Looks like the NYT has decided to go with neutrality over objectivity—essentially severing ties with their own country in the service of what they believe is a higher journalistic good: Pulitzer Prizes.
Writes Times assistant managing editor for photography Michele McNally of a photo taken by NYT photographer Joao Silva showing an al-Sadr army sniper in the act of firing on US troops, “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.â€Â
Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.
Whereas what we’ve witnessed here is the product of (admittedly) dangerous opportunism in the service of plaudits and cocktail party invites.
But then, I’m still into the whole bourgeois nationalism thing. Just like a Nazi!
(h/t Michelle Malkin and Corvan)
So, for $50 I can get Abdul to go up on the roof and squeeze off a few shots at US troops. Whaddya say? He’s very photogenic.
The latter seems more suicidal than courageous.
– Hey the moonbats world is litterily falling apart, they need any straw they can clutch at right now. Did you think that our enemies on the left, and the cockroaches of the MSM would take all this “advance of true Democracy” laying down. Thats exactly how I see the whole Neo-Left movement. Like a rebirth of Marx, rising from the grave. Just about as hard to kill as cockroaches too, it seems. Fortunately, for Western civilization, just about as obsessive, and faux litterate also.
Saw the photo over at LGF. I would say disgusting. Though that may be too polite. It is clear (as it has been) that the NYT’s has chosen their side. They should suffer the consequences thereof. I just hope they do.
Simply too far gone.
Can we question their patriotism now ?
Probably hesitated to get that picture posted until well after the sniper had left.
I was just talking with Joe Stalin the other day. We both agree the NYT is the best newspaper ever. Great guy, Joe, if he likes you he’ll let you take his house boy, Walter Duranty, upstairs for awhile.
– Don’t you dare – They support our troops (in flag drapped coffins)
No doubt, should Mr. Joao Silva come under fire, be kidnapped or otherwise need help, he and the NYT will call on the U.S. Armed Forces.
Seeing as how it’s the NYT, the caption’s probably referring to the “incredible courage” of the enemy sniper.
I wonder if they paid for the opportunity to take the photo. I wonder if this could be construed as “ adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Talk of treason is out of fashion for some reason, but I could see some photographer hanged without losing too much sleep over it.
As i said over at LGF, pity the reporter didn’t catch any return fire.
Yeh Mark….I was thinking along the lines of Quid pro quo…. something like “We give you press exposure so we dodge the usual waivers”….
That sound you hear is Ernie Pyle, spinning furiously in his grave.
Actus,
Let me be very clear. Kiss my unwashed ass. You are no better than the traitorous non-Americans at the NYCrimes. I’m sure my son and his battle buddies with the 3rd Infantry Division would be happy to discuss your and the Crimes’ position on this matter up close and personal. Gutless bastards. You don’t deserve to share oxygen or water with those American heroes who have born the burden so the cowardly likes of you can disgrace them with your abuse of liberty. ESAD. God may have mercy on your shriveled soul. I have none.
Two words: access harlotry.
My guess is this photo was staged and not an actual battle situation. How can anyone know?
That’s interesting, randall. But I guess what’s important here is what McNally thought when she described it as “courageous.”
thank god that the sniper is stupid enough to actually stick the barrel of the rifle out the window. makes him an obvious target. if he’d bother to read the training manuals, he’d know better.
Something is VERY ODD about that pic.
The guy is trying to shoot that Dragunov left handed (no the image hasn’t been mirror imaged, the scope mount is as shown). I own a Dragunov exactly like that one, and shooting it left handed with the factory scope mounted is a massive PITA. It something (being left handed), I learned not to do real quick.
Also, aren’t most arabs right handed due to various social taboos?
Upon a closer look at the photo, would it be ‘more’ courageous if the a**hole actually had his finger on the trigger? As well, with both hands on the back of the stock the a**hole will get quite a ‘lift off.’ What an obviously posed shot. I mean, the director, whoever, failed too do their job. But of course that matters not to the NYT.
But, suddenly, he was world famous.
Tomorrow, theyll publish a shot of dubya in the rose garden. And the day after, another choice will be made.
Did you see the cover of Saturday’s Washington Post? That one seemed quite courageous. To be so close to a bridge in lebanon?
They just want to talk. Thats just the first date though. How polite.
Probably that its not easy to hang around with Sadr’s militia when they’re shooting.
Sigh.
Unbelievable. This is what our soldiers are fighting for? To protect someone’s right to give aid and comfort to the enemy, to make it easier to kill Americans!?
When kind of madness is this? There is no nuance or legalism left–someone simply needs to go to jail. But the government is too weak to accuse anyone, and so the leaks and the treason will go on and on and on.
It’s almost funny, Jeff … that you still fail to understand the liberal mindset.
What you suggest – that the reporter might at least consider warning his own country’s troops – is something that never, ever crossed the reporter’s mind.
Right and wrong, black and white, issues of morality … it isn’t that liberals are opposed to these ideas, but that they are complete foriegn and alien to them.
The reporter didn’t CHOOSE not to do the obvious, humane, decent, noble, courageous thing … he didn’t choose because it never occurred to him that he even had a choice.
The brainwashing is that deep.
What is as obvious to you as the sun rising in the east doesn’t even appear as a blip on liberalism’s radar.
And the fact that you – or any of us – even bring it up is exactly the problem: we still expect neo-liberals to react as human beings. They won’t; they can’t.
If that reporter read what you wrote – he’d laugh. Or frown, confused. He wouldn’t even get it.
Thinking independently was never an option for him. Ask Deb Frisch. She understands.
Guy’s, you got to more be edgy. Not just church on Sunday/blue blazer, reputzi dhinger, ect. More jazzy, more with poeple who are more edgy like the guy with the gun. It’s like wow how exciting to be there then just (intervew are toop’s yada yada, yawn). Plus, if you fall for the guy, something happen’s and you sleep with him (like if your a girl reporter), than that’s all the more exiting. Not like being “for” terrist’s, just more going with what’s hot, outside box, ect. Plus, more against Bush and them then being all partiotic or whatever is. At party’s your cooler, ect.
Not saying the terrist’s are nice, there not nice, I geuss. I support are toop’s, only I just think mabye they need to get there clock clean over in Iraq. But I support are toop’s.
(OMG, I just thought of if you came home with the guy (your a girl). You mom/dad would be pissed. LOL! But the guy’s hot and he does’nt take any crap from Bush, so. You’d be all over him even at mom’s dinner table. LOL. Sorry, Mom your a dhinger get use to it. LOL
I don’t think there’s anything courageous about these photographer’s shots. I mean, why? Probably some dude who isn’t even American hanging out with Muslim radicals, who offered to take him for a ride. BFD.
From the bourgeois nationalist side, if the photog is Ami, it blows my mind he would so complacently stage a shot of a sniper who is purportedly aiming at Americans. But that might be hype.
In terms of what the photog could have done (again, assuming he was American), I think attacking him would be foolish. On the other hand we don’t know anything about this photo, really: the distance involved, the setting of the shot, moving or stationary, waiting, how long the shooter was in that position (not something you could hold long without some bodily movement that would ruin the shot), etc.
I haven’t criticized the NYT’s coverage yet but this is surely in poor taste, and use of the word “courageous” extremely counter-cultural.
The NYTs needs continual critiquing, to put it mildly, but I’ll never read their paper again, nor ever again visit their Web site.
I feel somewhat like a broken record, as I’ve been complaining about this for awhile, but is there really any need to link to them when doing same critiques?
After all, each click to their site generates them ad revenue, that doesn’t seem a desirable situation to me, does it to [the generic] you?
um, just to be clear, the photographer is not American. that said, he was on assignment for the Times which his short bio says he’s been employed by since 1996, but it also states he lives in Johannesburg. so, he probably doesn’t care if you question his patriotism. the NYT on the other hand…. well, they probably don’t care either, but fire at will.
This episode rather turns the expression “crusading journalist” on its head, I’m thinking.
Jim (rell one not dhnger)…I mean, seriously…wtf? Who are you channeling? Where can I get some of what you’re smoking?
I got a C-note says the pic eventually proves to be posed or fake. Nobody in their right mind shoots that particular rifle the way its being done in that pic.
I second Sean M’s sentiment: Ernie Pyle would’ve pissed on that POS.
actus,
I rather imagine so, considering the terrorist fucks are likely to take more risks in order to show off for the camera.
Your smarmy moral equivalencies are clear and unambiguous signs of an utter lack of morality on your part.
TW: as if I expected anything else.
Okay, I followed the links and looked at the entire photo essay. What it is are just a bunch of photos by this dude, mostly of war, catastrophe, and politics, under which Michele McNally has supplied vapid captions daubed in post-orgasmic vaginal secretions. I mean you have to read them to believe them.
The first photo is of the 4 Americans hanging from the Fallujah bridge, which is claimed as being “iconic”, right up there with the 2 famous Vietnam photos and the Iwo Jima Rosenthal shot. So instantly we realize she is an idiot.
It sort of builds from there. It’s hysterical really. Check out the caption of the Kerry-Andrews family: no question whose side she’s on. Moreover, most of the photos, absent the content, are not really so great to begin with.
This is just a joke. Everyone calm down.
Unlike the morality of patriotic south africans.
The New York Times is South African?
Who knew?
Before you jump up and shout “Gotcha!”, I don’t give a flying fuck if the cameraman is SA, the New York Slimes published his Jihadi propaganda.
It doesn’t seem that propagandistic. Lots of commenters here have mentioned that it makes the shooter look like quite the idiot.
I’m not a rifle shooter, so I don’t know if there could be a legit reason for the weird grip, but it looks like the guy’s using the gun as a punch-yourself-in-the-face machine.
To the photographer’s credit, his editor wouldn’t have gushed so embarrassingly over the picture if the pose didn’t so exaggerate the sniper’s manly jawline.
Vogue.
And the former?
Working for the neutral NYT?
Career suicide.
Either way, he went the safest-for-him route.
So. No courage at all then.
Which leaves us with Michele McNally – fabulist.
And, again, actus missing the forest for the moss on the north side of a single tree.
Wha… ?
Are you really that dense?
Check this out (scroll down) from back some years ago when the photographer (who’s not a U.S. citizen) was in Afghanistan. According to this, he begged U.S. troops to rescue some of his precious pics for him that apparently put our troops in danger, and when they refused by saying they have no more control over Afghan tribal fighters than he does, he started making accusations about our troops.
Not only did he take pics that put our troops in danger, but he expects American soldiers to risk their lives saving his pics for him!
It seems that if he ran to US positions everytime he got next to a sniper, those situations wouldn’t arise. So more impossible.
I suppose safer still would be to go home and blog.
I don’t know if the shooter is an idiot, having never fired that type of rifle or used that type of sight, although I know someone here has experience with both.
I was a good shot back in the day left handed; the problems I see here, in terms of style, is awkward and difficult to sustain position, facial contortion that indicates tension which is unnecessary and with interfere with the relaxed breathing required, a very awkward “spot weld” (meeting of cheek and eye to butt and sight), lack of a sling support to provide proper support for aiming (resting your muzzle on a window sill, without support, I don’t think would be very effective).
I would agree with the above that the photo was probably staged. I would suggest however that if it wasn’t he didn’t hit his target.
Looks like Jesse McBeth taught that guy to shoot.
Sad to say, but I can see our media recording Dachau.
But only in the interests of being objective…
actus:
About safety and blogging…
(1) I may be mistaken in you—in which case, my apologies—but if you’re raising even the ghost of the old “chickenhawk” insult with Stephen_M… may I inquire when and where you served?
(2) Even blogging can become hazardous. Or had you forgotten recent events around here?
curious, de Doc
once upon a time,
CDR(select) MC USNR
Professor Blather: it never occurred to him that he even had a choice.
When I googled him I found he had co-authored a book, The Bang Bang Club, where he apparently does grapple with the moral dilemmas. (Does it make him worse that he’s grappled with it and still can’t do the right thing?) The book’s about Silva and 3 friends who called themselves The Bang-Bang Club.
One of them won a Pulitzer for a photo of a starving girl being stalked by a vulture while she was trying to crawl to a relief station 100 meters away. Silva’s buddy was criticized because he was more interested in trying to get a shot of the vulture spreading its wings and never carried her the 100 meters to relief. It haunted him for the rest of his life (he offed himself, but perhaps for other reasons).
Silva himself writes about when another of the friends got shot – this from a review: …[W]e see how Joao Silva snaps pictures of his slain friend while others are carrying him off to find help. Silva…loved and admired his friend and he knew that Oosterbroek would have expected nothing less. Ambivalence settles over this event: Had Silva done the right thing?
I’ll give Silva that he’s got balls, and that it can often a tough question as to how neutral a photographer should remain. But IMO he should’ve put helping his friend over his glory, his buddy should’ve helped the starving girl, and Silva shouldn’t be viewing himself as a neutral observer in Irag as he sits idly by watching a terrorist target American troops. How far do these guy take this neutrality??? (Sorry if my two posts were a bit long…..)
1. Good catch, Loafing Oaf (7/16, 12:16 AM). Very good catch.
2. Click “opportunism” and you see that his new book is called “In The Company of God.” That’s not kosher!
a. That the many meanings of “company” are being played on is no surprise (remember the movie, “In The Company of Men”?), but the “play” here is faulty, even dangerous. Regular, civilized armies have companies, the good guys, not the Mahdi “army”. So it’s not original, which is forgiveable (no one can be, all the time). But also it’s misleading—which is unforgiveable.
b. “God”. Bad move, Joao. A very misleading conflation of Christian and/or English language God and Islam’s Allah. Only someone not only careless but disdainful about the distinctions would insert this in his title about a bunch of Shi’a. What’s one of his chapter titles, “Band of Brothers”?
sunjester is on target, I fear. Today’s media would have covered Dachau “objectively” and would have claimed that liberating it put Europe’s “stability” at risk.
Mike Wallace proclaimed that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn U.S. soldiers of an impending ambush. “Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?”, moderator Charles Ogletree Jr. suggested. Without hesitating, Wallace responded: “No, you don’t have higher duty…you’re a reporter.”
Nothing new here.
And let’s not forget AP and CBS stringers participating in targeted assasinations.
Then they have the nerve to whine when they get zapped.
<A HEF=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGg_dpGhlf0&search=mike%20wallace”>Here’s video</A> of Mike Wallace talking about how he’s a “journalist” before he’s an American. That’s all you need to know about our press.
Damn. Delete my comment if you must.
Mike Wallace’s jackassery here.
All sorts of things wrong with that shot, notably the way he’s using that rifle. I agree with the posters arguing that it’s a staged pic.
1. Right hand interfering with cheek-weld on stock… bad technique.
2. firing up on his knees… poor shooting position.
3. Resting the rifle on the end of the barrel rather than the fore-end… changes the zero of that weapon.
4. Nothing soft between rifle and window sill to soak up vibration and small movements
5. Didn’t even bother to wrap-in with the sling… leaves it hanging freely.
6. How the hell does he have the eye-relief set on that scope?
If this is all the more skill their “snipers” have, then we’re blessed indeed to be faced with such inept enemies… the only thing they have on their side is dumb luck.
OMG. That makes Kerry, in the photo where he’s clenching the shotgun, look competent.
The photos give us insight into the delusions of the fighters. They also inform us as the ideological framework of the photographer. They are more than propaganda. They are invaluable information about the enemy. We’re fighting a war here, boys, not giving out gold stars or demerit points for patriotism or lack of it. Preaching to the converted is not the best use for your patriotic hearts, God bless them. Think a bit, will you?
If U.S. troops had sent a few rounds of high explosives into that room and Silva had been injured or killed, he would have been yet another prime example of the U.S. military “targeting journalists”.
No wonder the NYTimes’ credibility is falling faster than their stock price.
More to the point, actus – you probably looked at the picture and read the caption and felt a small frission of delight, or something other than disgust.
Not that I question your patriotism.
It’s just that picture shows a long gun being held by a guy showing a fair amount of skin. Plus the guy’s on his knees and, you know, you probably weren’t focused on the technical sniping aspects shown in the photo of the guy trying to, you know, kill US soldiers.
Not that I question your heteronormativeness.
Or that it matters.
So in some ways the point of the exercise is to get you to think, and in the process hope that you can transmit that information to the rest of Hive.
But if the blogosphere has taught us nothing it’s that the Right-side tends to look at the actual picture and consider it in light of their personal and professional experience. (Hey, that’s not an IBM-typed document! Hey! John Kerry, that’s not the way you carry a shotgun!)
The Left looks at a photo and tends to see those things they want to see (Hey! At the debates Bush was wearing a wire and Rove is telling him what to say! Hey! Look at that picture Cheney’s cock is the size of full grown dachshound!)
The latter part might be true, btw.
Not that it matters.
Posted by De Doc | permalink
on 07/16 at 02:36 AM
Doc, I asked urinal boy yersterday what his MOS was and he immediately shot back, “What’s an MOS?”
Just sayin’ is all.
Oh, and then he claimed he didin’t use the “chickenhawk” meme.
Staging photos of enemy snipers to show how courageous they are……
Revealing secret programs that are effective in the fight against terrorism……
Would you even give them a penny for their campaign?
Like actus, they should be ignored.
Unlike actus, the NYT would get even funnier the more they were ignored.
Is that you, Witheld?
Cus that was damn near perfect.
actus: Something in your soul is missing.
The flip-flops ruined the effect for me.
They reminded me of, say, a grimy, snot-nosed little gay punk trolling the slums of Palo Alto for johns before stealing enough from the nuns to buy a one-way to DC to “study law”, pathologically equivocate, and bait Americans.
So is something inside his skull.
Actus: ”I suppose safer still would be to go home and blog. ”
Anononymous trolling on the sites of others is safest of all, Actus.
AV
If I’m not mistaken, that’s Witheld’s blogdaddy. Click the nick.
That’s anti-war royalty right there.
I find that newspapers are best for starting your burn piles.
I think this shows the NYT is responsible for all the civilian deaths over there. This obvious staged shot of a civilian posing as a sniper is only going to put the wrong idea in the minds of our troops. Does the NYT not realize the troops read the paper, too?
I’m sure some intrepid reporter from the Times will notice this as well and take pity on the poor guy. Probably try to procure and send him the manuals or something. All in the interest of neutrality of course.
Sounds like a Brazillian. I don’t think Brazil has a dog in this fight, do they? Not that they’ll admit, anyway.
Not an excuse, but perhaps an explanation.
Heh, jarheads call it ‘cheek-weld’; we save spotweld’s for the metal smiths.
But, while any shooter can look and see the sniper is incompetent/barely incompetent (he is militia, he would be incompetent almost by definition), I’ve seen guys, including myself when I was learning to shoot, assume pretzel positions which somehow found biomechanical harmony. Plus, I had a friend–now gone, perhaps thankfully–that said that some folks never learn to drive drunk; if he learned to shoot all dicked up, he still learned to shoot.
This cat, a professional sniper he is not, but at the angle he is shooting at, to assume a righthand grip would be possible but would eliminate much of his freedom of movement as he was now pressed to the wall. It might still be the better thing to do, but this gentleman does not appear to be the brightest or most educated individual in the pack.
We could critique him all we want but the bottom line is a single question: Could he get a shot off?
Yes, he could. And he might have.
This woman is a blithering idiot. Read through the captions.
I am so glad I no longer live in NYC. The place is lousy with these imbeciles.
I was just talking with Joe Stalin the other day. We both agree the NYT is the best newspaper ever. Great guy, Joe, if he likes you he’ll let you take his house boy, Walter Duranty, upstairs for awhile.
What’s it like having sex with a one-legged, Pullitzer-winning, New Yawk Times journalistic liar?
If there had been one of our snipers about, I’m guessing the glint off of Silva’s camera would have attracted his attention.
I’m going to assume that the photo was staged, and that the photo ed who gushed over the pic would have screamed bloody murder had a the Madhi Army team and her photog gotten greased.
’Joao Silva’ is a more than typical Brazilian name, and the remainder of the traits of his owner we can infer from his adventures while in ‘The Bang Bang Club’ sort of put together the picture of the ‘Perfect Latin American Idiot’, as Alvaro Vargas Llosa would have it –that episode about the girl and the vulture, though it had as its protagonist one of his friends, not him, epitomizes the Brazilian and Latin American idiosyncrasy, that is, while posing as a champion of the poor and oppressed abstractly, look away when confronted with a concrete case of a poor and oppressed person whose ordeal could be made more bearable by an action on his part. It’s your typical leftist who claims to be compassionate and believes hearty ‘the government must do something about poverty!’ but somehow never has any change when approached by a beggar.
And here we have another trait of this fascinating characterological specimen: he’ll spit in the plate he eats from, if he is, for instance, a successful immigrant living in the U.S.
His ‘beating the sniper unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens’ would be, therefore, ideologically and psychologically impossible.
But then again he may be Portuguese or Angolan…
Revealing secret programs that are effective in the fight against terrorism……
…while at the same time raising Cain over the fact that it was revealed in the press that Mrs. Joe Wilson worked for the CIA.
We’re wasting an opportunity here. We need to change the definition of reporters from noncombatants to ‘aiming stakes’.
Use them for target reference points. See where they’re pointing their cameras and pop an AT-4 or grenade that way.
After all, if they’re neutral they really can’t complain what use they’re put to, right?
What makes the muskrat for to guard his musk?
Courage.
To the crawling woman:
Joao Silva: “Yeah, baby! Keep it coming! Now the left hand . . . give it to Joao!”
Silva is an accessory to murder or attempted murder of American soldiers. Hopefully, one of our snipers will blow his head off.
<frycook in old Hemi commercial> Sweet. </frycook in old Hemi commercial>
About the same as reading the paper.
How can I raise a chickenhawk meme when it comes to reporting? Me. I’m taking the safer route: staying at home and blogging. Which is my point—the reporter is not taking the safest route. There are safer alternatives, like anonymous blogging, or living in Plano TX, etc…
The post you were replying to I explicitly said that the chickenhawk meme is not for me. To repeat again: civilian control of the military is where its at. Wars should be run by politicians in Washington and career guys like Pace should have to answer to aging hippies that look and talk like Willie Nelson.
Sounds hot. Do you have his number?
Hey, Pablo. Jim (rell one, not dhnger) is actuaully more of my bloghalfbrother. We share one common anchester, which is iraqwarwrong, whose (and this is importent) maybe not a boy or girl (indetermant). I like to think of iraqwarwrong is my transgender mom/dad (like that movie where Felicity Huffman dressed up like a woman). I have no idea whose Jim’s daddy is. Weird thing is from a TOTAL coincedents, we live in the same town and know a bunch of the people.
Posted by actus | permalink
on 07/16 at 11:19 AM
Are you, like, brain dead?
It doesn’t seem that propagandistic. Lots of commenters here have mentioned that it makes the shooter look like quite the idiot.
Which makes him no less dangerous.And the propaganda no less damaging.
We’re at war. Choose a side.
One other thing that bothered me in that photo, and what convinced me that it is staged, is the sniper’s teeth.
Go back, take a good, close look.
That’s Steve Buscemi, ladies and gentlemen.
Steve Buscemi.
.
No, that’s not a sniper rest. From the expression on his face, he looks like he has a camel proboscis up his @ss…
And the barrel is resting on aluminum. Can’t get a good ranged shot with that vibration.
He should have shot the photograper…
I would think it does make him less dangerous—he’s doing things that decrease his efficacy. As to the propaganda, I’m frankly not seeing how this is positive.
You can’t really be said to see anything, actus.
I was a high expert in the Marines and was a PMI for a bit; this was 30-35 years ago. We always called it “spot weld”. “Cheek weld” sounds like getting something stuck on your ass. Whatever.
Not according to Joe Biden on this morning’s “Meet the Press”.
When Gingrich said “this is WWIII”, Biden disputed it.
That’s the problem with these frickin clowns, they are too stupid to even know when they’re somebody’s enemy and then take steps to annihilate that enemy.
As the man said: Pick a side.
“…sounds like getting something stuck on your ass. Whatever.”
– Like actus at a garden party… his bubbling personality cause people to keep mistaking him for a lawn chair….
Ya. its total war. Everyone is sacrificing, rationing gas and tax cuts.
steve, I’ll cede spotweld for the warrior Marines. Us in the Crucible Corps called it cheek weld, as spotwelding IS part of the welding discipline. Whatever, love and oorah
I volunteer we sacrifice actus.
TW: girls, actus is just one of the…
actus, we are rationing, involuntarily. Been to the gas pump lately?
TW: No doubt Biden trumpeted the Dembulb defense manuever, suggesting the Israeli’s redeploy to Telaviv. The “cut and run” line, they learned from that master war planner, Baghdad Bob.
Come to think of it, actus, you’re really selling yourself short studying law. Instead of growing up to be a personal injury attorney, you should really consider being a proctologist or writing for the New York Times.
– Or Mayor of Tiajuana
Has usage gone down? I’ve heard that gas demand is incredibly inelastic.
PI sound so boring. Important, but boring.