sda2.jpg

August 17, 2006

Understanding The Language Of The Left

Now made easier by The Lefty Lexicon. A few examples;

Aggressive outreach - the process of actively soliciting trade for social workers. Generally employed when 'customers' fail to show required enthusiasm for services on offer.

Fascism/Nazism - apparently the 'opposite' of Socialism - despite sharing party members, ideology and - in National Socialism - the name.

Intolerance - Intolerance can only committed against certain defined groups of people. These do not include, Americans, the middle class, white manual workers, rural people, business and Christians obviously.

Marx - a Victorian gentleman whose theories cannot be disproved by observation, experience or factual evidence. See 'religion' and 'post-modernism'.

Racist - means "shut up!" - and is much, much worse than being violent, thoughtless or unkind. In fact, easily the worst crime ever conceived of.

Posted by Kate at August 17, 2006 12:01 AM
Comments

Racist: a conservative who's winning an argument with a liberal
- Peter Brimelow

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at August 17, 2006 10:10 AM

"progressive": a mealy-mouthed weasel word used by the left to denote a communist who actively tries to sabotage democracy and enforce this bloody and tyranical system of oppression on the public.

Posted by: Warwick at August 17, 2006 10:19 AM

I find the Libberish dictionary indispensible: http://www3.telus.net/public/safework/blog/libberisha.htm

Posted by: markpeters.ca at August 17, 2006 10:36 AM

Example:

New Democrat: The physical and semantic veneer applied to an old-time sociologist Liberal attitude which sufficiently disguises traditional Leftist Redistributionism as a market-friendly, Third Way moderate social philosophy which wants to use the means of successful Capitalism to accomplish the ends of Benign Utopian Socialism. A New Democrat encourages Market success so it might be regulated into traditional redistributionist social programs to help the very victims that the old-fashioned Democrats created. A New Democrat is an old Socialist with a new look and the same old goals: Che Guevara with a shave and a credit card, Jane Fonda waving an American flag, Karl Marx with a stock portfolio.

Posted by: markpeters.ca at August 17, 2006 10:38 AM

'Canadian Values': A method of discrimination and ultimately a questioning of citizenship brought against all who oppose the collective Trudeau/Liberal/Socialist values.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at August 17, 2006 10:54 AM

Tolerance: CELEBRATING the opposing or different attitude / actions / lifestyle of another.

Posted by: Hassle at August 17, 2006 10:57 AM

the religion definition is the one that rings most true.....why the hard left would ever embrace hard-core fundamental islamists is beyond me...they practically excuse all the intolerance towards gays, bi's, women etc. just because they hate america...the country that butters our bread....very strange times indeed

Posted by: kingstonlad at August 17, 2006 11:50 AM

The list is also missing "Social Democrat". Although, lefties are backing away from this self description ever since Slobodan Milosevic and his "Social Democratic Party" committed genocide in the 1990's.

I am actually still waiting for the left to come out and declare that Slobodan Milosevic wasn't a "real" Social Democrat, he was actually a "right-winger" using the Social Democrat name to gain credibility, blah, blah, blah. You know, the same garbage they spout off about whenever a Socialist commits genocide.

Posted by: Trent at August 17, 2006 12:01 PM

they also avoid the reference to the "national socialist party" which was very into government control.

Posted by: cal2 at August 17, 2006 12:09 PM

flashback..early 80's....base defence force readied for protest regarding american issues...canadian base...all these crazy lefties accusing me of being a baby murderer...just because we were standing up to the commie threat posed by uncle ivan..must be their children who are marching for the hesbos today...answered my own question

Posted by: kingstonlad at August 17, 2006 12:18 PM

What about 'progressive'? That's how the Liberals/NDP self-define themselves. They set up the term as 'progressive' in opposition to 'conservative'.

But in actual fact, Liberals/NDP are 'regressive'. Their policies are firmly 19th century, pre WWI and WWII, based around early industrialism which was rooted in the old agricultural class system. The 19th century socialism meant to demolish this old agricultural infrastructure and empower the workers.

Fine - this led to the rise of the unions, and the rise of a notion of centralized gov't devoted to reducing wealth levels and enforcing a one-level of wealth society. That is both utopian (i.e., fictional) and dysfunctional. You wouldn't have any capacity to develop an investor class - and a centralized political system such as a gov't is a notoriously bad agent for investing funds; it will use rather than invest and rapidly becomes corrupt.

Unions have moved out of their function, as gov't systems took over their original tasks. Unions are now parasitic emplyment agencies, with their own employees and Big Bosses, all paid for out of the wages of the workers!

So, the Liberals/NDP socialist platforms, which they self-define as 'progressive' are actually Regressive. Back to the 19th century.

Posted by: ET at August 17, 2006 12:36 PM

Entry: A for sassy Ann. ...-

A Defense of Ann Coulter (a liberals defends Coulter?!)
The New Republic ^ | August 15, 2006 | Elspeth Reeve

For six months, I was the only liberal on Line Three. It was in an assembly line in a small town in a dark red state, and I worked the second shift with mandatory overtime, which meant the only humans I ever saw were my fellow button-pushers and sticker-application specialists. The choice between soul-searching monotony and political shouting matches was not a hard one to make, especially after September 11. And, to avoid being trampled by the majority, I had to play dirty, to use the kinds of lines that kill political careers: about coat hangers, say, or about how Jesus was a liberal. It always helped to have a few seconds of stunned silence to let my point sink in.

Of course, when it became too obvious that I was winning the argument, my darling male coworkers would simply change the subject to my ass. I daydreamed about discussing dead French guys with super-smart people when I got to college, where I could wear horn-rimmed glasses and never have to keep my backside pressed against the inventory. What a letdown it was to discover that college students were not all that different from my friends on Line Three. Neither, by the way, is Washington, where always-waiting-to-talk types need to be bitch slapped out of their robotic-pundit routines, and where political conversations often pivot back to appearances.

That is why I love Ann Coulter. Coulter shocks and offends, but underneath her offensiveness is a grain of truth that people cope with by critiquing her hair. Americans like comfort: comfort food, comfort shoes, comfort pundits to reinforce everything we already believe. Ann Coulter is not comfort. I love that she pisses people off. I love her outsized confidence, rare in females who've gone through puberty, which means she doesn't turn into a pile of stuttering mush when an interview turns to her body. I love the way her face flickers devilishly for just a second when an interviewer wraps his own noose--the joy tinged with a bit of sadness, as if to say, Oh what fun this is, but do you have to make it so easy?

Yes, yes, Coulter has said some terrible things. But I don't think it's the terrible things that really bother liberals. Coulter makes us cringe not when she lies, but when she says things we wish weren't true. Let's go to the tape. Asked to define the First Amendment: "An excuse for overweight women to dance in pasties and The New York Times to commit treason." Just completely terrible, I know. But I have to admit, I giggled--having recently covered a pro-choice rally where I interviewed a very nice young woman whose ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685347/posts

Posted by: maz2 at August 17, 2006 1:23 PM

Entry: A for sassy Ann. ...-

A Defense of Ann Coulter (a liberals defends Coulter?!)
The New Republic ^ | August 15, 2006 | Elspeth Reeve

For six months, I was the only liberal on Line Three. It was in an assembly line in a small town in a dark red state, and I worked the second shift with mandatory overtime, which meant the only humans I ever saw were my fellow button-pushers and sticker-application specialists. The choice between soul-searching monotony and political shouting matches was not a hard one to make, especially after September 11. And, to avoid being trampled by the majority, I had to play dirty, to use the kinds of lines that kill political careers: about coat hangers, say, or about how Jesus was a liberal. It always helped to have a few seconds of stunned silence to let my point sink in.

Of course, when it became too obvious that I was winning the argument, my darling male coworkers would simply change the subject to my ass. I daydreamed about discussing dead French guys with super-smart people when I got to college, where I could wear horn-rimmed glasses and never have to keep my backside pressed against the inventory. What a letdown it was to discover that college students were not all that different from my friends on Line Three. Neither, by the way, is Washington, where always-waiting-to-talk types need to be bitch slapped out of their robotic-pundit routines, and where political conversations often pivot back to appearances.

That is why I love Ann Coulter. Coulter shocks and offends, but underneath her offensiveness is a grain of truth that people cope with by critiquing her hair. Americans like comfort: comfort food, comfort shoes, comfort pundits to reinforce everything we already believe. Ann Coulter is not comfort. I love that she pisses people off. I love her outsized confidence, rare in females who've gone through puberty, which means she doesn't turn into a pile of stuttering mush when an interview turns to her body. I love the way her face flickers devilishly for just a second when an interviewer wraps his own noose--the joy tinged with a bit of sadness, as if to say, Oh what fun this is, but do you have to make it so easy?

Yes, yes, Coulter has said some terrible things. But I don't think it's the terrible things that really bother liberals. Coulter makes us cringe not when she lies, but when she says things we wish weren't true. Let's go to the tape. Asked to define the First Amendment: "An excuse for overweight women to dance in pasties and The New York Times to commit treason." Just completely terrible, I know. But I have to admit, I giggled--having recently covered a pro-choice rally where I interviewed a very nice young woman whose ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685347/posts

Posted by: maz2 at August 17, 2006 1:25 PM

"Solution" to AIDS = "Safer sex" with a condom.

That's like saying that the cure for diseases caused by smoking is to smoke only 'lite' cigarettes and the cure to alcoholism is to drink half a bottle of vodka instead of a whole one.


Posted by: 'been around the block at August 17, 2006 3:58 PM

The Liberal Lexicon A Conservative's Dictionary of Libberish
( Dictionary of Political Correctness )


F:


Free Speech: The Constitutionally guaranteed shield from behind which Liberals may strike out with the swords of misinformation, lies, and hate. The Third Way Sociologists' dream of Worldwide Fascist Liberalism is too important to risk in a fair battle of facts, so Liberals must disguise their intentions with every semantic veneer and smokescreen possible to make their cause appear just and benign. Because their goal is so essentially noble that it cannot be threatened by the disgusting character of their leaders, Liberals must simultaneously hide the faults of, and utterly destroy the enemies of, those high placed crusaders of the Faith. Lies, obfuscation, denials of criminal behavior, slander, physical threats, the re-defining of basic grammatical concepts, Politically Corrected language, disinformation, hysterical ravings, revised history, verbal bullying, and the informational pollution known as "Spin" are all pressed into the Liberal's service under the rubric of "Free Speech." From behind this shield, every vile and unethical language crime may be perpetrated on behalf of the Leftists' agenda. Bile and venom and vitriol are not Hate Speech if perpetrated by Democrats. They're Free Speech. ...-
http://www.seanbryson.com/articles/liberal_lexicon.html

Posted by: maz2 at August 17, 2006 5:04 PM

The author of the Lefty Lexicon has been suspended from his job for writing it. He has been accused of, by his definition, "the worst crime ever conceived of." I will leave it up to you to guess the name of the "religious" group that is making accusations of racism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/17/uorange.xml

Posted by: TimR at August 17, 2006 5:39 PM

I'm a social democrat and sure as hell not a marxist. You right wing bloggers had better look up what a Facist,racist and homophobic are because you sure as hell don't have a clue how to apply these phrases.

Posted by: ok4ua at August 17, 2006 6:09 PM

And God bless you, too, ok4u!

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 17, 2006 6:12 PM

ok4u,

So, you supported the "ethnic cleansing" that the Social Democrats executed under Slobodan Milosevic? Or was Slobodan not REALLY a Socila Democrat?

Posted by: Trent at August 17, 2006 6:31 PM

He was a right wing Facist. Get with the program. He can call himself whatever he likes. He's still a Nazi facist. The Nazis and communist hate socialists. The Nazis called themselves socialist. They were Facists. So was Mussolini,Hitler,Frano and Hirihito.

Posted by: ok4ua at August 17, 2006 6:53 PM

Hitler wasnt he the leader of the German Workers Socialist Party?

Posted by: FREE at August 17, 2006 7:53 PM

ok4u,

So what you are saying is that all of these nut jobs calling themselves Socialists are really right-wingers just "incognito" so that they soil the good name of Socialism? Fascinating.

I was wondering, could you tell me if Hugo Chavez is a "poser", or is he really a Socialist? You know, call the psycho BEFORE he goes completely nuts.

Posted by: Trent at August 17, 2006 7:53 PM

FREE,

The left-wing has long ago decided that Hitler was a right-winger, posing as a Socialist. It seems to happen quite often.

Actually, pretty much every psycho in the last 100 years to commit genocide was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to destroy the good name of Socialism.

Any left-wing blogosphere can go on in great detail about this conspiracy to destroy the good name of Socialism, so surf around a bit FREE, you will find it very informative.

I am not sure if there was a meeting or convention or something to decide this enormous conspiracy, it is global, after all, but it seems to be standing the test of time.

I am sure that George W. Bush and Stephen Harper are involved.

Posted by: Trent at August 17, 2006 8:00 PM

Nuance- a word that means absolutely nothing,usually used in the phrase"did you watch the nuance cbc"

Posted by: wallyj at August 17, 2006 8:31 PM

Bigot - someone who expects a member of a visible minority who happens to be a criminal - to be punished.

Neo-Con - someone who will not let moonbat bullshit stand unchallenged.

OMMAG

Posted by: OMMAG at August 17, 2006 8:58 PM

The left will redefine words to fit their own agenda and use them as weapons of personal and political destruction.

I have been, for a while now, collecting the weapons they drop when they flee from intellectual confrontation and am using them against them to quite devastating effect.

Fighting fire with fire... as promised.

I will continue, for sure.

Whenever the left uses a name or label against you, you must take that same name or label and use it right back at them.

They started it long ago. Eventually the good guys fight back... like with the Crusades (after centuries of invasions and killings by Muslim armies into Christian lands) and with Israel now with Hezbollah/Lebanon.

Leftism is always unsustainable. We saw it with the USSR, with East Europe, etc. We saw it in the defeat of the Democrats and the Liberals. That which is based on falsehoods and doesn't conform to reality eventually succumbs to reality, which is unbeatable.

Conservatism, conversely, is about reality, which is why it continues and always comes back, elected by popular vote.

Leftism arises out of human weakness, decadence and lack of intellect.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at August 17, 2006 9:36 PM

Conservatism is a self centred party for the upper 10% of sosiety always has been always will be. Religion is a crock but on the other hand Jesus was a socialist who attcked everything you tories stand for. Think about it. Fools like George W Harper and his evil twin George W Bush believe that god talks to them and favours them. My leader talks to god. Who's more dangerous? The only good thing to come out of religion is the music. All you dangerous people use god. Religion is like UFO's and ghosts...........it's not real.

Posted by: ok4ua at August 17, 2006 9:51 PM

Wow,I made the upper 10% of society.Who would've ever thunk that.I think it is time someone had thier meds.

Posted by: wallyj at August 17, 2006 10:01 PM

Sweet dreams, ok4ua.

And thank your lucky stars the founders and builders of this country weren't nihilists like you. All the good you're using up and take for granted in this country rests on the moral capital of our Christian forbears. That's a fact and you're an ungrateful, exploitative parasite.

Posted by: lookout at August 17, 2006 10:05 PM

for me, that moment of irreconcilable confusion and dismay, that ....??....?????????.... ah geez..... momnet came when Zaneda Akande (sp) a black woman in the rae cabinet had the termidity to actually OWN RENTAL PROPERTY and got rode out of said cabinet position on a rail.

fercrissake dear socialist, *dont you want your own kind in those kinds of positions of authority to see that tenants are treated fairly ???????*

apparently not.

I couldnt get around the uncountable contradictions in that single event and gave up on the whole idea of socialism then and there.

it was around the time I came up with the term 'politishun'.

Posted by: RobertJ at August 17, 2006 10:49 PM

Great post by maz2 on Ann Coulter back about 12 posts. If you haven't read it,do so. It describes the deception,diversion and denial of the "progressives" that live,breathe and unfortunately breed amongst us. Short, to the point,and true.

Posted by: wallyj at August 18, 2006 12:02 AM

With regard to the left vs. right, I no longer picture fascism and communism a zillion miles removed from each other. Instead the political spectrum is really in the shape of a horseshoe, with fascism and communism occupying each end, not opposite at all, almost overlapping one another.

Posted by: tower at August 18, 2006 9:30 AM

socialism is just 'progressive-speak' for communist. Read the original CCF manifesto and you will see it for yourself. It wasn't even partially obscured communism. Many years hence, when the CCF morphed into the NDP, the hard-line commies were disgusted by the 'appearant' watering down of the Marxist doctrine...in actual fact, they changed the wording a bit, but the message was the same. That's why the NDP will never win a federal election..any close scrutiny will bare the real agenda of the communist ideals.....the rich should be stripped of their hard-earned money for it is a crime to the socialists to be successful....beam me up Scotty....

Posted by: arctic_front at August 18, 2006 12:04 PM

"Conservatism is a self centred party for the upper 10% of sosiety"

Damn and here I am cab driver who doesnt even make minimum wage.

ok4ua your a lying bag of shit!!!!!

Posted by: FREE at August 18, 2006 12:57 PM

Hey gang,

You should really start looking at the history books before spouting that kinda stuff (no insults here, I just think you're wrong). While in the early days of the CCF the Regina Manifesto did resemble a communist type document the party moved towards a more open economy during the 2nd world war (and did take flack from party members who were a little more rabid like Harold Winch, CCF leader in BC, and others mostly in west but this is way before the change to NDP you describe above). You should also check out the history of the CCF and NDP in rooting out communists from the party and unions, if you'd like to get more information read a couple of chapters of "The Good Fight" by David Lewis. It also give a good explanation of how it was the Liberals, not the CCF, who were in bed with the commies early on though this is backed up in may other sources as well. You can also read about his hatred of communists, their tactics and ploys to keep social democracy down (squeezed on the left, squeezed on the right) and about how his father faced execution from the commies which is why his family fled Poland when he was 12. Just a little history that you can take as you like, after all the party has move quite far since then and has become even more open to the market style economy.

I'll let you guys froth a little more now. Not even sure why I'm here, I hate these kind of message boards (both left and right) as no one has any reasonable discourse to offer, not even the blogger himself... just look at how stuipd this actual post is - remember kids, Tory = Always right and good here, Socialist = always bad (of course it's the opposite on the lefty blogs but really, you're all the same). Nothing positive comes out of this stuff. You can attack me all you want here as well, I won't be coming back to defend so have a ball.

Posted by: Jones at August 18, 2006 1:32 PM

Jones,

Did you skip over the part of CCF history when Tommy Douglas embraced Grant C. Daniels - a well known Klansman - to run his early campaigns?

If you really read the history of the CCF/NDP, and not just the talking points put forth at the last NDP convention, you would be very reluctant to ever mention it.

Posted by: Trent at August 18, 2006 2:43 PM

Communists hate socialist and are not "left wing" but extreme right wing. There were a lot more Tory KKK than any Tommy Douglas supporters. Back then everyone feared eastern europeans,catholics,Jews,french and anyone else who wasn't Anglo Saxon. That's history and you Tories and the SaskaTories are ashamed of that.
Go piss up a rope. You don't have a clue about what happened 80 years ago. No one is left who remembers those times. You can try a rewrite history all you want. George Orwell was right. Oh and by the way he was Jewish. Was he a biggot? He was a socialist Jew. Imagine that.

Posted by: ok4ua at August 18, 2006 2:58 PM

Hey Mister Cab Drive the Tories are not going to help you that is a fact. You're a legend in your own mind.

Posted by: ok4ua at August 18, 2006 3:00 PM

Ok, so I had to come back just to see what was written and now I feel obliged to post just to further the point I finished up with last time.

Trent comes back, makes no remark or decent comment on anything I said and just jumps to another CCF/NDP bashing point which had no relationship to what I said. My remarks about the history of the party were based on comments made above, not just some knee-jerk reaction with no decent argument but here are a few talking points for your rambling non-sequitur.

Yes, Tommy had a few bad people on his campaign and yes, he did write his university thesis on engenics which is a very dark spot on the history of an otherwise bright and caring man. I remember this was brought up in the sun again recently to show how the left wants to control peoples lives (then again, Tommy never put this into practice and gave up these views before he became premier of Saskatchewan... though it was the social credit in Alberta who did put it into practice - the father of our modern Tory party [with the PCs being the mother who died after birth] Did his bill of rights in Saskatchewan give or take away rights from Blacks, Jews, other minorities? I know he had written some letters regardinig the Japanese being imprisoned in WWII which do not reflect well today unlike Angus MacInnis who took a stand in a province where people where calling for their blood, a brave and nobel deed). I also think Woodsworth's views on pacificism where naive but that does not stop me from admiring a man who went through life with very little and only wanted to help people (refusing himself any kind of privilege). ok4ua also brings up a good point about the Tories and the KKK, at least a response to the previous post and on topic, which appeared just before Dief took lead of the party in that province I believe... but still there's little to go on there.

I'm sorry that I did not give a full view of party history along with my post and bring up only the negative points of the party (of which there are many unlike your Conservative party which has always been perfect, right?). Also sorry for coming back here, as you can see I'm not totally one sided on these points and am willing to discuss, just not to be hounded by people who can only see in one dimension.

Sorry for coming back and wasting your time, I can tell you don't want someone like me (a lefty who is not just going to attack you so you can call them National socialists [you really think that the NDP are nazis and want to ruin the country? - I would never say Harper is a Nazi unless he started goose-stepping and slapped on the swastika]) posting here anyway. You have my word that I won't be replying again.

Remember, (and you probably won't believe it) we have a lot more in common then we have differences... I think that was Broadbent before he left the HOC for the last time. Now bring on the Broadbent was a facist and baby eater posts (and make sure they're just a couple of lines, another reason I'm sure I'm not welcome... long posts with some ideas though I'm not claiming to be more in-the-know than anyone here... probably less).

Enjoy.

Posted by: Jones at August 18, 2006 3:44 PM

Another leftie word, Insurgent-A non-threating word that describes an Islamic nutbar who straps explosives to himself to blow up innocent market-goers,shopkeepers,the unemployed,ETC.

Posted by: wallyj at August 18, 2006 5:13 PM

Jones & ok4ua,

What? How did George Orwell get brought into this? I assume that you are either referring to 1984 or Animal Farm, or both.

I have found that the left is bound and determined to completely rewrite history in their own favor, you two more than prove that.

Posted by: Trent at August 18, 2006 5:44 PM

Montreal sex workers (and other outsiders) bring their message to the Toronto AIDS conference. ctv.ca


Sex Worker(s): Prostitute(s).

Other Outsiders: Pimp(s), madam(s), ...

Their Message: $$$$$$$$$$ ...

Posted by: maz2 at August 18, 2006 6:07 PM

That's a Tory for you always blaming someone else for their mistakes. You should change your name like our SaskaTory party did and hope no one remembers your crooked past. And quit trying to take credit for the good things the NDP have done over the years. Your party is a party of Kooks!!!

Posted by: 0k4ua at August 19, 2006 1:40 PM

Extreme Right is left extreme left is right. Think about it!!!!!

Posted by: ok4ua at August 21, 2006 12:27 AM

"Intolerance - Intolerance can only committed against certain defined groups of people. These do not include, Americans, the middle class, white manual workers, rural people, business and Christians obviously."
-and-
Intolerance can only be committed by certain defined groups of people. These include Americans, the middle class, white manual workers, rural people, business and Christians. Notwithstanding that actions, which appear to be intolerant and would be intolerant if committed by one of the defined groups, are committed by a member of the self selected progressive left, such actions, by definition cannot be 'intolerant' because such persons, by definition, *cannot*, ever, ever, ever by 'intolerant'. Such a perception on the part of a member of the really intolerant is just another instance of said intolerant persons base and irremedial vileness.


"GUN CONTROL" A more effective description of 'Victim Disarmament', a continuing process whereby the progressive statist left intends to ensure the paramountcy of the nanny state, by denying the right to self defence, starting with any possible truly effective method thereof.

Posted by: RG at August 21, 2006 3:56 PM

"Extreme Right is left extreme left is right. Think about it!!!!!"


Nope. Extreme right is still right. Extreme left is still left. They only overlap in that, at the extreme, both believe that the ends always justifies the means, and that the individual is always worth less than the party/the state/the religion. Of course, that soon becomes 'the individual is worthless'...and if you are of the wrong party/state/religion, that was always believed to be a self evident truth.

Posted by: RG at August 21, 2006 4:01 PM

Well, I am back again (I'm sure you're all thrilled) but only to call Trent a f#$king a$$hole. Did you even read my posts you tool? When the f$%k did I say anything about Orwell? I have found that the right is bound and determined to completely rewrite comments in their own favor, you t#ats more than prove that.

There, I sunk to your level... I know you're happy.

Posted by: Jones at August 23, 2006 6:41 PM
Site
Meter