Now this is a great political ad.
Death without dignity
No, the headline isn’t referring to I-1000 mentioned below, the sensible and humane statewide initiative that would allow physicians to (legally) prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients under narrow circumstances. Rather, I’m talking about Eric Alterman’s column in today’s Seattle P-I, chronicling the slow, sad death of our daily newspapers.
The flight of readers and advertisers to the Web has led to an unprecedented assault on stockholder value, making newspapers the investment equivalent of slow-motion seppuku.
For instance, on July 11 Alan Mutter’s invaluable Reflections of a Newsosaur blog reported that in “perhaps the worst single trading day ever” for the newspaper business, “the shares of seven publicly held newspaper companies today plunged to the(ir) lowest point in modern history.”
When losses continued to accelerate, Mutter calculated that newspaper stocks had shed $3.9 billion in value in just the first 10 trading days of July, leading to the disappearance of more than 35 percent of those companies’ combined stock price in 2008 alone.
It’s been nearly 2 1/2 years since the much-missed Molly Ivins observed of media moguls that, “for some reason, they assume people will want to buy more newspapers if they have less news in them and are less useful.”
And yet the strategy continues unabated.
The accountants may tell you that the logical thing to do is to cut expenses in line with declining revenue, but I’m pretty damn sure newspaper publishers would be better off heeding Ivans’ commonsense observations than those of the bean counters. The newspaper industry is in the midst of a rapid and dramatic transformation that does not have to lead to its death. Now is the time for innovation and risk taking; those who gamble right will win and thrive, while those who gamble wrong may perish. But those who don’t gamble at all—who merely continue to do the same old thing, but less of it—will slowly and surely drift off into oblivion, their own obituary dominating the front page of their final edition.
And that’s a death without dignity.
Personally, I’m rooting for the Times and the P-I to gamble right. I know there are some at those papers who take my relentless criticism as some form of deep seated hostility, but I’m a child of Watergate, an avid newspaper consumer who grew up idolizing reporters. Yeah, sure, I’m a tough critic… but only because I care.
And if anybody in management at either daily ever wants to sit down and talk with me about my ideas for reimagining the newspaper business (some of which don’t even include hiring me), I’m always up for a cup of coffee or a beer. You know how to reach me.
Maybe we need a 20-cent tax on astroturf?
“As if the cost of gas and food weren’t high enough, the Seattle City Council is planning a twenty cent tax on every grocery bag, and a costly ban on take out food containers… Enough is enough!”
“We don’t need another hit to our pocketbooks,” the exasperated voice on the radio ad tells us… but who exactly is “we”…? A consumer protection organization? Advocates for the working poor? Knee-jerk, anti-tax ideologues like my good friends at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation?
No, as Paper Noose reveals over at Blogging Georgetown, the ad is produced and paid for by one of Seattle’s most beloved and engaged civic organizations, the… uh… American Chemistry Council.
Actually, this radio ad is a creation of the ACC’s faux environmental arm, Progressive Bag Affiliates, whose stated mission is to promote “the responsible use, reuse, recycling and disposal of plastic bags,” and whose oh so “progressive” members include:
- Advance Polybag, Inc.
- The Dow Chemical Company
- ExxonMobil Corporation
- Hilex Poly Co., LLC.
- Inteplast
- Superbag Corporation
- Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc.
Yup. You can’t get much more progressive than that.
So as you listen to the ad, remember that polyethylene bags aren’t the only kind of plastic garbage these chemical companies produce. They’re also pretty damn good at astroturfing.
[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/7801.mp3]Former Supreme Court justices to file suit against BIAW
Former Washington State Supreme Court justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter have notified Attorney General Rob McKenna and county prosecutors that they intend to file suit against the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) and the Master Builders Association alleging massive public disclosure violations, unless prosecutors take action within 45 days. From a press release issued this morning by their attorneys:
A secret campaign war chest created by leaders of a statewide builder’s association to influence this fall’s gubernatorial election has been openly challenged by a group that includes two prestigious former State Supreme Court justices: Robert Utter and Faith Ireland.
The amount of money amassed by the BIAW has been estimated at upwards of $3.5 million. Contrary to state law, the BIAW and the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County (MBA) are not registered as a Political Committees, nor have they publicly disclosed the sources of their campaign money.
[…] Former Justice Faith Ireland supports the effort to force transparency in the electoral process. “Washington has good public disclosure laws and when they are enforced, we will have a transparent, accountable political process. Without enforcement, sneak tactics and last minute ambush can unfairly influence the outcome of important races,” Ireland stated.
Former Justice Robert Utter agrees. “I believe the actions of the BIAW violate the letter and spirit of the public disclosure law in this campaign season and in past seasons as well. The law provides for a process to test these concerns. I look forward to a successful determination of the issues.”
I’ve only quickly skimmed the Notice of Intent to Sue, but the arguments look pretty compelling and well supported, and it’s hard to believe a couple of former Supreme Court justices would get behind such a suit if they weren’t pretty damn confident about the legal underpinnings.
Attorney Knoll Lowney calls the BIAW’s actions perhaps “the most significant violation of campaign finance laws in state history,” and the consequences could end up being much, much greater than just a PDC fine. Almost as an afterthought the press release mentions another pending case:
In a related matter, a class action suit (RE Sources v. BIAW) is pending in Thurston County. That lawsuit, filed by BIAW trust beneficiaries, alleges that BIAW funneled trust money that was earmarked for marketing and promoting worker safety into their political activities. That class action seeks accounting, preservation and restoration of the BIAW trust fund. Questions relating to this action may also be answered at the press conference.
If successful, this suit could force the BIAW to pay back into the trust fund the millions of dollars it has illegally spent on political campaigns over the years, essentially bankrupting the association. Gee, I sure hope our state’s radio and TV stations are getting cash up front for all those lying BIAW ads.
McKenna defends Spokane compact… and so does the record
Dino Rossi and the BIAW are attempting to make their manufactroversy over the Spokane tribal gaming compact a key issue in their mean-spirited, racist and dishonest campaign against Gov. Chris Gregoire. So they’re probably not all that pleased with state Attorney General Rob McKenna straying from the script in speaking at a recent conference of the Washington Indian Gaming Association.
In responding to complaints about the attacks, McKenna told tribal leaders:
“It was a negotiation,” McKenna said. “It was conducted strictly in the framework of state and federal law and it produced a compact which was adopted strictly within the requirements of the framework of state and federal law. Period. And if anyone ever questions the process I would be happy to tell them that, to the letter, we believe the law was scrupulously followed.”
He also said the compacts themselves were working well, though the actual policies they advanced are open to debate.
There ya go… the Republican AG calling bullshit on Republican legislative leaders’ bullshit demands to investigate the negotiations. Of course, McKenna has a habit of telling audiences what they want to hear, but he’s absolutely right in stating that the compact negotiations were “conducted strictly in the framework of state and federal law,” a framework, by the way, that our local media clearly doesn’t fully understand. For example…
Republicans in the House and Senate … want to know which tribes, if any, requested that the Governor’s Office step in to strike revenue sharing from the tribal compact and if there were promises of campaign support in exchange for the governor’s actions.
But in exchange for revenue sharing the rejected compact would have provided the Spokanes a tenfold increase in the number of allocated slot machines, along with many other goodies, and if you understand federal law you’d understand that the other tribes would all have had the right to take the same exact terms. Um… do the math. 75% of one thousand is a helluva lot more loot than 100% of one hundred.
And, if you understand federal law you’d also understand that no other tribe would have been obligated to accept the terms of the Spokane compact and its revenue sharing provision, so there would have been zero incentive one way or the other for tribal leaders to kill it.
In fact, this was the deal the tribes wanted, as I’ve explained in cogent (if excruciating) detail here and here. I know this because I personally worked to kill this compact, both in front of and behind the scenes, an effort on which I enjoyed the support of members of the Republican legislative caucus… so if you don’t believe my analysis of the revenue sharing compact and its political reception at the time, perhaps you’ll believe the words of Republican state Rep. Bruce Chandler, the ranking minority member of the State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee, in his own goddamn press release:
“The interests of Washington citizens were not represented in these negotiations,” said Chandler, R-Granger. “Voters have made it clear they don’t want what the governor is giving away. We should not accept expanded gambling activities when they have been overwhelmingly opposed by communities.”
Initiative 892, which failed by a 61 to 39 percent state vote in 2004, would have allowed an expansion of gambling in licensed non-tribal gambling establishments. The measure received even less support in Spokane County where it failed 63 to 37 percent.
The compact released Thursday would allow the Spokane Tribe of Indians to install up to 4,700 cash-operated slot machines — the first to be legalized in the state. It would also be the first to allow no-limit betting on table games. Chandler says the effect would reach beyond Spokane casinos.
“When the governor expands gambling for one tribe, other tribes in Washington are allowed to request that their compacts be amended in the same favorable terms,” said Chandler. “This compact will dramatically expand gambling throughout the state. I’m concerned the governor has not fully considered the significant economic and social implications.”
Yes, that’s right… the Republican caucus openly and vocally opposed the revenue sharing compact at the time… the very same folks who are now demanding that Gov. Gregoire be investigated for rejecting the compact. And reporters continue to grant them more credibility on this issue than they grant me?
So there you have it, the Republican state Attorney General on the record saying the compacts are working well, and were negotiated “strictly in the framework of state and federal law,” while the ranking Republican member of the pertinent House committee is contemporaneously on the record as demanding the governor do exactly what his caucus is now attacking the governor for having done.
If there is a controversy, it is entirely manufactured by Rossi and the BIAW… a con job in which our state media has been regrettably complicit.
Sound Transit II on the ballot this November
By a 16-2 margin, the Sound Transit board voted today to put a $17 billion, 15-year Phase II expansion package on the ballot this fall. King County Executive Ron Sims and Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer voted no, while state DOT director Paula Hammond proved earlier rumors wrong, voting yes after pushing through a last minute amendment to front-load expanded bus service.
The package expands light rail north to Lynnwood, south to Federal Way and east to Redmond, and includes a 25% expansion of ST express bus service and a 65% expansion of Sounder commuter rail, along with street car connectors on Capitol Hill and in Tacoma. All this would be paid for with a .5% increase in the sales tax; that’ll cost you about $69 per year on average, roughly equivalent to the cost of a single tank of gas. (Personally, I wish ST had a less regressive revenue source at its disposal, but it doesn’t, and so our choice at the moment is to build the infrastructure we need with the taxing authority we have, or build nothing at all. That’s reality.)
TANGENTIAL NOTE:
During their frequent appearances on my radio show, I routinely locked horns with The Stranger’s Erica Barnett and Josh Feit over last year’s “Roads & Transit” package. They opposed Prop 1, arguing that Sound Transit would come back the next year with a better package, sans roads. I thought they were being politically naive, and argued that the powers that be would never allow ST to come back with a transit-only package in 2008, and would be picked apart by the “governance reform” vultures well before 2009.
I am not at all unhappy to admit that they were right and I was wrong.
CSI: Wenatchee
Jesus… did Dino Rossi whack somebody or something? I mean, if Republicans have to seal off Rossi events like a crime scene, what does that say about Rossi? I can only assume he has something to hide?
It’s (belatedly) in the P-I
More than a little giddy after forcing the local media to finally pick up the Doug Sutherland sexual harassment story (as a blogger, that’s the kinda shit we live for), I headed off to Netroots Nation with some hastily printed business cards in hand. On one side was the HA Seattle logo and all my HorsesAss.org contact info, while the other side mockingly sported a Seattle Times logo and the self proclaimed title of “Volunteer Ombudsman.” The card proved a big hit with my fellow bloggers.
Well it looks like I may also have to print up a Seattle P-I version of the card, as nine days after the story broke, our city’s second daily has finally decided its customers deserve to read the facts too. And as it so happens, it is also nine days since P-I reporter Chris Grygiel, in an email to The Stranger’s Erica Barnett, defended his paper’s decision not to run with the story:
“Sutherland and the woman had different accounts of what happened… According to the documents, Sutherland met with the woman at her request and followed through on other antiharassment protocols she had suggested… No disciplinary action was taken and there was no payment of state funds in any settlement. We decided to pass on the story. People can certainly second-guess our decision, but that was the reasoning at the time.”
So what’s changed between then and now to cause the P-I to second-guess its own editorial judgment? Nothin’. Except, maybe, the fact that they probably felt more than a little silly sitting by quietly while the rest of the local print and broadcast media jumped on such an obviously sexy and relevant story.
The dailies still have an enormously larger audience than us lowly bloggers, and they likely always will, but the days when they were the exclusive arbiters of what is or is not news are now over. You gotta think that’s eventually gonna weigh heavily on future editorial decisions about stories like this.
I agree with the Seattle Times
MERCHANT bankers from Australia have offered a small box of concessions to win friends for their planned capture of Puget Sound Energy. Their little box has mollified a lot of folks, but it is not enough.
State utility commissioners Mark Sidran, Patrick Oshie and Philip Jones, who have full authority to put a stake through this takeover, should do so, in the name of the public interest.
As a Seattle City Light customer, I’ve got no skin in this game, but why on earth would the state approve a highly leveraged buyout—four cents on the dollar—that delivers nothing to rate payers but a monopoly utility company with billions of dollars in new debt? Given the power to stop this deal, why wouldn’t we?
Over the next few decades PSE could use its profits to invest in its existing infrastructure, to, for example, prepare itself to respond more quickly to mass outages like the one that knocked some of its customers off the grid for weeks following the 2006 windstorm. Or, it could invest its profits in build green generating capacity, like solar and wind farms.
But instead, under the proposed deal, PSE will need to squeeze every penny it can out of ratepayers just to service its enormous debt.
Rejecting this deal is just common sense. So common, that even the Times and I agree.
Danny Westneat thinks you lack restraint
Danny Westneat thinks thinks that despite a down economy and rising gas prices, our local elected officials are “as tax-crazy as an IRS agent on Ritalin.”
A $75 million Pike Place Market levy. A $146 million Seattle parks levy. A $17.6 billion, tri-county light-rail package. Roughly $300 a year, in total, for the average Seattleite
Oh, and don’t forget that 20-cents-per-grocery-bag Green Fee!
If this is proceeding with caution, what will “full-steam-ahead” look like?
And while Danny reassures us that “I like all these things,” he can’t help but wonder…
… where’s the restraint? There’s no hint that government has any sense of limits.
I’ll tell you where the “restraint” and the “sense of limits” comes from, Danny… from the voters, that’s where. See, nobody’s raising anybody’s taxes, at least not without our approval at the polls, so this familiar refrain of blaming politicians for putting tax measures on the ballot, well… it just plain pisses me off.
When voters approve measures that cut taxes, we’re told that’s “the will of the people,” their ballot a sacred text that is somehow inviolate. When Tim Eyman passes one of his stupid, selfish and ill conceived initiatives, we’re told that’s “the will of the people” too.
But apparently measures that raise our taxes are entirely different. Apparently, we voters simply can’t be trusted to resist the natural temptation to tax ourselves, especially for frivolous things like parks and transit. And if God forbid we voters are foolish enough to tax ourselves the equivalent of a single tank of gas a year to extend light rail south to Federal Way, north to Lynnwood and east to Redmond, well, apparently, it’s our elected officials who deserve the blame for their obvious lack of restraint in giving us the opportunity to decide these issues for ourselves.
I’m just sayin’.
It’s in the Times
It looks like I may have to spend half my day reading and writing on opinion pieces in today’s Seattle Times, where Danny Westneat once again pisses me off, while Ron Sims and Greg Nickels prepare to piss on each other. But first, I’d likely to briefly comment on medical marijuana, an issue on which HA and Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey appear to be in total, if rare agreement.
Ramsey tells of the suffering of medical marijuana patients, both physically and legally, at the hands of our criminal justice system, before laying out a simple thesis in defense of their plight:
I relate Hiatt’s story partly because I believe in letting these folks alone, but partly also because I had an aunt who was in sharp pain from a pinched nerve. Her doctor prescribed an opiate, which handled the pain but messed up her mind and her gut.
My aunt was the most un-stoned person I ever knew, but she told me she would have taken marijuana, or anything else, if it had killed the pain, and to hell with the government. I would be no different.
Personally, I find libertarianism a simplistic, naive and unworkable political prescription when pursued in an ideologically rigid and overly broad manner, but I respect those like Ramsey who apply its philosophy consistently. If I can grow a plant in my backyard that eases the pain of a chronic illness, at no cost to society or impact on my neighbors, then like Ramsey I say to hell with a government that would interfere with my right to seek the medical treatment that works best for me.
Those on the right who claim to embrace individual freedom, yet continue to blindly support our tragic war on drugs beyond all reason, well… you’re all a bunch of goddamn hypocrites. And those on the left who quietly acknowledge the abject failure of our nation’s drug policies, yet refuse to stake any political capital on changing them, well… you’re all a bunch of cowards. As for those of you in the middle, who are conflicted on this issue, who fear (or know first hand) the often tragic impact of drug addiction on your own family, I urge you to put all the fear mongering and drug bust bravado aside, and start to think about this as the public health issue it really is… a context in which one neighbor’s medical marijuana use has about as much impact on your own well being as another neighbor’s gay marriage.
So kudos to Ramsey for speaking out on this issue. If only he could drag his colleagues on the ed board to pursue this issue with the same sort of vigor they reserve for things like repealing the estate tax, perhaps we might make some progress.
Swing State upgrades WA-08 to tossup
Yet another analyst has upgraded WA-08 to tossup status, this time the liberal, yet cautious, Swing State Project:
WA-08 (Reichert): Lean Republican to Tossup
Of all the vulnerable Republican incumbents this year, we feel compelled to acknowledge that Dave Reichert is the first to lose a clear edge over his opponent, Democrat Darcy Burner. Reichert’s incumbency is less potent than other vulnerable incumbents in the Lean R column given his short tenure. Furthermore, he hasn’t been addressing his fundraising as seriously as other similarly-situated Republicans, allowing Burner to build a $1.25 million to $916K cash-on-hand advantage. In a tilt-Dem district (D+2.3) in a state and region where Obama is showing some early strength over McCain, Reichert is standing on shaky ground.
Add to that the million dollars in TV time the DCCC has already reserved, combined with the NRCC’s catastrophic money disadvantage (only $6 million in the bank as of June 30th) and Reichert better turn in some surprising numbers over the next couple months if he wants to stay competitive.
HA up, cesspool down
We’re trying to get our comment threads back online, but our first attempt failed, as HA remains in the midst of a pretty massive DDoS attack. The easiest solution would be for the BIAW to just ask their colleagues in the Russian mob to call off the hit, but well, I’m not holding my breath.
It is likely no accident that this attack started the day after I broke the story on Doug Sutherland’s sexual harassment scandal, but ironically, rather than shutting me up, they’ve merely managed to shut up the many trolls who dominate my comment threads. Kinda funny really.
Anyway, bear with me until we find a solution or the bad guys get bored, or both.
UPDATE:
We’ve made another mod, and re-enabled comments again. We’ll just have to wait and see if we’ve beaten the Russians.
Post-Postman post post
Out of town (and at times, out of commission) at Netroots Nation last week, a lot of posts slipped by unwritten, and my efforts to catch up on local events haven’t been helped much by the cowardly DDoS attack we’ve been forced to fend off in recent days. (I suppose this is what my critics on the right consider the “free marketplace of ideas”…? I’m free to blog on my ideas, and they’re free to hire Russian mobsters to knock my blog off line?)
But before I recap the week in Austin and get back to the pressing task of fisking current events, I just can’t help myself from belatedly commenting on Postman’s belated take on the Doug Sutherland sexual harassment story I broke last week:
As you likely know by now, the Times ran a story Wednesday about Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland and his admittedly inappropriate behavior toward a new female employee. If you read it, you’ll see that the paper had documents relating to the case for months, and interviewed Sutherland in April.
But the story wasn’t published until after horsesass.org posted details of the incident. So why did The Times publish now, but not when it had the story first? The shortest answer is that the horsesass post prompted the paper to reconsider its decision. And I’m glad that happened.
This is not a case of sliding standards, but rather the result of a wider discussion than what preceded the initial decision in the Times newsroom. And it is an instance where a blog can influence coverage in the old media.
Thanks Dave, I appreciate the compliment, and I hope it doesn’t offend you to know that this was exactly the kind of responsible response I expected from you. Though speaking of wider discussions, it wasn’t just the Times that sat on this story before I forced their hand; the P-I and at least two other WA dailies had the same documents weeks before they came my way, so I hope this incident sparked a healthy conversation in newsrooms statewide. If Sutherland’s actions were newsworthy enough to report after I broke the story, surely they were newsworthy enough to report before I broke it. How and why I got the scoop seems a worthy topic for J-school class.
But that said, I do have to take issue with the thesis that dominates the latter half of Postman’s comments:
There’s no doubt the Sutherland story deserved a place in the newspaper. But the Democrats have established a double standard for this behavior that rises above run of the mill campaign hypocrisy.
To back up his thesis Postman cites the case of former Gov. Mike Lowry, who declined to seek a second term of office in 1996 after a widely publicized sexual harassment scandal. Lowry attempted a political comeback four years later, challenging Sutherland for the then open Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, and Postman is right that Lowry drew support from the Democratic Party and some of the same environmentalists who continue to oppose Sutherland today. But if this is hypocrisy, I’d argue that contrary to Postman’s assertion, it is indeed the “run of the mill” variety inherent in most political campaigns, and that Sutherland’s supporters are at least as guilty as those of Democrat Peter Goldmark.
The fact is, Lowry’s sexual harassment scandal was a huge issue in the 2000 campaign, aggressively pushed by the Sutherland camp, and widely reported in the media, costing Lowry the votes of many otherwise Democratic leaning, pro-environment women, and likely handing a close election to Sutherland. I can’t blame Republicans for pushing the well documented Lowry sexual harassment story. That’s what I would have done. That’s politics.
And while it is true that the Party and environmentalists backed Lowry in 2000 against a timber industry lackey like Sutherland, it is also true that it was Party leaders and other Democratic constituent groups that pressured then Gov. Lowry to forgo a second term in the immediate wake of the scandal. So in criticizing “Democrats” as being hypocritical when it comes to issues of sexual harassment, which Democrats is Postman referring to? Those running the Party in 1996? 2000? 2008? Because the folks issuing press releases now are entirely different than those at the helm twelve or even eight years ago.
But my main problem with Postman’s hypocrisy thesis is that hypocrisy really has nothing to do with the larger issue at hand. Postman writes that “There’s no doubt the Sutherland story deserved a place in the newspaper…” and Goldmark’s backers did what they had to do to get it there, hypocritical or not. Voters have the same right to know about Sutherland’s indiscretions as they did about Lowry’s, and to deny them that right due to some pecksniffian sense of political propriety, would not only have been a disservice, but just plain dumb politics.
Still, Postman hits the nail on the head near the end of his post:
It doesn’t serve Sutherland well that his defense echoes that of Lowry. Democrats are right that any veteran politician should know what’s appropriate. Lowry should have known that, too. There’s no excuse for a politician to think its OK to rub body parts of a subordinates, make lewd or suggestive comments and then claim they were just trying to be friendly and deliver “atta-boy” pats.
And that, after all, is what the Sutherland story is really about.
Denial of Service
As you may have noticed, HA started experiencing technical difficulties almost the minute I stepped onto the plane to Austin. If I was paranoid, I might have thought it was exquisitely timed.
It turns out we were being assaulted by waves of spam comments, overwhelming our database server from time to time, an attack that escalated some time early this morning to eventually take down the entire server… web, email, DB and all. According to my hosting company HA was being hit with hundreds of comments a second, from multiple, rolling IPs. So they removed the WordPress file that handles comment posting, and everything seems to be functioning normally now.
That is, except for comments.
Right now, if you attempt to post a comment, you should be getting a blank screen. I’m working on a more elegant interim solution until we figure out a permanent one.
As for the motivation of the spammers, I can’t say whether it is political or not, but I’m not seeing similar reports of this happening at other WordPress blogs, except for Darryl’s Hominid Views. Hmm.
UPDATE:
I’ve just flipped a switch requiring you to log in as a registered user in order to post a comment. Of course, there is no registration enabled yet, so it’s merely a cosmetic change that prevents you from seeing a comment form that won’t work.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
My hosting company confirms HA is currently the target of a DDoS attack—”Distributed Denial of Service”—and offers no solution other than disabling comments and riding this out. If there are any server/Wordpress gurus out there with some advice, please feel free to drop me an email.
UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
My hosting company has clarified that HA is the only site it is serving currently being targeted by this DDoS attack, so I can only assume that Darryl and I have been specifically targeted via a weakness in WordPress. Cowards.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- …
- 471
- Next Page »