The mayor of Seattle on Wednesday told President Donald Trump to "go back to your bunker," after Trump appeared to suggest he would intervene in the city's growing protests and called for law and order.Bunker Boy's greatest ambition, now, is to have soldiers fire on protesters with live ammunition. That fat old coward is basically a psychopath who is too fearful to do anything himself other than maybe rape and hit pre-roofied women.
You may recall that Trump kept saying that it was up to the states, up to the governors, to take measures to fend off the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 100,000 dead Americans is not enough to get Trump to do anyting substantive, he hardly mentions the pandemic anymore. But a handful of protesters in the streets rouses his blood lust.
It's pretty clear, by now that Trump has given up trying to unify the country, if indeed he ever had a thought of doing so. he is the president of his base; the course he has chosen is to write off everyone else and turn out his supporters by blowing his racist steam-whistle of "The Darkies Are Coming For Your Women"-- you know, the GOP's Southern Strategy.
But this time, it may not be working for him. The impression one gets is that the rest of the Party of Trump knows that they are being set up for a shellacking.
36 comments:
Tulsa is likely to be a turning point, but the direction is unclear. If he does indeed deliver Miller’s speech on race relations, in Tulsa, on Juneteenth, less than a year short of the 100rd Anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, there is but one reason, mobilizing his base. They are already weaponizing “Defund the Police”, which as a slogan is almost tailored to appeal to his base and their fears. This will potentially be the point when Donnie pulls off the covers and puts on the sheets. Expect a long summer and longer Fall...the Republican Party will have a galling choice of either backing Donnie’s increasingly racist calls and hindering voting, or will finally break with Donnie. Unfortunately, I no longer expect anymore than a few Republican politicians to have the courage to leave Donnie’s side.
The Rude Pundit had an interesting take on Fergus' recent antics that seems about as likely as anything else:
https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2020/06/donald-trump-wants-more-violence-at-blm.html
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Lot of groceries grow in California. Oregon, Washington. From almond milk, applesauce and avocado to rice, squash and zucchini. Not to mention the technology that runs the world.
Stand-alone California would as a nation rank sixth in the world, combined the "liberal west" eighth. The mayor's belligerence is an accurate reflection of what many out here believe: you need us more than we need you.
She was being polite.
Ten Bears, too bad the water comes from out of state, eh? For California to be a viable country, they would really need the continental divide and west, and even then would need to conserve water and start desalinization and filtration plants. Of all the states in the U.S., Texas is the most likely to be actually able to function as an independent. With its own electrical grid, it has a huge advantage, and less water from out of state than most others. That being said, it would likely fail miserably as even a state as large as Texas lacks a number of necessary services and businesses due to the nature of our interconnected United States.
Donnie can't "Unify the Country". Folks like you wouldn't listen even if he found a place where folks like myself and (most of) the rest of your commentors could find common ground.
I believe in the values that made this country great, they believe in getting someone else to pay for their mistakes.
I believe in personal responsibility. They don't.
I believe in free market Capitalism. They believe in Socialism.
I believe in the Individual, they believe in the State.
I believe in equality for all, they believe in special treatment because they think some segments of our society are too stupid or too weak to succeed without it.
How then, do we find common ground?
(make no mistake, I don't (generally) think that those whose beliefs are at odds with mine are, at base, bad people...just misguided).
Wondering who the ‘they’ is? Those of a different skin color?
It’s the ‘I got mine, to hell with everyone else’ attitude that continues to contribute to the divide in the country. The presidential team gassing peaceful protesters in order to get a photo-op doesn’t contribute to unity. Threatening to use military force rather than address the police force problems facing the country doesn’t unite. Not being civil toward those that disagree with you (using terms like loser, spineless, terrorists, crazy, etc.) divides the population into us-vs-them.
If people could just learn to apply the golden rule that was taught by parents so long ago, then we could begin to unite. But a lot of conservatives who claim to be Christians don’t behave very Christian-like.
Dale
Nice way of calling me a racist there, Dale. 'They" is the folks like you, that have opposing views to mine. One thing you keep harping on is that race thing. I pretty much explained that, but you twist it to try to insult me. I really don't care how much melanin you might have, or where your ancestors came from. If yer a lowlife yer a lowlife. If yer an upstanding citizen, then yer an upstanding citizen. Race matters little to me. But keep trying to play the "racist" card. (Of course, when I point out actual racism amongst liberals, I get told to stop, but there is that whole Double Standard that happens here). Keep implying that I am a racist...It shows YOUR character.
Interesting how you fail to judge most folks on YOUR side, but are willing to paint "a lot" of Conservatives as hypocrites....failing to see how hypocritical you and those like you are.
B., you started the "they" without defining your terms.
Which values that made this country great? Only white landowners can vote, blacks are worth 3/5 of whites in counts and can be owned, Jim Crow, do tell, laddie...which of those do you select?
Personal responsibility, which is why police get qualified immunity, eh?
Free market capitalism, has never existed in the U.S., never will.
The individual, which means exactly what? You get to chose where your taxes get used, or if you pay them?
Equality for all, a fine sentiment, but completely meaningless while corporations and governments segregate by gender and race.
Common ground starts with calling a policeman who deliberately kills an individual a killer, and not trying to spin conspiracy theories about it. It comes when a newsman doesn't try to rile up his viewers by saying "they" are coming for you. It starts when a President gets told "No, we will not attack peaceful protesters". That's a good start.
Have you read what you’ve posted on YOUR blog? Now, I haven’t called you a racist, but I would say you have some leanings that way. Many of YOUR postings are about the inhabitants of Chicago’s South side and how ‘they’ don't behave as you would prefer. YOU have referred to Obama as “HNIC”. YOU recently posted “I am NOT saying all black people are criminals...but a higher percentage are.”
“Interesting how you fail to judge most folks on YOUR side, but are willing to paint "a lot" of Conservatives as hypocrites....failing to see how hypocritical you and those like you are.”
B, I would say, look in a mirror. The reflection you see may not be the one you’d like to portray.
Dale
I'm convinced. All you had to do was open your mouth. Pretty standard trope, that, "I'm not a racist, you mentioned race you're the racist" juvenile bullshit we've hearing since MLK.
Like lying for Jesus is none-the-less lying, and a goddamned lie at that agitating for the sake of agitating is anarchy, the only true free market capitalism.
Have some more kool-aid.
I don't know who you think you are describing here B, but it sure ain't me.
Perhaps you might want to define folks with something besides your propaganda, because a bright sixth grader could have come up with a more accurate description of the differences between the people you seem to think you know so well, and I'm a little tired of being insulted in such base and ignorant terms.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Dale: I'm not the one that brought up color. You did. 'Twasn't even in my mind when I wrote the comment.
If "they" immediately bring to YOUR mind color or race, then the issue certainly isn't me. If you'd have asked what I mean by 'they" and left it there, that would have been one thing. You brought up race.
As for the postings on my blog, well, if I point out the issues that some groups have, and that lead to (or cause) the current problems in their communities, then so what. "Facing the truth is the first step to fixing the issue". The fact that crime is an issue in the South Side is true. Greater percentage of people don't follow the law. Therefore, more interactions with police. You don't hear about NIGHTLY shootings in areas with different demographics...why is that? What is the common factor? It isn't economic level, nor education level. If it isn't culture or race, then what is it?
You *did* imply that I was a racist in the comments above, as you have several times before.
CP: I have railed against "qualified immunity" many times in the past. I think it should be abolished.
As for the rest, you seem intelligent, you can figure it out if you read what I wrote and don't try to spin it. I was pretty clear. Take off those Hate Colored Glasses and reread for clarity.
Dale: I'm sorry if you think I insulted you. Was I wrong about our viewpoints? If so, where?
B, what did HNIC mean when referring to Obama?
His words (Barry Obama's choice of words, that is) Head Nigger in Charge. Terms used by both Barry and Sharpton when he was elected.
Sharpton also referred to him as "Barack the Magic Negro". Does that make both Barry and Al racists as well?
President Barack Obama used the n-word during an interview released Monday to make a point that there's still plenty of room for America to combat racism.
"Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public," Obama said in an interview for the podcast "WTF with Marc Maron."
"That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior."
https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/barack-obama-n-word-race-relations-marc-maron-interview/index.html
I bet you got a special thrill using the n-word, B.
Pretty standard trope, that, "I'm not a racist, you mentioned race you're the racist" juvenile bullshit we've hearing so long it echoes.
My name is Doug, and yes you insulted me, but that is not surprising, so carry on.
I'll start with the personal responsibility bit and stop before I get mad.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
B., I have a book for you to read, White Fragility, by Robin Diangelo. You can stay blind or you can accept that just perhaps you might be a part of the problem. Your choice, and have you looked at the COVID-19 numbers recently?
Book ordered on Kindle.
I'll read it next, as soon as I am done with the one I am currently on.
Doug, sorry about the mixup. Again, how did I insult you? Please, tell me. How is the fact that I believe in personal responsibility and many here do not an insult to you?
No, actually, I avoid the word, But a question: If it is such a bad word, the why can black people toss it about so freely? Few black people that I know (mostly pretty decent folks) use the word. They don't like it no matter who says it. You asked what it stood for. (I think you knew, but wanted me to type the word for some reason?)
Ten Bears: It is true...I didn't bring race into this. Who did? Who saw race in something I said about the DIFFERENCES between one side and the other when I pointed out how hard it would be to Unite the Country. You make my point.
CP: If you wanna email me (you can find my email on my blog) I'll discuss the book with you when I am finished (assuming you have read it). Probably in about a week. Seriously.
"I believe in personal responsibility. They don't." is what you said.
And I kinda don't feel like you were counting me as not they.
What the fuck do you know about my personal responsibility?
And where would you be coming up with such assumptions about me?
Can you maybe understand why someone would find that insulting?
Would you find it insulting if I said it about you?
You seem to just assume this higher moral status than people you don't even know, and the only reason I can see for it is the goddamn lies you read about us and believe as gospel.
Not trying to start shit here, just answering your polite question.
And as I already said, I find it unsurprising so carry on.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
As ever, I am laughing, at the "superiority".
Twenty years ago, when moderating bulletin boards I would with regularity delete the "I'm not a racist, you mentioned race you're the racist" juvenile bullshit.
You are a racist, B, demonstrably so and in your own words. Less than sufficiently evolved. Less than human. A racist.
B, Mene, mene tekel upharsin.
And there you go, Ten Bears. Showing your true colors. (And, By the way, violating the commenting rules on this blog...again...for which, no doubt, you will get a pass....again) Insulting me...again. Calling me "Less than Human". And, of course, the Racist card. Always your fallback when you have nothing else.
So why is it that, even though I didn't mention race when explaining why I did not think that the country could be united, I am a racist? Please explain how that logic works. Others here ASSUMED that I meant other races. I did not. I meant folks on the other side of the political spectrum from me.
Others immediately thought of race. Which says something about them, not me. I was referring to political ideology. Your side brought race to the argument.
Doug: Do you believe in personal responsibility? That the decisions a person makes should affect their lot? Or do you think that if they make bad decisions (often over and over) that they should still reap the rewards that others who DON'T make those same types of bad decisions over and over enjoy? Should a doctor live the same as the half drunk person who can't be bothered to show up for work and therefore can only get menial jobs? Who won't bother to learn a skill and therefore won't improve themselves and therefore their position in the world?
If one person spends all their money on flashy clothes and cars and tattoos and doesn't save for the future....like a house, should they be given housing? should it be as nice as the guy (or gal) who saves their money and is able to buy a nice house in a nicer area?
How about the person who does well in school, doesn't do drugs, doesn't get a criminal record, follows the rules, shows up to work, gets promoted, and in doing so gets a higher pay? Should the person who does drugs, can't show up for work, never learns anything, never learns a skill...should that person have the same income?
How about folks that never learn, and continuously make bad decisions in life? That is what I am talking about (at least partly) when I talk about personal responsibility. Most here seem to feel that those inequities should somehow be erased....and that we should somehow level the playing field so everyone gets the same percentage of the pie even though some folks squander their share and then want more.
Sorta like the folks that think that Basic Universal Income will fix things.
If you feel differently, and have so posted here, I must have missed that. If so, then I am sorry.
CP, don't many public servants such as air traffic controllers work under qualified immunity?
Don't judges, prosecutors, legislators and others also enjoy some form of immunity?
Why do you think that's so?
Donas, a Federal Air Traffic Controller has a form of immunity but it may be revoked if they have displayed any reckless behavior, which encompasses violating any regulations or rules. The immunity protects the Controller from being sued by replacing the ATCS with the Federal Government in any legal action, if the immunity is granted. Supervisors have to purchase their own, private, insurance to protect them from lawsuits.
With regard to ATCS, the reason to similar to SLAPP laws. I can assure you that an ATCS who issued a clearance that resulted in an accident is NOT automatically protected by immunity, but the totality of the circumstance will be evaluated and the decision made at a higher level. If the clearance caused the accident, the scrutiny is even deeper, with the general standard of was the action “reckless” being applied.
B., I’m aware of how to contact you, and I suspect you will like the intro and it’s indictment of the progressives. However, beyond that, I certainly hope that the whole work will open your eyes to some of the ugly realities of these United States if you aren’t white, and for that matter male.
CP, you can split hairs if you want but the point is you, as a former ATCS, should understand why a certain level of immunity is necessary for government services to function. I don't see how a cop could do the job without it. One might be willing at $175k/yr but not at $40k.
I wonder how they will address that issue in CHAZ/CHOP.
B: I've always taken responsibility for myself and usually some others as well. I had the opportunity to go into fields that made more money but chose to be a musician instead, and never once complained about the compensation for the work I did to support myself.
I don't know of anyone anywhere advocating for equal distribution of financial resources across the entire population. Of course some folks will make more and have more than others.
Where it seems to me that we differ is in how we feel about how much the truly wealthy should pay for the upkeep of the society that made them that wealthy.
The way I remember it, they were still very wealthy under the marginal tax rates in effect when I was a little kid, and that those high marginal tax rates incentivized them to plow more of their profits back into their businesses and thus hold up their end of the great prosperity we experienced after the second world war.
Having lived among the "inner city poor" for 35 years, I feel like I have a fairly realistic view of the lives the people who live there live, and I do feel like there would be fewer of the problems you seem so concerned about if the education there was more in line with what I myself received back in the 60's in Northern California, so in that sense I do favor expending more resources on the people you seem to question the fairness of helping.
As for drug use, we as a society have made it into a much larger problem than it needs to be, and I certainly don't find it disqualifying for participation in society or holding a decent paying job. I know literally hundreds of drug users who are gainfully employed. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who has never used an illegal drug.
I also know of people who have ruined their lives with their drug use, and harmed the lives of everyone connected to them.
Drug use is a lot like gun ownership in that way; almost everyone I know owns a gun and you would never know it unless you asked them, but I also know a lot of outlaws, and even some honest to god criminals, and some of them have done far more damage with their guns than any of my fuck-up friends ever did with their drugs.
But we, as a country have decided that rather than trying to limit the harm drug use does, like they do in, say, Portugal, we will instead use it as a means to criminalize the underclasses and as an excuse to militarize the police.
Without the drug prohibition laws, policing in this country would at least stand a chance of normalizing. But add an automatic reason for poor people to hate and fear the police and then saddle the police with all of the social work we don't want to fund with taxes and things are gonna blow up sometimes.
Also, many of what you seem to see as bad decisions are a value judgement. You might have seen the bank loan I took out in 1980 to buy my electric guitar when I didn't have a car as a bad decision, but I see it in retrospect as one of the bast things I did in my sixty years on this planet.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Doug:
As long as you are happy working as a musician, and don't expect someone else to pay for your choices, I applaud you:
If you think, however (and I am not saying you do, but using as an example) that someone else should pay for your housing, or food, or health insurance because your choice to be a musician doesn't give you an income that makes paying for that easy (or makes it impossible) then yes, I would consider it a bad choice. If, instead, you can support yourself without subsidies from public taxes, and are happy with your choice of profession, then your choice is none of my business.....As long as you don't expect someone else (the Taxpayers) to pay your expenses so you can be happy as a musician (again, using this as an example, not judging you personally....)
I hope I am clear enough.
Donas, as I pointed out, ATCS have significantly less immunity protection than the average cop. I think a step back on the police immunity isn’t a bad idea. I’m nit suggesting none, but a tighter standard might make cops a little less trigger happy...and taking away some of the stupid collateral duties would help too.
I seldom come here anymore,mostly because I know the kind of hostility that I can cause, by my opinions, and by simply the ideas that I have. However, in reading this comment stream, I was particularly struck with how much vicious anger was directed from both sides.
I want to try and address at least some of the things that I have read. First, I doubt that you could find a single American who would say that a police officer who killed anyone, regardless of their color, in the way that George Floyd was killed, should be allowed to draw a free breath again. It was wrong in every conceivable way, and I can't think of anyone trying to say that the cop did the right thing. Those who were there with him, also are culpable, for not stopping him. I have a son who just got out of the military a few months ago, and they must follow all LEGAL orders given them by a superior officer. This cop was doing something illegal, actively killing a suspect, and the other officers did not stop him, a definite disobedience of their oaths of office. They could be charged with the same crime as the first cop.
As for racist behavior, I grew up with some of my dad's best friends being minorities,and playing with their kids. Some of my best friends today are also minorities. We can use the term black if you want, but it doesn't matter. I don't feel like I am a racist, but after much soul searching,I realize that I do have racism in my soul, and while I attempt to get rid of it, I probably will never be successful at it.
If I am walking in the dark of a parking lot,after nightfall,and see a black man walking parallel to me, or even towards me, I get nervous. If I see a white man, I become alert, but not as nervous. That tells me that I still have some racism within my soul, and while it is not overt,is is still there. And I suspect that it is the same for people of both colors also.
I see arguments against giving a musician money because he chose a field that doesn't pay enough. I am an unusual type of conservative. I am conservative on most things, but on many others, I lean heavily towards the left. In the case of helping out those who are less fortunate, either through their own fault or just circumstances beyond their control, our nation, which is supposed to be a beacon on the hill, shining as an example for all others, can't ignore our poorest and neediest.
I have no problem with placing some set of standards on people so that they do not abuse the system, such as a woman on assistance,who has 2 children,and then has a 3rd, is stuck at the same level of assistance no matter how many children she might go on to have. The government has a duty to provide methods of birth control, either condoms or the pill, or an implant that lasts for a few years. I personally know of a couple of people who have had another child simply for the extra welfare money that they could get.
I always hear the bad things about schools of choice,but I think that the money for education should not go to the public schools,but should go with the student, where ever that student wishes to go. If they want to go to a public school, fine. But if they want to go to a private school,to try and get a better education, so they are able to get out of the poverty they live in someday, why should we not allow that?
To get down in the dirt a little, I think that the election in November will hinge on one thing, and one thing only. Everyone must agree, even if they hate everything that Trump is, and stands for, that the economy under his presidency was doing very well. Now presidents get the blame for the economy going bad and the credit if it goes good. That is not totally fair, because our economy is cyclical, and will always go up and down. But if come November,the economy is doing relatively well, with most of the people back at work,then Trump will more likely than not, be reelected. If the economy has tanked again, then Biden has a good chance at winning.
my opinion.
pigpen51
There's where we differ, B. I don't think healthcare should be a for profit enterprise at all. It's horribly wasteful and leads to worse outcomes for far more expense.
That then goes back to the wealthy paying more again, as a single payer system would indeed tax them more for the same coverage, but would be worth the inequity because of the overall benefit to the society, and they would end up paying less in the long run anyway.
Housing and food are something else entirely. I think emergency help should be available for people who don't have food to eat. Especially children. That help will pay for itself many times over in the better outcomes as citizens that it will achieve.
Housing is different. I actually did look into subsidized housing for a year before I left the East Bay. Being disabled, I do qualify for it. With the help of the Highland Hospital Health Advocates I got our information to more than fifty locations with the net result of two applications for lotteries to get on waiting lists, both of which were denied. So, in my experience, subsidized housing isn't something you can just decide you want and go out and get.
And last I checked, for 35 years I was a taxpayer, as a little more than 25% of every paycheck I ever earned was deducted, and I still pay sales taxes and my rent supports the payment of property taxes, so who are these taxpayers I shouldn't be stealing from?
I never made much money as a musician, the jobs I supported myself with included janitor, cook, truck driver, warehouse worker, ground man at a tree service, and welder. None of them ever paid me more than $12.50/hr. But I was fucking good at every job I ever got paid for, and my employers tended to like me a lot.
Those jobs are all what they are calling "essential" here in pandemic land, and still undercompensated relative to their actual worth, but as I said earlier, I never complained.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Doug: We can discuss the concept of Socialized vs Private health care another time. Let us just say that we disagree on that.
So if I understand your statement, you made near poverty wages for your entire life, (which means you didn't pay 25%, but rather nearly zero taxes), yet you still think that because you chose to be a musician (a lifestyle that is, no doubt, very rewarding and fun) someone else who chose a profession that pays so much better (and probably wasn't nearly so rewarding) should pay for your healthcare bills (via taxes that you don't pay)? Or did I get that part wrong?
I'm gonna step out of this comment thread and give you the last word here.
But the thoughtless wickedness with which we scatter sentences of imprisonment, torture in the solitary cell and on the plank bed, and flogging, on moral invalids and energetic rebels, is as nothing compared to the stupid levity with which we tolerate poverty as if it were either a wholesome tonic for lazy people or else a virtue to be embraced as St Francis embraced it. If a man is indolent, let him be poor. If he is drunken, let him be poor. If he is not a gentleman, let him be poor. If he is addicted to the fine arts or to pure science instead of to trade and finance, let him be poor. If he chooses to spend his urban eighteen shillings a week or his agricultural thirteen shillings a week on his beer and his family instead of saving it up for his old age, let him be poor. Let nothing be done for "the undeserving": let him be poor. Serve him right! Also—somewhat inconsistently—blessed are the poor!
Now what does this Let Him Be Poor mean? It means let him be weak. Let him be ignorant. Let him become a nucleus of disease. Let him be a standing exhibition and example of ugliness and dirt. Let him have rickety children. Let him be cheap and let him drag his fellows down to his price by selling himself to do their work. Let his habitations turn our cities into poisonous congeries of slums. Let his daughters infect our young men with the diseases of the streets and his sons revenge him by turning the nation's manhood into scrofula, cowardice, cruelty, hypocrisy, political imbecility, and all the other fruits of oppression and malnutrition. Let the undeserving become still less deserving; and let the deserving lay up for himself, not treasures in heaven, but horrors in hell upon earth. This being so, is it really wise to let him be poor? Would he not do ten times less harm as a prosperous burglar, incendiary, ravisher or murderer, to the utmost limits of humanity's comparatively negligible impulses in these directions? Suppose we were to abolish all penalties for such activities, and decide that poverty is the one thing we will not tolerate—that every adult with less than, say, 365 pounds a year, shall be painlessly but inexorably killed, and every hungry half naked child forcibly fattened and clothed, would not that be an enormous improvement on our existing system, which has already destroyed so many civilizations, and is visibly destroying ours in the same way?
George Bernard Shaw, Preface to Major Barbara
No, I paid more than 25% of every paycheck I ever earned for the 35 years I worked full time. When you're poor, you have to pay attention to things like that.
Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned musicianship, which is really just what I do, and instead characterized myself as the working poor.
The jobs I did were jobs that you no doubt patronized and still do. Someone has to do them, that's what you say by obtaining their services, and the taxes I paid from them were what the government has decided to tax on those incomes.
Ever eaten at a restaurant? I was a line cook for ten years. Ever bought groceries at a supermarket? I did wholesale delivery of foods for five, and went on to manage the warehouse they were distributed from for three more until the company went out of business. Ever had anything you bought at a department store delivered to your house? Like a refrigerator or a washer and dryer? I logged a million miles behind the wheel of a 20' bobtail down every little road between Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz delivering furniture and appliances for Whole Earth Access, a local department store. Ever use the bathroom in a store you were shopping at? My first W-4 job, on a work permit from junior high school when I was fourteen was as a janitor at a Montgomery Ward store. Ever have a tree removed or trimmed back? I ran a chainsaw as a ground man for a tree service for a couple of years. Ever need anything welded or fabricated? I did welding and metal fabrication for a year also.
And even though these were my "day jobs" I made a point to be very good at each and every one of them, regardless of the money on offer, so I kinda don't feel as if I am a drain on the resources of people who did jobs that paid better than the ones I did, because they all used the services I performed also.
I hope that clears this up for you a little.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Post a Comment