Gnooze - Hilary Backs Obama

Gnooze - Clinton Fights On

Whirled News - Senator Clinton Revamps Campaign Strategy

A determined Senator Hillary Clinton today refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and instead revamped her campaign strategy to focus on the upcoming West Virginia primary.

Appearing at a rally in Morgantown, West Virginia, the Senator announced, “This race is about something bigger than my ego. What’s bigger than that? It’s so big that I dare not speak Its name aloud, but y’all know what I mean.”

Sporting a new look, the Senator wore overalls and had two front teeth missing, and the newly energized candidate repeatedly poked her corncob pipe at the audience to emphasize her points.

“Ah’m a straight shooter,” she said. “My daddy taught me how to shoot straight when I was a little girl, and when ah’ve said in the past that ah’m for gun control, ah meant controlling yer aim. Ah represent the common folk. Mah opponent wants to make you pay more and more money for gasoline, but ah want to give you all a rebate this summer, and that’ll help you out no matter what the pointy-headed intellectuals in Washington say. And I say, let’s get the job done in Iraq, but let’s get the job done right.”

Later that day the Senator appeared at the University of Oregon, where another primary is scheduled later this month. Discarding her overalls and corncob pipe and appearing with new teeth, wearing a sensible business suit, and using a pointer, the Senator answered questions from the students and faculty.

Addressing the concerns of Oregonians about the deteriorating environment, the Senator noted that just the other day she had gone to Washington’s Zoo to look at the panders.

“We’ve got to do something to save them and everything else,” she said, “And I’m going to bring together the energy industry and common people to find a solution that balances economical and environmental concerns.”

Asked by a professor of Latin what her favorite book was, the Senator replied, “Pander’s Odes.”

And appealing for a more civil and calmer primary election, she decried “the panderonium that’s been taking place.”

Whirled News - President, Candidates Address Gasoline, Climate Crisis

A determined President Bush challenged Congress to deal with the soaring price of gasoline by insisting they approve drilling in Alaska and the construction of a string of new oil refineries across the country.

After a series of irrelevant questions, a Whirled News reporter asked the President whether these new initiatives weren’t in direct contradiction to his State of the Union speech in which he said that “America is addicted to oil.”

Several reporters stared in disbelief, and one was heard to mutter, “What kind of reporter does he think he is, asking questions like that?”

The President replied that his new proposals actually supported his warning that America was addicted to oil.

“We’ve got to make sure things get worse with our addiction first,” he said. “Only after our addicted nation touches the bottom will it seek the help it so desperately needs.”

In response to a follow-up question about how building new refineries would address the President’s environmental initiatives he proposed two weeks ago, reporters were heard asking each other, “What environmental initiatives? How are we supposed to remember what he said two weeks ago?”

The President, speaking over the confused murmurs, responded that the environmental initiatives he proposed were long-range proposals to be phased in decades from now when global warming becomes a serious problem, while the gasoline crisis was “as immediate and clear a present danger as another terrorist attack. The American people want their President to act boldly in times of crisis,” he insisted.

Meanwhile, Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain pushed their proposals for a temporary roll-back of the federal tax on gasoline this summer to help make gas more affordable.

Reiterating his campaign theme of straight, honest talk, McCain insisted, “As a candidate for President of the United States, I can do no less to address global warming and our energy crises.”

Senator Clinton, in supporting the temporary tax rollback, pointed out that, “This proves that I can make the tough decisions. It’s not easy to keep pandering for votes while you’re insisting that America needs a change from politics as usual,” she said.

She pointed out that by supporting her proposal, her opponent Barack Obama could “prove he was on the side of working Americans.”

Obama campaign officials responded that the temporary tax roll-back was merely a cosmetic sop, would accomplish nothing in the long-run, and in fact merely helped fuel the deeper global climate and energy crises. Ms. Clinton responded by announcing that she was considering Monica Lewinsky as her running mate. “We both know how to whore in order to get close to power,” she said.

Whirled News - White House Observes Earth Hour

As millions of people around the world turned off their lights for one hour starting at 8 PM, the Bush administration unexpectedly joined the world-wide observation of Earth Hour. At precisely 7:30, gangs of thugs fanned out from the Rose Garden into the Washington, DC area, gouging out the eyes of any environmentalists they came across.



“None of these namby-pamby one-hour measures for us,” said Vice President Dick Cheney. “We put out some of their lights for good.”

Between 8 and 9 PM, the White House Earth Hour Squad, as it was officially designated, pulled people out of hybrid cars and broke into houses with only candlelight showing through the windows, sticking their thumbs into people’s eyes and twisting.



“We decided to bring the central metaphor of our administration into concrete reality,” said a White House spokesperson.



Before leaving the houses, squad members turned on all lights, appliances and power bars, leaving residents groping blindly amid the noise and glare.



“It’s a win-win situation,” explained the Vice President. “We’ve actually increased next month’s average utility bills, which will help the utility companies’ bottom line. And the very environmentalists who tried to sabotage our nation’s economy are now going to have to pay those higher bills.”

Officials announced they were so pleased with the program’s success that they intend to implement it in other cities next year. Reminded that a new administration will be in control next year, a spokesperson for Vice President Cheney replied, “Don’t be so sure.”

Whirled News - Bush Administration Reveals Bold New Climate Change Plan

The Bush administration announced its long awaited plans to address global warming. Signifying the importance of the new proposal, Vice President Cheney, the most powerful man in the United States government, announced the bold new plan.

“We’re going to bomb the bejeezus out of Iran, Afghanistan, and a few other places which I do not intend to divulge in order to keep the terrorists guessing,” the Vice President announced. “The combined force of the unprecedented explosions will move the Earth a few degrees out of its present orbit, just farther enough from the sun to cool our temperature by two degrees Fahrenheit.”

Insisting that the Bush administration had learned a lesson about post-war planning, Mr. Cheney announced that the United States would immediately begin drilling for oil in Alaska and building a string of refineries across the country.

“We’re going to need more heating oil when our planet moves further away from the sun and starts cooling,” he said, and we’ll be ready for it.”

Stressing that the new environmental plan entailed even longer-range planning than the new oil drilling, Mr. Cheney also announced a $10 trillion contract to Raytheon to develop the next generation of nuclear bombs to move the Earth again 30 years from now when the increase in fossil fuel burning may necessitate another orbital readjustment. As part of the plan, Halliburton has been awarded a $1 trillion contract to build and maintain Raytheon City in the Mojave Desert, which will house the massive project.

“The new city will require water,” Mr. Cheney pointed out, “And so former Haliburton subsidiary Brown, Kellogg and Root will be awarded an $80 billion contract to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the Mojave Desert.”

Referring to critics, who have warned that the project will result in the draining of the Great Lakes, as “environmental alarmists,” Mr. Cheney pointed out that with Lakes Mead and Powell projected to dry up by 2021, the emerging dry basins will provide excellent holding areas for the newly arriving Great Lakes waters, a clear indication, he said, that God favors the administration’s plan.

Bush Girl - My Lil' Bush

Whirled News - Outcry Against Negative Campaigning Grows

A new voice joined the criticism of ex-Obama aide Samantha Power for calling Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster."

“Calling Senator Clinton a monster is a deep personal insult to me,” said Ben Chapman, who donned a rubber suit to play the creature from the black lagoon in the 1954 horror movie of the same name.

“It propagates the false stereotype of monsters as creatures who will do anything to take over and win, when in fact most of us monsters were really just misunderstood and were trying to protect our own turf.”

Chapman did however concede one similarity between Senator Clinton and him. “I too had a devil of time squeezing into my outfit each day,” he said.

Obama also gained a vote of confidence from a former Clinton White House worker, who decried Senator Clinton’s, “Who will answer the phone at 3 AM?” ad. “When she was First Lady, Hillary had no idea what was going on in the White House at 3 AM,” said Monica Lewinsky.

Despite the apparent backlash against the Clinton barrage of negative campaigning, Obama campaign officials expressed concern.

“Some people might say that this ultimately makes him a more attractive candidate, but Obama’s really getting his ears pinned back,” said an aide to the Illinois Senator.

Obama officials promised that the Senator would begin responding more aggressively to the Clinton negative campaigning but acknowledged that fashioning a counterattack is difficult.

“They’ve borrowed a page from the George Bush playbook,” he pointed out. “His father did it and he’s been doing it too. You attack viciously, either directly or sneakily, and then the moment your opponent responds in kind, you cry foul and accuse him of playing dirty. We just have to help the American people realize that this is yet another example of what little real difference there is between Bush and Clinton campaigning—hey, I just did it!” he exclaimed.

In other news, President Bush once again denied that the economy is in recession.

“I’ve never lied to the American people about anything,” he asserted, “And I always accept responsibility for any mistakes I make. So let me say this again. We’re winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies are growing weaker, and our country is growing stronger, but our economy has hit a temporary slowdown. We’re still driving along this fine road, but we’ve hit a little mud patch is all. We just need to stay in the car and keep going, while anyone who tries to climb out and try something else is going to get splattered with mud. Tell your Congressmen to make my tax cuts for the rich permanent, or else this temporary slowdown will turn into something worse and it’ll be all Congress’s fault. And just think about those rebate checks you’ll be getting. Thanks to Congress falling quickly in line with my economic stimulus package, those checks will be arriving in time to still buy a full tank of gas and filter even more money of that new money we’ve just printed toward the upper 2 percent of our wealthiest citizens. After all, they’re the ones--not government—that’ll make this whole thing work.”

Gnooze - Hilary Hearts Ohio

Whirled News - God Expresses Despair Over Presidential Primaries

A visibly exhausted God lapsed into a rare moment of despair today at His press conference following last night’s presidential primaries.

“With these latest results, it’s looking like this campaign is going to drag on forever,” He said, “And until everyone stops talking about all these other issues, no one’s going to do anything about global warming. Because of hundreds of extra tons of hydrocarbon emissions in the atmosphere, Atlas has retired with crippling bursitis, and I’ve had to take over for him. Honest to Me, I can’t hold off this global warming all by Myself much longer.”

Reporters tried to cheer Him up by pointing out that at least the Republican nominee was decided, but God saw little good news in that.

“That alter kaker McCain may not live until the November election,” He said, “and that will put everything right back to people talking about all these other things again.”

Informed of God’s comments, Republican presumptive nominee John McCain said, “While I would never disagree with anything God says, my friends, I would point out to Him that unless we uphold our honor in Iraq, stay the course and prevail, it’s irrelevant whether the entire world ecosystem collapses. Would you rather live in a world in which Al-Qaeda is on the loose? They thrive in hot weather and barren deserts.”

The Democratic nominees also respectfully disagreed with God.

“Oh, I’m sure God will save us and leave me time to focus on other issues that will garner me votes,” said Senator Hillary Clinton. “If I can do things like fit into my pants suits and transubstantiate my vote on Iraq, He can stop global warming.”

Senator Barack Obama’s office also issued a statement, expressing his concern for God.

“God’s statements today, lacking His usual grandiloquence, show how exhausted He is,” he said. “But let me assure every one of you that I intend to carry my own oration forward into the future until such time as He is able to extend His oratorical glory to all of us once again and unite us all in common mission. And even if the pace of global warming is now happening faster than most scientists predicted, change is what we’re all about, isn’t it? My fellow Americans, we must never change out of fear but we must never fear to change.”

Reflecting His growing despair, twice during His press conference, God tried to focus on good news but both times veered toward darkness again.

“At least last night’s results knocked Crazy Mike out of the race,” He said at one point. “But he may be back as a Vice Presidential candidate, and he’s one of those guys who thinks responsibility for everything rests on Me.”

Later in the conference, God momentarily expressed optimism about Ralph Nader entering the race.

“There’s the only guy who will stand up to corporate interests and meaningfully implement alternate energy,” He said. “But even if this Nader guy somehow gets elected and sets up windmills all across the country, a year later he’s likely to start knocking them down with his lance.”

The Gay Republican #5 - Government? No! Lawyers? Yes!

As a gay republican, the most common retort I receive from those who dismiss me as a backward, self-hating closet case is “what about gay marriage? How can you vote for a party that wants to deny you the right to marry your partner?”

It is true that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed by overwhelming majorities in a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

The US DOMA stated simply:
No state need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

What you don’t usually hear about DOMA from the left is that it passed by an 85-14 margin in the Senate and a 342-67 margin in the House, meaning that it was supported by clear majorities of both parties. AND that it was signed into law… by President Bill Clinton, on September 21st, 1996.

In 2004, Karl Rove & Company were accused of gay-baiting by introducing state-level statute propositions and constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in order to get out the narrow-minded bigot (read: Republican) vote. But what those accusers forget is that in the year 2000, California’s own Proposition 22, which simply stated “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” passed with a 61% majority.

That’s right; even reliably blue-state California couldn’t muster enough “social progressives” to defeat a new law that plainly and explicitly denied gays the right to marry.


Perhaps 2000 is too far back. Perhaps eight long years have taught the errant Democrat majority of yesteryear to reach down in their hearts, ignore their personal intestinal objection to homosexuality, and vote to grant their gay brothers and sisters the right to wed. Indeed, the current Democrat party platform states that they “support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.” Sounds like a gay marriage endorsement, doesn’t it?

Wrong.

The next sentence in the platform states: “In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there.” Now, technically, that’s a de facto endorsement, since before the platform had been written in 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had already ruled that gays must be allowed to marry there. Plus, the several states are required to recognize each other’s legal proceedings, so if you get married in Massachusetts, then you are married everywhere.

But you’ll notice that the Democrat platform stopped short of actually taking up the sword for the “civil rights” that its constituents claim to hold so dear. Rather, it pays lip service to “inclusion” and “equality” for gay and lesbian families, but then it kicks the actual issue down to the states for somebody else to deal with.

Now, in the interest of equal time, the 2004 Republican platform reads: “We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”

OK.

“The social science confirms?” Bullshit. I’m open to any number of studies that suggest that certain family configurations are more likely than others to produce progeny that end up at Harvard (or in the state pen), but let’s be honest about the frequency of the “best” conditions for “the well-being of children”, by any definition: they’re few and far between. Is it also “optimal” for one of the parents to stay at home? If so, should we ban two wage-earner households from procreating? Wait: wouldn’t it be better still for both parents to stay at home; would that be “optimal”? Should American wage-earners without children then be taxed to subsidize all families with children so neither parent has to work?

That’s ridiculous, of course; just as it’s also ridiculous for a government body to determine – let alone enforce – an optimal child-rearing family configuration. Some scenarios may be better than others of course, but there’s plenty more to it than the gender of the parents.
Anecdotally speaking, you can’t tell me that Steve and David’s adopted children would better off living in neglect with their crack-addict mother in Compton than they are living with two caring fathers in Valencia.

I think my party is wrong on this issue. But there’s a difference, more important than the one of gay marriage, between the Republican platform and the Democrat platform; between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party….

It’s the difference between “princpled” and “fickle”.

Watching the gay marriage debate unfold reveals a corollary that you begin to notice as you observe politics: Conservatives are people who make decisions based on principle, while liberals are those who make decisions based on emotion.

The right may be as wrong as it’s ever been on gay marriage…
But the left is as spineless on gay marriage as it is on every issue.

The eternal PR problem of having principles is that it means you have say “no” sometimes, and saying “no” to people hurts their feelings. It’s easy to tar-and-feather a politician who says, “No, I don’t think the federal government should fund a new program to pay for children’s health care.” HE MUST WANT CHILDREN TO BE SICK!!
But it’s tough to make somebody look bad when they hug a crippled fourth-grader and say “I want to help the children” (even if that actually means “I will use the force of the state to rob productive members of society for the purposes of involuntary charity”).

The big-think Republicans who set the party platform may have their principles out of order (“social conservatism” and “tradition” before “individual liberty” and “equal protection”), but at least they have some. The Democrat party’s only principle is “say ‘yes’ to enough people to get 51% of the vote.” Politicians may all be whores, but the Democrat Party itself is an institutional brothel in a way that the Republican Party is not. In 1996 and 2000, I guess Democrats felt they didn’t need the gay vote; at least not enough to proselytize and offend a majority base that still objected to gay marriage. Perhaps today the Democrat Party opinion leaders feel differently, but I still wouldn’t stake my well-being on the loyalty of such a fickle crew.

George W. Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment is a bad idea all around. It bans gay marriage by setting in stone (the Constitution) the final gasps of a dying social morality. It revokes the doctrine that states must recognize each other’s legal proceedings; an awful, litigious Pandora’s Box that ought not be opened. But the largest problem with it is not pragmatic but principled: it sells out the philosophy of limited government and federalism. (This, by the way, has been the true conservative objection to George W. Bush’s presidency all along: He uses big-government methods to implement social conservatism, a stunning about-face for a man from a party that complained for decades about “social engineering.”)

When you come down to it, marriage isn’t a federal institution, nor should it be. Nor, further though, should it be a state institution either.

Marriage existed long before any state in the US issued a marriage license. The statutory codification of marriage by the States was therefore, in essence, a legal consideration by the States to accommodate the circumstances of life. Two people own property together. They share a mutual right of survivorship on that property. Two people share their finances. Two people each have the power to act on the other’s behalf. Etc.

In religious terms, marriage carries a connotation of love and commitment and any number of other characteristics, but in legal terms marriage is nothing but a contract. So, my gay brethren, if you want a gay marriage… write the contract yourselves.

Have a lawyer draw up a contract that states, “The undersigned parties commit to each other a permanent mutual duty of care. They award to each other the rights and privileges of marriage as described in California statute and case law, and assume for each other the duties and responsibilities of marriage as described in California statute and case law.”

For concerns like hospital visitation rights, have your lawyer draw up small, mutual “power of attorney” cards. Draw up wills.

Sign the contract, file the wills, keep the cards in your wallets, and call Alanis Morissette to preside over your ceremony. You’ve both agreed to subject yourselves to the law that governs marriage. Sounds like a legal marriage to me.

There are, of course, a few lingering concerns such as the right to adopt children as a couple. Quantitatively though, such concerns seem to be balanced out by the tax benefits of filing as two single individuals rather than as a couple that shares one household. But I certainly don’t mean to say that those lingering concerns should be ignored. Adoption rights for gay couples, specifically, sounds like an excellent subject for an equal protection class-action lawsuit. And if the day comes when that happens, I’ll sign the petition. I’ll march with the ACLU.

But I’ll be standing on principle. So don’t ask me to switch parties.

Whirled News - Fox News Apologizes for Unintentional Obama-Clinton Slur

Fox News president Roger Ailes today apologized for a Fox News headline that said, “Obama-Clinton Discovered in Bed Together,” contending that while the story itself accurately related how the two contenders for the Democratic nomination were actually coordinating an attack to wrest control of the government from the Republicans and hand it over to the terrorists in November, the headline itself “may have been a bit misleading.”

“We in no way meant to evoke stereotypes of an oversexed black male lusting after a white woman,” he said. “Instead we merely meant to remind our viewers of the Clintons as a licentious couple who have no respect for the exclusiveness of sex within a marriage, of Hillary Clinton as a shrill woman who fights in an hysterical and vindictive manner, and of Barack Obama as a naïve black dupe who gets caught up in matters which he cannot understand and which are beyond his control.” Rejecting accusations of Fox News as racist for running the headline, Ailes said that his news organization was repeating basically the same story line as Richard Wright’s Native Son, a “widely read novel written by another Communist Negro man.”

“Fox News remains firmly committed to analyzing the major political stories of our time, going beneath al the blather about policies and programs to get at the truth of what’s really going on,” he said.

Gay Republican #4 - Attack of the Beavermuppets

Well, John McCain looks to be the inevitable Republican nominee, and I don’t really want to talk about it…. Much.

Here’s a strategic quandary; which is worse: A Democrat president who implements ruinous left-wing policy, or a Republican president who does pretty much the same and destroys his party in the process?

Clearly, both Hillary and Obama want to raise taxes. Yes, on “the rich”, but newsflash, dear reader: those are the worst taxes to raise. Howl all you want, but when you change tax rates on people earning about $50 grand a year, pretty much the only thing you change is the number of dollars they pay. When you change tax rates on people earning $250,000 per year, you’re fucking with people who actually make decisions based on the tax rates. “Should I invest?” “Should I start a small business?” “Should I expand my business?”
The phrase “the rich” is class-warfare code-speak for “the leaders who take the initiative and drive our economy.”

By and large, that’s why they’re rich; they earned it. If our economy is like a building, then screwing with tax rates on the non-rich is like kicking the bricks. Raising taxes on “the rich”, though, is like knocking the keystone out of the archway.
But John McCain opposed Bush’s tax cuts, and he’s indicated that he’d raise taxes on “the rich” again. (Maybe he’s said something different more recently; I can’t keep track.)

Where’s the difference?

Clearly, both Hillary and Obama would appoint left-wing federal judges, who prefer to create case law on the fly rather than adhere to the limitations imposed on the US Government by that dusty old relic, the US Constitution. But John McCain just last week called Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “too conservative.”

Does anybody believe that McCain, in his shameless self-prostitution to fawning media coverage, wouldn’t appoint a “moderate”?

Last time a “moderate” Republican president appointed a “moderate” SCOTUS Justice, we got Souter….

Where’s the difference?

I don’t even want to think about what McCain would do to “solve the healthcare crisis.” Clearly, both Hillary and Obama would like to implement a single-payer system, which, as anybody who’s worked on the financial side of health care (as I have) can tell you (as I am), will plainly and directly lead to fewer health care providers and less availability of care. Which in turn leads to nationalization of the providers, which ultimately results in the decay of the entire system as well as dire financial straits for the payer (the US Government), to whom all the bills are sent. Now, while I haven’t yet heard him introduce a plan for socialized medicine, is there any real doubt that John McCain’s simple-minded, short-sighted pragmatism would compel him to sign into law whatever hair-brained, entitlement-creating legislation the Democrat congress sent him?
Where’s the difference?

About the only solid distinguishing factor between McCain and either of the Beavermuppets he might face in the general election is McCain’s commitment to successful ongoing prosecution of the war against terror. But if the nation is decaying from the inside out, then the goings-on in the terror-friendly world overseas are the least of our concern.

But I don’t really want to talk about it.

I finally broke down and bought “The Departed” soundtrack today, and I can’t get past track 1, the Roger Waters / Van Morrison / The Band remake of “Comfortably Numb.”

Which reminds me: Roger Waters is going to be at Coachella this year! And with any luck, I’ll be backstage.

Don’t be jealous.

In other news, Valentine’s Day is Thursday, and I truly wish you and yours a happy, romantic, and pleasurably copulatory day. Whether “yours” is animal, vegetable, or mineral.
At present, mine happens to be “mineral”; this year I am single for the sacred holiday yet again. I’m not completely sure how this always happens, but I think it relates to my tendency to find love in the hot days of summer, and then pitch it to the curb when the relationship starts to show stress cracks as the winter holiday season approaches.

Don’t cry for me, Argentina.
All things considered, it’s just another gift that I don’t have to buy. Which is good news, since I have the worst memory for dates. Even the ones that Hallmark all but calls you to remind you about.

I would go to the Abbey and get hammered with the rest of the sad fags who consider a February 14th hookup “a date for Valentine’s Day”, but I gave up drinking for 60 days as part of my New Year’s resolution, so that’s out.

I would go to Lucha VaVoom with the downtown crew… but I gave up drinking for 60 days as part of my New Year’s resolution, so that’s out. (If you’ve ever been to Lucha, you know that inebriation is not optional.)

I would open a bottle of Stags Leap Cabernet and relax at home while watching Elizabethtown, but…

You get the idea.

I’ll probably spend it like most other Thursday evenings since December 31st: getting home, doing gym laundry, checking my mypartner.com inbox, wondering why the men on mypartner.com aren’t hotter, browsing through profiles of shirtless men on myspace, wondering why the men on myspace are all such sluts, reassuring myself that the answer lies in a maddeningly frustrating tradeoff, brushing my teeth, washing my face, and going to bed around 10h00.


Thank God Monday is President’s Day.
I’ll have time in my busy schedule to write a better article next week.