In an earlier post today, I talked about John McCain's lie that Obama would raise taxes, implicitly and explicitly offering himself as a alternative, who won't raise taxes. The actual general consensus is that both Obama and McCain will cut taxes. The question is, who will cut taxes more? As this Washington Post chart shows, Obama's cuts for lower-income brackets are larger than McCain's, while McCain's highest cuts are for the very top income brackets, those comprising the top 1% of incomes. Obama, on the other hand, has planned a tax increase for the top 1% of earners.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, the Washington Post's chart gives a "average cut" percentage that makes no sense (McCain -2%, Obama -.3%). It appears that they added up the average tax cut percentage for each bracket, and then divided by the number of brackets. This would make sense if each bracket represented the same number of people, but the brackets most decidedly do not. Even given their "straight average" strategy, their numbers are wrong; they flipped the sign on Obama's average, writing -.3% instead of .3%.

This data calls not for a straight arithmetic mean, but a weighted average. Which I have calculated in the chart below (which anyone is free to use on their blog if they obtain permission), thanks to this comment by Zach of Alchemy Today, which tells us what the brackets represent.



The average was calculated by weighting the percentage cuts according to the population they represent (20% x -5.5, 20% x -3.6, et cetera) and then taking the average. The result is an accurate representation of the average tax cut under both McCain and Obama's plan, which shows that the average tax cut under Obama plan is almost three times that under McCain's plan.

The Washington Post should issue a retraction or correction. Its chart is misleading and incorrect. Their "average cut" percentage figures proclaim that on average, the tax cut under McCain's plan would be greater, when in fact it is Obama's plan that would provide the greater average tax cut.

I want to make two points:

1) John McCain is a liar. The campaign, and McCain himself, have repeated over and over again that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes, and the media has uncritically reported it. Given John McCain's track record lately for telling the truth, I don't really want to take his word for it. Instaed, let's have a look at this tax-plan chart, from Chartjunk:



Is there more blue surface area on the chart, or more red surface area? First one to guess correctly wins a John McCain condom (not really, I never could get my hands on one).

2) The Washington Post doesn't understand averages. Contemplate this chart, covering the same data, linked here before:


It shows proposed tax cuts for various income brackets under Obama and McCain. As discussed at ChartJunk, the chart is flawed because it gives an equal amount of space to each bracket. However, what's worse is that the "Average Cut" percentages at the bottom makes no sense. What did they do to calculate the 'Average Cut' percentage? They added together the nine numbers above and divided by nine. But that's idiotic. That's why we have something called a "weighted average," which is what you use when you have data points that apply to different-sized groups of objects. The WaPo's method is like saying: If 10 people are given a hundred dollars and 1 person gets $0, the average received by the eleven people is $50.

The "Average Cut" percentage (-2% versus -0.3%) is not just misleading, it's wrong. It proclaims that John McCain will lower taxes overall more than Barack Obama will, when in fact just the opposite is true. Barack Obama's tax plan proposes larger cuts for the income brackets with the most people in them, and in fact, his tax cut is only smaller for the top 20% of earners. So let's recap: larger tax cut (than McCain) for 80% of the population, smaller tax cut (than McCain) for 20% of the population. I don't have the population numbers at hand (if someone gives me a link, I'll be happy to calculate the actual average), but what I've just said makes it clear (given the small difference margins) that the average tax cut under Obama will be higher than under McCain.

Let John McCain continue to proclaim that Barack Obama will raise taxes, and let's keep harping on his lies. Even now, his advisor are starting to sputter. Here, Tucker Bounds basically admits that Obama's plan will cut taxes more than McCain's, but that basically we should ignore his tax plan because "he's voted for tax increases in the Senate." Apparently Megyn Kelly is giving Obama "too much credit" by comparing McCain's plan to Obama's plan, rather than comparing McCain's plan to unfounded and untrue statements about Barack Obama. Isn't this supposed to be Fox News?



All via Yglesias.

UPDATE: Madeleine points out in comments that the dollar amount of the "Average" cut isn't a straight average of what's above it. She's right. I should have clarified that I was talking about the percentage average being a straight rather than a weighted average. Post edited above to make it clearer.

As for the raw dollar "average cut," I'm really not sure where the hell those numbers came from, and you're right, it's not a straight average of what's above it. Maybe they took their fake "average cut percentage" and calculated how many dollars that would be off the median income? Or got those numbers from somewhere else?

In which case, their chart is even more screwed up than I thought.

McCain's statement that the fundamentals of our economy are strong: is he completely stupid, or is he actually losing his mind?

It does kind of seem like he can no longer remember facts or do simple math.

Update: hahahahahahaha.

McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
ad_icon

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market.

P.S. I am sorry I posted this right over the post below; I meant it to go up later today but hit the wrong button.

Labels: election '08, John "100 years" McCain, the economy

In case you already weren't worried enough that Sarah Palin doesn't give a flying fuck about sexual assault victims, the McCain campaign is here to remedy that right quick.

First, the story breaks that under Palin's watch, Wasilla women who went to the police saying that they had been sexually assaulted by a man, were charged for the rape kit. In case anyone doesn't know, a rape kit is an exam done for the purpose of collecting and preserving evidence--it's not a medical procedure. And yet, despite the fact that it's similar to collecting fingerprints, taking photos of a crime scene, or doing ballistics analysis, the city of Wasilla insisted on charging women, or their insurance companies, for the kit, rather than using city funds. As of today, neither McCain, Palin, nor anyone on either of their staff teams has commented on this story. What's the problem—too ridiculous to dignify with a response? Hardly, especially when the former Governor, Tony Knowles, has acknowledged that Wasilla was the only town in Alaska doing it. Prompting the state legislature to pass a law forbidding them from doing so.

And yet, silence. However, the McCain campaign was nice enough to give us a rape-related nugget today, though there's nary a word about the rape kit controversy. Instead, they brought up rape when talking about Troopergate, the controversy where Palin allegedly had the Department of Public Safety Commissioner, Walter Monegan, fired because he wouldn't fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law.

Palin didn't fire Monegan because of her sister's ex-husband, the McCain campaign reassures us. No, actually, it was because Monegan had the gall to seek federal funding for a program to attack Alaska's problem with sexual assault. What's Alaska's problem with sexual assualt? It's got the highest rape rate in the country, a title it's held for a while. And Monegan wanted to do something about it. And the McCain campaign has no problem asserting that that's the reason he was fired:

The last straw, the McCain campaign said, was in July, when Monegan planned to travel to Washington to seek federal money for a plan to assign troopers, judges and prosecutors who could exclusively handle sexual assault cases — one of the state's most intractable crime problems.

Sarah Palin to rapists: Don't worry, guys, I got this one.

So the WSJ presumes to explain why feminists hate Sarah Palin. Consider me baited, Cathy Young: let me tell you why *this* feminist--feminists being, you know, not all the same, any more than women are all the same--hates Sarah Palin. Oh, and that "not all the same" thing? We'll get back to that; it's a key point.

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher.

Liberals generally dislike conservative policies and the politicians who support them. Big surprise. Even women, if they are liberal, will dislike conservative women politicians because--here's that key point--women are not interchangable. This point is why the SNL sketch was funny. Just in case you didn't get that.

Moreover! Feminists, in general, dislike--not "have a hard time dealing with", "dislike"--conservative women, where conservatism means things like "opposes women's reproductive rights" and "opposes support for single mothers." That kind of thing being, y'know, central to the point of feminism, which is a political movement that aims to promote the rights and equality of women as a class. Which isn't the same, by the way, as promoting every single individual woman. This should be obvious, but if you have a hard time with that whole "women aren't all the same" concept, it's a big leap to really *get* that.

Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

Unlike "truly unhinged," which isn't the least bit misogynist, oh no.

On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

Those examples are indeed misogynist and sexist. Many feminists will freely admit that women can be sexist, too. Given that sexism is kind of embedded in our culture, it's difficult to come up with ways to express anger at or about women that *aren't* sexist, actually.

You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family.

No, see, there's a difference between supporting a *principle* and supporting every single individual who happens to benefit from that principle. Again: a stretch, I know, but just repeat after me: "individual women are individuals; they are not representative of All Women Everywhere."

Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother.

See upthread, re. women being capable of being sexist, too. Even feminists. What with sexism being culturally ingrained and all.

Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.

Mmmmm, that's not *quite* the argument. Let us keep reading to see what the argument actually is, shall we?

In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker.

Mmm-hm. I, for one, seriously doubt that the "help" of Todd Palin (and why is he just "helping," given that they're his kids too?) is the only assistance Sarah Palin's getting with raising five kids, including a special-needs baby. Call me crazy, but as the mother of just one kid, I just sort of doubt it.

But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."

That's not Goodman's problem. It's Goodman's argument. Which isn't that Sarah Palin is "too good at having it all." It's that Sarah Palin has the same needs other women do, but that she refuses to support policies that would supply them to women who, unlike herself, don't have large extended families, husbands with good-paying flexible work, jobs of their own that pay well and require very few hours, and lots and lots of money to pay for help if and when those other things aren't enough.

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles."

Oh rilly??? You don't say.

Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

Right, well, again: this is a good argument, is it not? Most people aren't making a solid 200k/year, as the Palin family reportedly is. And most people who do live in far, far more expensive cities than Wasalia, AK. Why not address the claim here, rather than trying to ignore the actual substantive issue by hiding behind the "but Sarah Palin's a woman!!!" nonsense?

Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing.

Marrying "down" is indeed a very smart thing to do if you are highly ambitious, as Palin is. Men have known this for years. But should *all* women who want both a family and a career "pick" a partner who is "able" to take on "equal responsibility" for raising his own children? Why is it the responsibility of women to find men like this? Why do we not hear people telling men that if *they* want a career and a family, they should pick partners who will be able to take on equal responsibility for children?

Oh right, because we still assume that child-rearing is women's first and most natural job, and that having kids *and* a career is optional (for women). A luxury we're only allowed if we make good "choices" like "picking" men who will care for their own children.

Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly

Indeed. And assumptions like the ones I was just explaining are a big reason why.

-- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?

Why? Because he's Alaskan? Because he snowmobiles? Because he works on an oil rig? Because he makes six figures? I'm kind of feeling like maybe there are some unarticulated lingering perceptions about manliness underlying this idea that Todd Palin is the best man for smashing the sexist presumption that men can't take care of kids.

Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man."

Bullshit. Read Warner's column again; the "great man" referred to isn't Todd Palin, who isn't so much as mentioned in Warner's piece. It's John McCain.

Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support.

McCain's running for VP under Palin now?

Isn't that real feminism?

What, tokenism? No, actually, it isn't. Nor is misrepresenting the arguments of others, as it happens.

Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government.

See above, in re. "feminism is a political movement." The government would therefore be the proper focus of it, yes, just as it is for all political movements.

In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not.

False dichotomy. Actually feminists support both tax breaks and regulatory reform for home-based care providers. See, for instance, Obama's amendment to H.R. 796, "To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty."

Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist.

Yes, it is. And in fact there's quite a bit of evidence of remaining discrimination. Including the structural discrimination of how full-time work is defined, and the social discrimination of letting men as a class off the hook in re. caring for their own children--see above.

Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."

Part-time and flexible jobs are awesome--if they provide benefits, and if they are what workers are actually looking for. Where people want or need full-time employment in order to, oh, say earn a living wage or provide health care for their families, expanding "opportunities" for them to work as temps or part-timers is bullshit.

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights.

That's mighty big of you.

But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.

Real individualist feminists wouldn't expect all feminists to approve of all political agendas, as long as they're being espoused by some woman somewhere.

Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's qualifications.

Again, mighty big of you to acknowledge this. Why not write an article about Palin's qualifications or lack thereof, rather than one about why feminists should be supporting her--especially since you're allowing that there are, in fact, legitimate reasons not to do so?

And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.

Well, sure; being rich is really, really liberating. The problem is that most Americans--and especially most American women--aren't rich. And yes, talking about that and figuring out what the government--you know, the one that's supposed to be by, of, and for the people, including the women people--should actually *do* about that fact isn't nearly as easy as writing yet another half-assed article about what's wrong with feminists.

But no one ever said that democracy was supposed to be easy.


Anyway, yeah. So that's why this feminist bitch hates Palin. Because her presence on the ticket is being used to make bullshit arguments like that one. Because she's a token. Because she, and her handlers, refuse to acknowledge that she's a token. Because the party for which she is running, and the policies she supports, and the presidential ticket she's on, actively promote a political agenda that's inimical to feminism. Because feminism isn't, and never has been, about supporting every single thing every woman everywhere does. Because there is a difference between women as a class and women as individuals.

Because I, with my very own personal brain, think that Palin is underqualified; that she's more likely than most v.p. candidates to actually end up running the country, given McCain's age and state of health; because I viscerally dislike being condescended to; because I viscerally dislike being told what to think; because I viscerally dislike it when people try to do an end-run around my principles and throw in a ringer and tell me that a spade's a freaking laurel wreath.

And you know what? Maybe, just a little bit, because being told that the amateurish, untaught beauty queen is the feminine, feminist ideal, the best women can aspire to be--YET AGAIN--is seriously fucking irritating.

Labels: election '08, feminism, insufferable smugness, sexism

God, I wish this blog were a monthly magazine with money and lots of contributors. You know, I have been a reader of this blog since way before I was ever a blogger, where I would link to Bitch's posts from my livejournal adoringly, 'cause I thought she was kickass. And continues to be. And now that there's Sybil and ding, well shit, I'm just proud as punch to be a part of it.

Anyway, there is an actual Bitch, the magazine. You know, before I knew much about much, I tried to subscribe to Bitch, but I got confused and ended up subscribing to Bust instead. Not. The. Same.

Bitch keeps it real. It's a feminist magazine, and although I've disagreed with a lot of stuff in there, it's consistently entertaining and interesting, and basically never wants to make me tear my hair out, like, say this article in the Wall Street Journal, or Sarah Palin, or Tucker Carlson.

And as you can see right there on the top of the website, Bitch needs forty grand by October 15 not to fold. So I'm finally doing what I should've done ages ago, and subscribing to the damn magazine. I may not buy it off the newsstand every time it comes out, but I buy it about half the time, and it's a magazine I want to continue existing (interesting note: they file it in the "Culture" section at Borders instead of the "Women's Interest" section. What do we make of that?)

If you've got a little money to spare, $5 or $10, consider throwing it their way, so they don't die off. It'd be sad to see that bitch go.

Via Latoya at Feministe.

As a particularly insightful friend noted today, wouldn't now be just the right time for some well-meaning 527 to start running ads about the Keating 5? Just sayin'.

Poor judgement indeed.

Labels: election '08, financial crises, John "100 years" McCain

So I wrote a li'l column about the shift from t-t research university work to adjunct community college work over at Inside Higher Ed today. Check it out.

Labels: academia

I think you already know the answer.

Through this link, you can check your registration, find out your polling place, even register to vote. Pass it on.

Labels: election '08

Like B, and many of our readers, I've chosen a career in which it is astonishingly difficult to attain the job security that is so much ballyhooed, i.e. anything other than a one year contract. As I am currently enjoying a one year contract, it's time for me to get the academic job market on the brain. Again.

The internet has no shortage of people lamenting the impossibility and overall dumbness of the job market, I don't need to pitch in. What I do need is some advice, ideally from those of you who may have served on search committees recently. I'm thinking of using Interfolio for my applications this year. I upload documents, make requests, they send the stuff. This will streamline my process and, more importantly, will eliminate printing and post office-ing from my process. I am definitely using them for my letters of recommendation, as my own university's dossier service is unreliable, so I figure why not just have them send it all.

But here's why: I can upload my letters, my cover letters, on digital letterhead, but as near as I can tell, Interfolio will print them in black and white and on stock paper. Now, I figure applications are generally xeroxed by admins and distributed to search committee members, so at least the majority f not all of them get photocopies anyway. But - well, I don't know. I mean, why did I bother using the nice paper last year then? It sure as shit didn't get me a job, I can tell you that.

Is this a dumb thing to worry about? Can I get some opinions?

The annoying part of this, or one annoying part of this, is the fact that it is, categorically, a dumb thing to worry about. I mean, here I am, trying to figure out the best way to convey my very truly thoughtful ideas about teaching and my pedagogical goals, as well as my scholarship, which I take seriously. And I can't really focus past how much it matters that my letterhead be in color. I hate that the chances of getting a good job in this field are so very small that all comers have no choice but to nitpick and second guess the tiniest, most insignificant things. I hate that there will be so many applicants for each job I put in for that it very well may matter if my letterhead is in color, because there are only so many ways to whittle down the field. I hate that the MLA JIL is making me hate a time of year that had, prior to the last few years, meant mostly a joyous return to football season and taking back out my nice sweaters. Eff you, MLA JIL, and the horse you rode in on.

(But really, I'm still worried about the cover letters. Thoughts?)

Labels: academia, jobs

David Foster Wallace, suicide. I'm so sorry to hear it.

He brought the boyfriend and I together, indirectly--at least, it was our mutual admiration of his work that gave us the initial common ground that led to a three-year (!) and counting relationship. And I did so very much love reading what he wrote. I think this is the saddest any celebrity death has ever made me.

Via EotAW.

Labels: obituary

Labels: porn

Another Jack & Jill find. What can I say, they're energized over there.

If you want to help in Pennsylvania, here's where you can sign up.

And if Pennsylvania's not your thing, you can find out what's happening near you over at Obama's campaign site. Do some phone banking, register some new voters. Get your butts in gear.

Labels: election '08

via Too Sense and the Michigan Messenger comes the story that the Michigan GOP has obtained a list of foreclosure records and is planning to purge these eligible voters from the rolls, preventing them from being able to vote in November.

From the piece:

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

State election rules allow parties to assign “election challengers” to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they “have a good reason to believe” that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a “true resident of the city or township.”

Outrageous? Hearkening to a day gone by when only 'landowners' were allowed to vote? Horrifyingly heartless to prevent people most affected by this administration's current economic disaster from voting? Blatantly unconstitutional, in addition to being fundamentally asshatty?

Ah, Republicans - gleefully disenfranchising folks who've lost their homes.
What mavericks.

Labels: election '08, election 08, republicans, voting rights

It's funny that Bitch posted below that she doesn't give a shit that it's the anniversary of 9/11, because this is actually the first year I have given a shit that it's the anniversary of 9/11. I remember the first anniversary, where I was walking through the quad at my college, and there was a memorial of sorts, with singing, and patriotic speeches, and go-get-em rousing calls to action. I was disgusted and sad. I felt like I wanted to mourn what had happened, but there didn't seem to be any social acceptable way of mourning that didn't involve misguided calls for revenge.

9/11 "where I was" stories are a dime a dozen, and mine isn't particularly interesting. I found out about the attacks when I was walking through the student center on my way to class, a junior-level English course called, I think "Critical Theory and Practice for English Majors." I was a sophomore. It was a great course, my favorite that semester. When I got to class, the prof filled us in and said he was so upset that he didn't have the heart to hold class, and let us go. I went home, and snuggled up on the couch and watched CNN all day. I called my roommate at work and he came home early, my boyfriend stumbled out of bed (the three of us lived together), and we spent the afternoon sitting around watching the news. When it got dark, we went out to the patio/backyard and lit a fire in the giant ben-franklin-style stove the previous tenants had left. We played a few games of chess, as we did a lot that year, and smoked cigarette after cigarette. The smoke from the fire penetrated our hoodie sweatshirts and we drank a bottle of cheap wine and tried to parse what the events might mean.

I remember that I was very upset. Not just because of the people that died, but because I felt a great sense of impending doom. Not that I felt afraid for what would happen to America, but that I felt afraid for what America would do to the rest of the world. And I cursed the terrorists, cursed them not only for their hideous ideology and their callous use of innocent human lives for political gain—but for their indifference in the face of certain knowledge that their acts would unleash even greater violence against the people they were supposedly fighting for.

I remember sitting there, in front of the fire, with tears welling up in my eyes, and saying "it's going to get so, so much worse before it can ever get better." It's one of the few instances where I'm not happy to have been right.

And every year since then, I haven't really taken part in the annual discussions that seem to accompany the anniversary of the attacks. For a long time, I could remember only hideous things, like the way my classmates singled me out for being an Arab, and the way I felt scared, and the sign on my drive to school that read "God Bless America--Pray, Pledge, Punish."

But this year, I can think back and feel like maybe, just maybe, things are starting on that upswing that I feared was so far away. I feared it was ten, twenty, fifty years away. For all Barack Obama's problems, he's a candidate that I identify with strongly, and his rise to be a real contender made me feel hope even before Hope became the official campaign message. Both of us were raised by a single parent, both of us are mixed-race, both of us got to go to fancy private schools on scholarships, both of us were exposed to Islam without being Muslim. Both of us worked in poor communities, both of us went to law school. His story is more than just a great story, it's a story that makes sense to me.

And this winter, he just may get to be our president. Despite the he's-a-Muslim fear-mongering, despite his incendiary pastor, despite his blackness and his funny name. His candidacy has reminded me that there are many faces of patriotism, and one of them, the one that both Obama and I have, is a deep commitment to justice, fairness, helping the weak, and sticking to first principles.

So this year, I can remember that cool evening back in 2001 in front of the fire, and our conversation on the porch, and think that maybe, just maybe, we hit the bottom somewhere and we're starting to fight our way back up.

Labels: obama, the war on terrah

I really don't give a shit that it's the anniversary of 9/11.

Labels: US