As a child, I always enjoyed raspberry season because it meant we got to don semi-protective clothing and attack bushes for a few hours, usually succeeding in eating more than we actually carted home. To this day I am not sure if the term "raspberry" for an abrasion is derived from the injury's similar appearance to said fruit, or the fact that you got 'em when you picked 'em.
Either way, it is a charming term for what can be a less-than-charming injury.
Recognizing that it was too late in the AM, the trail would be too busy, and I had recently tempted the fates by mocking a friend's running injury, Lucy and I took to the trail for a long run on Saturday. She was all over the place; I was tried. Needless to say, when she went for a squirrel the "stop, drop, and roll" that ensued prompted no less than 5 people to ask if I was OK. (Many more people bore witness to the escapade.) Of course I was! I may not be graceful but I'm tough! Lesson learned: Best to run, rather than roll, across gravel. I like to think I added a little interest to their days though.
Miles: 6ish
Trail/the fates: 1
Leah: 0
Monday, March 31, 2008
Apocalypse Now
Captiol 10 K
Miles : 6.2
Time: 1:01:48
I definitely prefer running down the hill at 15th and Lamar to running up it. While I enjoyed many of the costumes (Frost Bank Tower - wow) my favorites were for sure the four spectators under the Mopac bridge dressed as cows. You just don't get told you're "udderly fantastic" by a man in a cow suit often enough during most races, or really, during most lives.
But as much as I enjoyed the 10k, I was forced to confront the ultimate in saratorial horror; THE RUNNING DRESS! That's right, not a skirt, but a full on dress, in wicking material, and of course, in hot pink. I have lost the will to fight, save yourselves if you can.
Miles : 6.2
Time: 1:01:48
I definitely prefer running down the hill at 15th and Lamar to running up it. While I enjoyed many of the costumes (Frost Bank Tower - wow) my favorites were for sure the four spectators under the Mopac bridge dressed as cows. You just don't get told you're "udderly fantastic" by a man in a cow suit often enough during most races, or really, during most lives.
But as much as I enjoyed the 10k, I was forced to confront the ultimate in saratorial horror; THE RUNNING DRESS! That's right, not a skirt, but a full on dress, in wicking material, and of course, in hot pink. I have lost the will to fight, save yourselves if you can.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Yes, Running Can Make You High
So says the NYTimes, and some Germans, and that is good enough for me. While this might not seem like new information to anyone (especially anyone who enjoys athletic pursuits), it was not proven, apparently, until very recently.
a chill of euphoria
I heart my endorphins. They rock.
This may explain why I used to run to techno and/or bad rap (with a little boy band thrown in for good measure, of course). I currently run to the sounds of early morning Austin. The sounds are not particularly interesting, I just find I need all my senses to keep me and the dog from falling in a hole (or a lake) at 6:30AM.
a chill of euphoria
I heart my endorphins. They rock.
This may explain why I used to run to techno and/or bad rap (with a little boy band thrown in for good measure, of course). I currently run to the sounds of early morning Austin. The sounds are not particularly interesting, I just find I need all my senses to keep me and the dog from falling in a hole (or a lake) at 6:30AM.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
HAPPY 30TH BIRTHDAY SARAH!
Now that you're back from Ecuador to check the blog.
Also, brace yourselves, a running post!
Miles: 4
I had intended to run with Leah and Lucy (who I expect to soon own a dog wicking shirt) but missed them, so I actually ran by myself. I know! I guess if Jesus can rise from the dead I can make the Mopac loop without external motivation.
Signs you are becoming a Texan: You wear long pants and a thermal top for a run when it's 50 degrees.
Signs you still have some Michigan in you: You lose the thermal shirt 5 minutes in and start wondering about whether various rocks are sharp enough to cut off 3/4 of your pant legs after another 10.
Also, brace yourselves, a running post!
Miles: 4
I had intended to run with Leah and Lucy (who I expect to soon own a dog wicking shirt) but missed them, so I actually ran by myself. I know! I guess if Jesus can rise from the dead I can make the Mopac loop without external motivation.
Signs you are becoming a Texan: You wear long pants and a thermal top for a run when it's 50 degrees.
Signs you still have some Michigan in you: You lose the thermal shirt 5 minutes in and start wondering about whether various rocks are sharp enough to cut off 3/4 of your pant legs after another 10.
Monday, March 24, 2008
In Which I Fail at Running and Baking
Leah, unlike me, actually has been running (10 miles, by herself!). I had big plans to join her Saturday morning, which of course meant that I stayed out until 2:30 and bailed completely, preserving my no running streak for a third straight week. I finally signed up for the Capitol 10k; even if it doesn't make me train, I'll at least go for a run next weekend.
My other big plan for the weekend was to make my mom's Hot Cross Buns. I am somewhat intimidated by baking with yeast, but managed to get one good rise out of the dough, so of course I immediately screwed the rest of the recipe up. Instead of forming the buns and leaving them to rise on their own, I thought I would hurry the process along by turning the oven on low for a few minutes. An hour and a half later, I realized I had not turned the oven off, and that my Hot Cross Buns were now a hot mess. Not quite as bad as the cookies I once forgot about until they were pure carbon, but pretty bad. Maybe next year.
My other big plan for the weekend was to make my mom's Hot Cross Buns. I am somewhat intimidated by baking with yeast, but managed to get one good rise out of the dough, so of course I immediately screwed the rest of the recipe up. Instead of forming the buns and leaving them to rise on their own, I thought I would hurry the process along by turning the oven on low for a few minutes. An hour and a half later, I realized I had not turned the oven off, and that my Hot Cross Buns were now a hot mess. Not quite as bad as the cookies I once forgot about until they were pure carbon, but pretty bad. Maybe next year.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Stuff White People Don't Like
1. Being reminded that racism exists and they benefit from it.
2. Black people daring to be angry about it.
Let's take a look at what Senator Obama's pastor said that has the mainstream media in pearl-clutching frenzy, shall we?
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
OMG he's blaming America for 9/11! Except, not really, if you made it through 4th grade reading comprehension. He's saying when we do things like drop nuclear bombs on civilians, support an oppressive racist regime, and are willing to prop up every totalitarian leader in the middle east who promises us access to oil - we probably don't have the right to get all hysterically self-righteous and "this is the worst thing that has ever happened to anyone in the history of the world" about it when someone uses repellant tactics on us. Blaming Amercia for 9/11? Oh that would be GOP stalwarts like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, McCain's new BFFs Chuck Hagee and Rod Parsley, and of course, they guy who has a bi-weekly phone call with the President of the United States and advocates beating your kids and dogs with wooden spoons - James Dobson! (That darn America is also responsible for Hurricane Katrina as well according to most of the above.)
Of course, they're not blaming America because of it's foreign policy or human rights abuses, heavens no! If only America had kept gays in the closet and women in the kitchen, we'd all be fine! And lets save some blame for the ACLU and all those other nasty organizations that think people should be able to exercise their constitutional rights even when they're not doing what rich white "Christian" men want them to - the horror!
Look, I get why people are offended whenever there's any suggestion America is to blame for the September 11th attacks, terrorism by definition is never a justified resonse and that's fair. What I don't get is why it's so much more offensive to suggest that America might want to look at how some of its policies and actions might contribute to global violence than to suggest that two guys making out and a woman taking the pill have brought God's vengance on us all. I find the idea of seizing on a national tragedy as an opportunity to whip up the hatred that fills your bank account and makes you a power player in the GOP a lot more offensive, but then, I'm not a member of the mainstream media.
And if the issue is really how candidates are affected by religious figures in their lives, then aren't McCain's connections a lot more of a problem? I realize McCain isn't interested in peace in the middle east, but on the off chance that endless war is not in the best interests of the country, isn't it a problem that a potential President hangs out with a guy who says Christianity exists in order to wipe out Islam and all Muslims, and a guy who supports Israel so that it will start a war that will wipe the country and the Jews off the face of the earth so Jesus can come back? This does not seem like an ideal way to approach international relations, but again, I do not have my own show on CNN.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
Still not seeing the offensiveness. Oh wait, he's saying America is RACIST and that black people resent it and he sounds kind of angry about it! I mean, how dare Reverend Wright shatter the illusion that we live in a post-racial America and that a legacy of slavery and opression as long as the history of this county has been forgiven and washed away in the benevolent glow of tolerance. It's certainly not like our schools are still segregated, our drug laws are written to ensure that poor and black people are disproportionatley punished, or that people are dragged to death behind pickup trucks for the color of their skin. Wait, maybe this will work better if I rephrase the Reverend's words, or better yet, let's have Thomas Jefferson do it;
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is Just."
And here's where he loses me. Do I think anyone white can ever really know what it's like to be black in America? Nope, not a chance. But Bill Clinton grew up poor, and Hillary wasn't exactly hanging out in the family compound either; they get the class stuff. What I actually find offensive is the idea that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it's like to be defined as a non-person. In case no one noticed, she's a woman. And women get that. Racism and sexism are different, but the experience of being "othered" and defined as not quite as human as white men is something they have in common. (Also, I might add, the establishment regards any display of their anger as illegitimate and something to be supressed at all costs.)
Here's what really bothers me about this whole thing (in addition to the racism and the toxicity of the national media, of course). Rev. Wrights' sermons, whatever you think about specific statements or tone, have at their core something deeply American and central to the civil rights movement; the idea that this country is capable of becoming more equal and more just, and that our project is to live up to our own principles and laws, not to tear them down. Pat Robertson, Chuck Hagee, et. al, on the other hand, are committed to changing those principals, whether it's destroying the separation of church and state or stripping women of the right to make their own medical decisions, in the service of returning to a glorious American past that exists only in their fantasies.
I can't pretend that I don't enjoy all the ways in which I am privileged by my race, by my class, and by my sexual preference, and I can't pretend that losing those privileges doesn't scare me. I can't even pretend that watching some of those clips of Rev. Wright's sermons didn't make me defensive and hostile. But it doesn't make me forget which America I want to live in.
ETA: Jeremiah Wright was 24 the first time he had the right to vote. He had already spent 5 years in the U.S. Military.
2. Black people daring to be angry about it.
Let's take a look at what Senator Obama's pastor said that has the mainstream media in pearl-clutching frenzy, shall we?
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
OMG he's blaming America for 9/11! Except, not really, if you made it through 4th grade reading comprehension. He's saying when we do things like drop nuclear bombs on civilians, support an oppressive racist regime, and are willing to prop up every totalitarian leader in the middle east who promises us access to oil - we probably don't have the right to get all hysterically self-righteous and "this is the worst thing that has ever happened to anyone in the history of the world" about it when someone uses repellant tactics on us. Blaming Amercia for 9/11? Oh that would be GOP stalwarts like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, McCain's new BFFs Chuck Hagee and Rod Parsley, and of course, they guy who has a bi-weekly phone call with the President of the United States and advocates beating your kids and dogs with wooden spoons - James Dobson! (That darn America is also responsible for Hurricane Katrina as well according to most of the above.)
Of course, they're not blaming America because of it's foreign policy or human rights abuses, heavens no! If only America had kept gays in the closet and women in the kitchen, we'd all be fine! And lets save some blame for the ACLU and all those other nasty organizations that think people should be able to exercise their constitutional rights even when they're not doing what rich white "Christian" men want them to - the horror!
Look, I get why people are offended whenever there's any suggestion America is to blame for the September 11th attacks, terrorism by definition is never a justified resonse and that's fair. What I don't get is why it's so much more offensive to suggest that America might want to look at how some of its policies and actions might contribute to global violence than to suggest that two guys making out and a woman taking the pill have brought God's vengance on us all. I find the idea of seizing on a national tragedy as an opportunity to whip up the hatred that fills your bank account and makes you a power player in the GOP a lot more offensive, but then, I'm not a member of the mainstream media.
And if the issue is really how candidates are affected by religious figures in their lives, then aren't McCain's connections a lot more of a problem? I realize McCain isn't interested in peace in the middle east, but on the off chance that endless war is not in the best interests of the country, isn't it a problem that a potential President hangs out with a guy who says Christianity exists in order to wipe out Islam and all Muslims, and a guy who supports Israel so that it will start a war that will wipe the country and the Jews off the face of the earth so Jesus can come back? This does not seem like an ideal way to approach international relations, but again, I do not have my own show on CNN.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
Still not seeing the offensiveness. Oh wait, he's saying America is RACIST and that black people resent it and he sounds kind of angry about it! I mean, how dare Reverend Wright shatter the illusion that we live in a post-racial America and that a legacy of slavery and opression as long as the history of this county has been forgiven and washed away in the benevolent glow of tolerance. It's certainly not like our schools are still segregated, our drug laws are written to ensure that poor and black people are disproportionatley punished, or that people are dragged to death behind pickup trucks for the color of their skin. Wait, maybe this will work better if I rephrase the Reverend's words, or better yet, let's have Thomas Jefferson do it;
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is Just."
There.
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a n*gger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”And here's where he loses me. Do I think anyone white can ever really know what it's like to be black in America? Nope, not a chance. But Bill Clinton grew up poor, and Hillary wasn't exactly hanging out in the family compound either; they get the class stuff. What I actually find offensive is the idea that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it's like to be defined as a non-person. In case no one noticed, she's a woman. And women get that. Racism and sexism are different, but the experience of being "othered" and defined as not quite as human as white men is something they have in common. (Also, I might add, the establishment regards any display of their anger as illegitimate and something to be supressed at all costs.)
Here's what really bothers me about this whole thing (in addition to the racism and the toxicity of the national media, of course). Rev. Wrights' sermons, whatever you think about specific statements or tone, have at their core something deeply American and central to the civil rights movement; the idea that this country is capable of becoming more equal and more just, and that our project is to live up to our own principles and laws, not to tear them down. Pat Robertson, Chuck Hagee, et. al, on the other hand, are committed to changing those principals, whether it's destroying the separation of church and state or stripping women of the right to make their own medical decisions, in the service of returning to a glorious American past that exists only in their fantasies.
I can't pretend that I don't enjoy all the ways in which I am privileged by my race, by my class, and by my sexual preference, and I can't pretend that losing those privileges doesn't scare me. I can't even pretend that watching some of those clips of Rev. Wright's sermons didn't make me defensive and hostile. But it doesn't make me forget which America I want to live in.
ETA: Jeremiah Wright was 24 the first time he had the right to vote. He had already spent 5 years in the U.S. Military.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Well At Least I'm Running Off at the Mouth
Miles: O
Not that I've read everything written on the Spitzer issue (I do occasionally work) but I'm starting to be really bothered by it. Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that he bought a prostitute? I see a lot of discussion of how prostitution shouldn't be illegal and Vitter didn't resign, and no, I wouldn't be shocked if there was some partisan shenaningans going on in the Justice Department, but not a lot of condemnation of what he did as morally wrong, and publicly morally wrong. You cheat on your wife, it's wrong, but it's a private wrong. You buy a prostitute and it's a public wrong - not because it's cheating, not even because it's illegal, but because consent is a fundamental public value - you just forced someone to have sex with you when they didn't want to.
Yeah yeah, it's a "choice" and why is exchanging sex for money different from any other work and why are you a sex-hating conservative who is totally uncool . . . But that's kind of the point, it's not sex. Sex is mutual. Even leaving aside the reality of prostitution, which is not so much Pretty Woman as it is violence, drugs, and more violence, with some slavery and child abuse thrown in, with a nice overlay of unequal labor markets, when you pay a prostitute, you're paying someone who you know doesn't, by definition, want to have sex with you.
I don't have any bright ideas about legal regulation of prostitution (apart from a general bias towards harm reduction) but that so many "liberals" and "feminists", let alone mainstream media and political figures don't find something deeply disturbing and immoral about this guy getting off on having sex with someone who doesn't want to sleep with him really bothers me.
And I've just figured out why. Like torture, like horrific prison conditions, like immigrant detention camps, it's not about them, it's about us. It's not about whether a particular prostitute was perfectly willing to take money for sex, it's about how wrong and violative of our values it is to ask him or her to do that, and even worse, to enjoy it.
As always, I blame the Patriarchy. And running skirts.
Not that I've read everything written on the Spitzer issue (I do occasionally work) but I'm starting to be really bothered by it. Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that he bought a prostitute? I see a lot of discussion of how prostitution shouldn't be illegal and Vitter didn't resign, and no, I wouldn't be shocked if there was some partisan shenaningans going on in the Justice Department, but not a lot of condemnation of what he did as morally wrong, and publicly morally wrong. You cheat on your wife, it's wrong, but it's a private wrong. You buy a prostitute and it's a public wrong - not because it's cheating, not even because it's illegal, but because consent is a fundamental public value - you just forced someone to have sex with you when they didn't want to.
Yeah yeah, it's a "choice" and why is exchanging sex for money different from any other work and why are you a sex-hating conservative who is totally uncool . . . But that's kind of the point, it's not sex. Sex is mutual. Even leaving aside the reality of prostitution, which is not so much Pretty Woman as it is violence, drugs, and more violence, with some slavery and child abuse thrown in, with a nice overlay of unequal labor markets, when you pay a prostitute, you're paying someone who you know doesn't, by definition, want to have sex with you.
I don't have any bright ideas about legal regulation of prostitution (apart from a general bias towards harm reduction) but that so many "liberals" and "feminists", let alone mainstream media and political figures don't find something deeply disturbing and immoral about this guy getting off on having sex with someone who doesn't want to sleep with him really bothers me.
And I've just figured out why. Like torture, like horrific prison conditions, like immigrant detention camps, it's not about them, it's about us. It's not about whether a particular prostitute was perfectly willing to take money for sex, it's about how wrong and violative of our values it is to ask him or her to do that, and even worse, to enjoy it.
As always, I blame the Patriarchy. And running skirts.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Travesty Alert!
If I subscribed to either the Washington Post or Entertainment Weekly I'd be canceling both this week. Washington Post, I am retroactively rescinding every Pulitzer you have ever received. (See, also, rescission of any credit for progressive change previously achieved from Ralph Nader after the 2000 election.)
Not only, Washington Post, did you publish the editorial "Women Aren't Very Bright" (now with bonus anti-Latino racism!) which was both misogynist and so mind-bendingly idiotic in every possible way that even National Review criticized it, you actually tried to pull the "jeez, why can't girls take a joke" maneuver.
Perhaps I should not be surprised, Washington Post editorial board, that you thought publishing this excrement was a great idea given that you clearly do not understand such concepts as "satire" and "provocative." Allow me to explain.
1. SATIRE: It's not satire if the person saying it actually believes it. Would you publish an op-ed by David Duke claiming non-white people are stupid and try to pass it off as satire? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say no. Charlotte Allen works for an anti-feminist organization that thinks women should not have equal rights because they are inferior to men. She wrote an editorial for you saying women are inferior and, in case you missed it, smearing both presidential candidates who favor equal rights for women, and taking a bonus dig at Latino voters in Texas. She's not kidding, therefore, it's not a joke. (Also, jokes are generally funny.) The fact that think you can play this off as satire demonstrates that either you have no idea who is writing on a given topic that you are putting in millions of newspapers and cannot use Google, or that you, too, think women are stupid.
2. PROVOCATIVE: Once again, WP Editorial Board, you've got two choices. Are you too stupid to live independently? Or are you bigots? "Intended to provoke not offend?" Do you also have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd like to sell me? Particularly in the context of a newspaper's op-ed page, provocation has a particular meaning: to be provocative, a piece needs to challenge readers to re-examine common assumptions and uh, provoke actual thought. Sexism and racism aren't provocative, they are the default assumptions and staus quo of our society. Printing a sexist and racist op ed isn't provocative, it's sexist and racist. It doesn't make you brave, or transgressive, or a champion of uncomfortable truth, it makes you bigots, and assholes. While it's always good times to be reminded of both how much my culture hates me and how totally acceptable it is to be openly misogynist, the only thing this article provoked was an intense desire to kick John Pomfret. Repeatedly. In the crotch. With cowboy boots on.
Read it and weep:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992_pf.html
And now on to the sins of Entertainment Weekly. Characters on TV shows that you'd like to date? Excellent fluff, EW, and you very appropriately included V. Mars and Logan. However, how could you include "Men of the West Wing" and leave out Toby? Did you not see the episode where he ranted about the First Amendment, the one where he knew how many words were in the Gettysburg Address, or the pilot in which he smacks down fake Jerry Falwell? I'm pretty sure his defense of affirmative action was the closest thing to porn I've ever seen on network television for heaven's sake! Do you want to tempt the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing EW? DO YOU? Then I think a correction is in order.
I still miss Veronica Mars:
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20181731_16,00.html
Not only, Washington Post, did you publish the editorial "Women Aren't Very Bright" (now with bonus anti-Latino racism!) which was both misogynist and so mind-bendingly idiotic in every possible way that even National Review criticized it, you actually tried to pull the "jeez, why can't girls take a joke" maneuver.
Perhaps I should not be surprised, Washington Post editorial board, that you thought publishing this excrement was a great idea given that you clearly do not understand such concepts as "satire" and "provocative." Allow me to explain.
1. SATIRE: It's not satire if the person saying it actually believes it. Would you publish an op-ed by David Duke claiming non-white people are stupid and try to pass it off as satire? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say no. Charlotte Allen works for an anti-feminist organization that thinks women should not have equal rights because they are inferior to men. She wrote an editorial for you saying women are inferior and, in case you missed it, smearing both presidential candidates who favor equal rights for women, and taking a bonus dig at Latino voters in Texas. She's not kidding, therefore, it's not a joke. (Also, jokes are generally funny.) The fact that think you can play this off as satire demonstrates that either you have no idea who is writing on a given topic that you are putting in millions of newspapers and cannot use Google, or that you, too, think women are stupid.
2. PROVOCATIVE: Once again, WP Editorial Board, you've got two choices. Are you too stupid to live independently? Or are you bigots? "Intended to provoke not offend?" Do you also have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd like to sell me? Particularly in the context of a newspaper's op-ed page, provocation has a particular meaning: to be provocative, a piece needs to challenge readers to re-examine common assumptions and uh, provoke actual thought. Sexism and racism aren't provocative, they are the default assumptions and staus quo of our society. Printing a sexist and racist op ed isn't provocative, it's sexist and racist. It doesn't make you brave, or transgressive, or a champion of uncomfortable truth, it makes you bigots, and assholes. While it's always good times to be reminded of both how much my culture hates me and how totally acceptable it is to be openly misogynist, the only thing this article provoked was an intense desire to kick John Pomfret. Repeatedly. In the crotch. With cowboy boots on.
Read it and weep:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992_pf.html
And now on to the sins of Entertainment Weekly. Characters on TV shows that you'd like to date? Excellent fluff, EW, and you very appropriately included V. Mars and Logan. However, how could you include "Men of the West Wing" and leave out Toby? Did you not see the episode where he ranted about the First Amendment, the one where he knew how many words were in the Gettysburg Address, or the pilot in which he smacks down fake Jerry Falwell? I'm pretty sure his defense of affirmative action was the closest thing to porn I've ever seen on network television for heaven's sake! Do you want to tempt the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing EW? DO YOU? Then I think a correction is in order.
I still miss Veronica Mars:
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20181731_16,00.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)