide the comic relief in our political theater. They are not to be taken seriously ’cept maybe by those who think the "White Album" gives carefully crafted political directives...
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Yes MK, we know that you are a lawyer and well-trained in the art of twisting a straightforward statement and ignoring the obvious in order to maintain your argument, no matter how irrational and tenuous.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
That’s where.
What do Gary Aldrich, Rush Limbaugh and any other journalist/commenter/whatever have to do with politicians of major parties in other countries or of leaders of countries themselves saying things like Zhirinovsky and Chavez have said about a United States Secretary of State?

This isn’t about commenters. Both sides can cite examples of them ad nauseum. It’s about these politicians and their attitudes toward a woman who holds high office. Will we hear the same sort of drivel from each about the new president of Liberia, the PM of Germany or Chili’s recently elected president?

Their remarks are unacceptable and should be cited as such. Rush Limbaugh and Gary Aldrich don’t conduct foreign policy on an international level as does Chavez nor do they have the potential to do so like Zhirinovsky.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Speaking as a "winger" here I have long felt that Rush, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Jon Stewart, et. al. merely provide the comic relief in our political theater. They are not to be taken seriously ’cept maybe by those who think the "White Album" gives carefully crafted political directives...
So would that group include Ronald Reagan? Here is what Reagan said in a note to Rush in ’93:
Dear Rush,

Thanks for all you’re doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I’ve retired from active politics, I don’t mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.

I know the liberals call you "the most dangerous man in America," but don’t worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be."

Sincerely, Ron
Or would it include Bob Dole?
"When Rush Limbaugh talks, you know you’re listening to the real world," says Bob Dole. "He’s a powerhouse antidote to the liberal cheer-leading you hear all the time from the national media. That’s why Rush is such a refreshing addition to America’s airwaves. He’s smart, he’s tough, and he isn’t going away, much to the annoyance of the liberal crowd."
What about Phil Gramm?
Phil Gramm says Limbaugh "has had a profound impact on conservative thinking in America . . . He says things other people are afraid to say. As an opinion maker and thinker he is very intelligent and, like Ronald Reagan, a very effective communicator. There are many days when I think he’s doing a lot more good than the Republicans in the Senate are doing."
How about Dan Qualye?
Dan Quayle agrees: "[Rush is] certainly out there carrying his fair share. I’d say he’s leading the charge right now. It’s only in the three months since I returned to Indiana that I’ve realized how big he is. . . . I know the Republican Party listens to him. He’s got the pulse of our rank and file."
Maybe Jack Kemp is in the group?
Jack Kemp, who compares Rush’s influence among Republicans to that of Will Rogers among Democrats in the 1930s, adds that he’s certainly leading the fight against some of the far-left policies of the Clinton Administration and doing it with wit, wisdom, humor, tenacity, and an irrepressible style. He shows people that the Democratic Party, and especially Bill Clinton, who ran as a centrist, are not (New Democrats’ at all but old Democrats who are not trying to empower people but government."
Maybe virtues Czar Bill Bennett fits in:
Rush, says Bennett, "may be the most consequential person in political life at the moment. He is changing the terms of debate. He is doing to the culture what Ronald Reagan did to the political movement. He tells his audience that what you believe inside you can talk about in the marketplace. People were afraid of censure by gay activists, feminists, environmentalists — now they are not because Rush takes them on. And he does it with humor. We have a reputation as somewhat prim and priggish, and Rush is absolute death to liberals: a conservative with humor."
So let’s see, that’s a former President, a former Vice President, a former Senator/nominee for President, a former Senator/nominee for Vice President, a former Senator/candidate for President, and a former Secretary of Education. Man, talk about being out of the mainstream of the Republican party. White Album, huh?
Rush Limbaugh and Gary Aldrich don’t conduct foreign policy on an international level as does Chavez nor do they have the potential to do so like Zhirinovsky.
As the foregoing shows, Rush has more of an impact on conservative "thought" - and on the leadership - than perhaps any other person in America. Unless, of course, you think Reagan, Dole, Quayle, Kemp, Gramm, and Bennett are all a bunch of liars. In that sense, he is far more powerful than either a Chavez or a Zhirinovsky. And the things he has said about Hillary makes the cited comments about Rice look like compliments. And rather than condemn Rush, wingers are effusive with their praise for him.

Nice try though.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
How about Dan Qualye?

Dan Quayle agrees: "[Rush is] certainly out there carrying his fair share. I’d say he’s leading the charge right now. It’s only in the three months since I returned to Indiana that I’ve realized how big he is. . . . I know the Republican Party listens to him. He’s got the pulse of our rank and file."
Pathetic.

So now, when he’s useful to make some idiotic point, DQ is to be taken seriously?

You’re so transparent it’s humorous.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I don’t think anybody is defending Rush, MK. Our "effusiveness" has been leveled against him more often for him. I think you want us to defend him, or to defend others for not criticizing him.

In the future, if you’ll just give me a list of the things you think I should denounce, I can go through and check them off individually. That’d be more efficient than your current "you defend him by proxy" method.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In fairness, it is true that the US allows celebrities to continue being celebrities, and many people including those you cited continue to allow them to be influential, despite similarly distasteful or reproachable remarks.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I don’t think anybody is defending Rush, MK. Our "effusiveness" has been leveled against him more often for him. I think you want us to defend him, or to defend others for not criticizing him.

In the future, if you’ll just give me a list of the things you think I should denounce, I can go through and check them off individually. That’d be more efficient than your current "you defend him by proxy" method.
Unless you pretend to speak for all wingers, which I assume you do not, I don’t think your individual criticism would do anything to undermine what I have said.

In this post, McQ called Chavez the "darling of the left." The implication, of course, is that if you are to the left of center, you must consider Chavez your darling. I don’t consider him my darling. I think he has a screw loose. (On the other hand, unlike most wingers, I don’t apporve of Bush’s tacit endorsement of the attempted coup against him. Call me crazy, but unlike most wingers, I don’t think it is a good idea for the United States to be in the business of supporting military coups against democratically elected leaders.)

In the future, ask me first whether I consider Chavez or anyone my darling. That would be more efficient that the current "you defend him by proxy" method.



 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK now:
So would that group include Ronald Reagan? Here is what Reagan said in a note to Rush in ’93:
MK a few hours ago:
The link you sent me to was from 2004. Rush made his remarks in 2005. Sorry, but that you have to go back to 2004 only proves my point
Seems like MK has violated his own prohibition about fishing for evidence in the past.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
I think calling Chavez the "darling of the left" was hyperbole. Similarly, you might call Limbaugh, Robertson or (to use a more equivalent example) Pinochet a "darling of the right".

Of course, few on the right liked Pinochet, but he was probably more popular on the right than the left.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In this post, McQ called Chavez the "darling of the left." The implication, of course, is that if you are to the left of center, you must consider Chavez your darling. I don’t consider him my darling. I think he has a screw loose.
It’s an apt description and you know it. One simply has to watch who floods in here each time I post a Chavez piece to validate that observation. The fact that you find him to be crazy actually speaks well for you for a change.

But pray, what was your attempted "implication" with your tired litany of quotes from Dan Quale and the boys except to infer that if you’re to the right of center, you must think like that?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And from MK’s Bennet snippet (the others are similarly fossilized to the Reagan quote)
And he does it with humor. We have a reputation as somewhat prim and priggish, and Rush is absolute death to liberals: a conservative with humor.
Comic relief. That’s all, nothing more. Get over it!
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
It’s about these politicians and their attitudes toward a woman who holds high office.
Agreed, and I thought I had.
Yet, there seems political motivations, as well, as I suggested, that I don’t think can be discounted.
But pray, what was your attempted "implication" with your tired litany of quotes from Dan Quale and the boys except to infer that if you’re to the right of center, you must think like that
Why, a political one, of course! (grin)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
One simply has to watch who floods in here each time I post a Chavez piece to validate that observation.

Who? Orlando?
Do commenters from Venezuela count?
Orlando seems to be a frequent critic regarding your Chavez posts. Other than that, I don’t remember too many Lefties coming to his defense.
I could be wrong, though.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I could be wrong, though.
You are.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
But pray, what was your attempted "implication" with your tired litany of quotes from Dan Quale and the boys except to infer that if you’re to the right of center, you must think like that?
The post was about what someone in a position of power said about Rice.

The Limbaugh discussion started when Bithead suggested that Hillary was not treated as nastily as Rice, the implication being that persons in positions of power do not say nasty things about Hillary. Jon responded by referencing the Aldich book.

I responded by referencing Rush’s comments about Hillary. The reference was meant not only to contradict what Bithead said, but also to give some context to the comments about Rice, and, finally, to show that slanderous comments of the worst kind are often made about Hillary by persons in positions of power on the right. Someone else responded that only kooks believe that Rush has anything meaningful to say. I, in turn, responded that it isn’t only kooks who believe Rush speaks for conservatives, it is Republican politicians from the highest levels. Indeed, if you read those quotes, one would conclude that Rush is perhaps the most important conservative voice there is. And again, this is not something one person said. It comes from several GOP politicans at the top of the food chain. Are they all lying?

There was a rumor floating around that while she was young, Laura Bush intentionally and with malice aforethought killed a boy who had dumped her. And while there is much more basis to that rumor than the Vince Foster rumor (she did actually kill a boy she went to school with in a traffic accident), I would daresay that no figure on the left with the same stature that Limbaugh has on the right would ever use it to smear Laura. Ever hear Howard Dean say anything about it? John Kerry? Terry McCauliffe? And before you tell me Laura isn’t an elected official and Hillary is, the rumors of Hillary’s involvement in Foster’s death started long before Hillary ever ran for Senator, while she was still first lady.

The point is this: The leading voices on the right are willing to much more vicious in their rumor mongering than are the leading voices on the left. It is part of the reason the right wins elections: they are willing to play nastier. When Rush Limbaugh says that Hillary is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, there are 20 million dittoheads out nodding their heads in approval. It barely raises an eyebrow. If Terry McCauliffe were to say the same of Laura, it would have been headline news and wingers would have been beating the drums 24/7 for his head.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The post was about what someone in a position of power said about Rice.
Uh, no, the post was about politicians in power who said things about Rice.
I responded by referencing Rush’s comments about Hillary.
And what political position of power does Limbaugh hold?
The leading voices on the right are willing to much more vicious in their rumor mongering than are the leading voices on the left.
Which, even if true, is completely irrelevant to this post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I could be wrong, though.
You are.
Am I?
I did a quick search. And as far as I can tell, Orlando seems to be “flood” you’re talking about.
Now, as much as I like reading your rants, McQ, I didn’t go but a half dozen posts back before my eyes began to water.

I disagree with your “flood” interpretation.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Uh, no, the post was about politicians in power who said things about Rice.
Pretty sure Putins party is in power in Russia.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Speaking with Pravda this week, [Vladimir] Zhirinovsky chastised [Condoleezza] Rice for calling on Russia to "act responsibly" in supplying natural gas to Ukraine.

The fascistic pol attributed that "coarse anti-Russian statement" to Rice being "a single woman who has no children."
The Orange Revolution government in Ukraine was offered a continuation of the old low cost contract way back in 2004-5, they did not take this up and their failure to do so meant there was no contract for 2006. Russia has attempted to renegotiate the rate as if in a free market. When Rice calls for Russia to "act responsibly" she means that Russia should give a 70% subsidy on gas prices to Ukraine - this pretty much qualifies as anti-Russian. That Zhirinovsky tells her to shut up really isn’t that much of a surprise - nice use of insults.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Pretty sure Putins party is in power in Russia.
Yup, which is why I later clarified the point by saying:
It’s about these politicians and their attitudes toward a woman who holds high office. Will we hear the same sort of drivel from each about the new president of Liberia, the PM of Germany or Chili’s recently elected president?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Will we hear the same sort of drivel from each about the new president of Liberia, the PM of Germany or Chile’s recently elected president?
Yes, from Mr Z certainly. His basic function is to make Putin look good. The secret is not to listen to him.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Yes, from Mr Z certainly. His basic function is to make Putin look good.
LOL!

Well as difficult as that might be he’s doing a hell of a job, Angus.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oops ... I missed this one:
Am I?
Yup.
I did a quick search. And as far as I can tell, Orlando seems to be “flood” you’re talking about.
You did a quick search? It was that important to you Pogue ... aw, gee, I’m touched.
Now, as much as I like reading your rants, McQ, I didn’t go but a half dozen posts back before my eyes began to water.
I know the feeling, pal ... thank goodness you only comment occasionally.
I disagree with your “flood” interpretation.
Well just off the top of my head I remember commenter Hugo. That’s how I knew you were wrong Pogue, not that I was particularly surprised or anything.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/

 
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