Eugene Robinson: George Will “Crossed the Line”
The pushback on George Will continues as Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson slams Washington Post columnist George Will. Robinson also becomes the first Postie to note the role played by Will’s editors in helping him attempt to deceive the Post’s readers. He does it gently since, after all, he works for them. But he does it:
MADDOW: Eugene, I feel like factchecking politicians is a full-time job and it is a very fun one. But does it sort of feel like there is just more made up stuff in the daily back and forth of political news right now than usual?
ROBINSON: It certainly does, and it’s distressing. I think there’s a distinction here among the examples we cite. What George Will did was cherrypick a sentence in a report, be very persnickety in the way he parsed his sentences, and end up making it sound as if the report had said the exact opposite of what it actually said. He was persnickety enough that his editors, who happen to be my editors, felt he didn’t cross the line. I thought he did. And the ombudsman agreed with me, actually, and wrote about it in last Sunday’s paper.
I think the Post is in an untenable position here. If they think that Juliet Eilperin and Tom Toles and Eugene Robinson are slandering Will, then it seems that they ought to do something about that. But if they think that Robinson is right, and Will is cherry-picking phrases in order to make it sound as if reports say “the exact opposite” of what they really say, then it seems that they ought to do something about that. Why run Chris Mooney pointing out that Will is misleading people and then keep giving Will a platform from which to mislead them?
59 Responses to “Eugene Robinson: George Will “Crossed the Line””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Oh, I don’t know. I kinda like the picture of George Will’s own newspaper calling him a horse’s ass –especially if it becomes a custom. It’s about 30 years late, but whatever.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Otherwise they might encourage people to think that Saddam has WMD’s and nuclear weapons programs he’s getting ready to use. Surely the Washington Post would not want to be associated with such efforts, not under the stellar leadership of such open, principled intellectuals as Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
What’s hilarious is that Pat Buchanan preempted the liberal blogosphere 12 years ago in rendering judgment on George Will. From a February 26, 1996 column in the New York Times:
———-
“You have to go all the way back to the days of George Wallace or the original Bob Dole to find a national candidate with as mean a sense of humor as Pat Buchanan’s.
He doesn’t limit himself to ridiculing his opponents, either. His characterization of George Will as a yapping “poodle” who deserved a few swats with a rolled-up newspaper was gleefully cheered by Mr. Buchanan’s supporters.
It was also widely admired by a press corps that thinks Mr. Will and his employer, ABC News, have been too quiet about the fact that Mr. Will’s wife works for the Dole campaign.”
Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/20/opinion/editorial-notebook-struggling-in-the-snow.html
April 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Re Don Williams
Not to mention the fact that the lady in question is Mr. Wills’ second wife; Will dumped his first wife to trade her in on a younger model, quite typical for Rethuglicans (see Newt Gingrich).
April 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Oh how Little MattY has fallen!
C’mon MattY, first you accused Will of lying, do you remember that?
Now you are reduced to defending ObaButtBoyRobinson’s willful misinterpretation and misrepresentaion of Will’s words.
And after all that what is Robinson’s earth shattering indictment?
Oh dear! Will was very careful about what he wrote!
What a crime!
Will carefully parsed his words rather than your and the House Negro’s practice of simply burping up the ObaFarts you regularly inhale.
Do you think MattY that you might do well to be more careful about your words?
You know, parse them more carefully? Be accurate and truthful in what you write? Oh I forgot, you are a “progressive” and thus are unfamiliar with the concept of honesty.
And by the way, ObaAssLickerRobinson is lying to the b-girl.
He is cherry picking and misrepresenting what the ombudsman wrote.
Oh the humanity!
Where is your outrage Matty?
April 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I assume George Will makes the Post money through syndication? If that’s the case, then his editors don’t care how inaccurate his columns are.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Because the Post is in business to sell ads and subscriptions not to tell the unvarnished truth. If anything, this whole Will fiasco has gotten the Post more attention. The Posts’ suits probably couldn’t be happier. Until people start canceling their subscriptions in droves because of Will, there’s no reason for the Post’s editors to change what they’re doing.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:25 am
JT: I have no earthly idea why your side’s ass keeps getting kicked harder and harder each election. Surely the rest of Real America will soon wise up and see things the white Alabama way.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am
@6 — it’s refreshing to see that there are still plenty of people who don’t parse words carefully at all. Or get persnickety about paragraphing.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Look, whoever is producing the parody of a fatuous, vulgar conservative ass under the tag JT, it’s getting kind of old. I watch Fox news if I want to laugh at this sort of stuff, I come hear to read intelligent commentary.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I agree with El Cid.
Not one step back, JT! Not one step back!
There is not global warming! George Will told the truth! So did Cheney!
April 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am
The NYT had an official, publicly stated policy, that William Safire was allowed to lie and that his columns were not subject to correction. Oddly, this policy applied only to Safire — they did (and do) correct other op-eds. Evidently Will has the same privilege. I guess you gain it by winning an immunity challenge — a beer pong tournament or something.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
WaPo’s providing a forum to Will’s cherry-picking goes back, unfortunately, a long way. I remember being nauseated, some years ago, by a snide Thanksgiving Day column in which he excoriated a Senate bill that would have included eliminating the tax preferences accorded SUVs, over lighter (and higher-MPG) passenger vehicles. He depicted it as yet another leftist outrage, mentioning only its Democratic sponsor–leaving out its co-sponsor John McCain (along with many other significant details). My published letter to the editor was scant balance to Will’s megaphone.
I used to read him and agree with him–until realizing that his game is always rigged.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:59 am
So Will dumped his 1st wife. Big deal. Wives get fat, old and tired. They look it and feel it and let you know it, you don’t even have to ask. Meanwhile the husband is the same ol’ horndog he was when he was 19. Men are pigs, get over it. All you have to do is service the dumb bastards and Shiela with the big hair and narrow waist won’t look so tempting. I suspect more than a few trophy wives would be unsigned if the leadoff hitter stepped to the plate more than a dozen games during the year.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Re JT
I can’t understand why the Israel bashers on this blog are beating up on Mr. JT. His dislike of the State of Israel is even greater then their own. He’s a kindred soul to them.
Re Steve Duncan
Oink, oink, oink!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Why run Chris Mooney pointing out that Will is misleading people and then keep giving Will a platform from which to mislead them?”
Controversy sells papers?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
When journalists start throwing around words like “persnickety” you know they mean business! This incident makes them all look like idiots.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
SLC equates posters disdainful of the parody called JT with “Israel bashers?”
Interesting assertion to arbitrarily posit in a discussion that nowhere mentions Israel. That one need not even bash Israel to be an Israel basher is certainly an intriguing and original insight to offer up apropos of nothing.
My, someone has a special little axe he likes to grind, doesn’t he?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
To be honest, I think the Post Editors should just sit back, let Will’s cohorts tear him a new one, and then remind Will of what might happen if he tries this again (i.e., he’ll be torn apart by his more knowledgeable fellow writers and columnists).
April 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Dare I say, last night was great TV. What an Olbermann-Maddow doubleheader.
On Olbermann we witness Rush, for the first time ever, getting eviscerated by a caller. Rush doubled over in pain, purple faced, head buried in his hands, unable to respond, unable to pull the plug. It was as if he knew it was the beginning of the inevitable siege on his fortress. His screeners were beginning to abandon ship, and it was only a matter of time. The Rise and Fall of Rush Limbaugh, on display, in microcosm.
On Maddow, Robinson tells a national audience that his colleague, the estimable George Will, is a pathetic journalist and is essentially, a flat out liar. He let’s us know forces may be coalescing in their mutual workplace, and that if these forces have their way Will may soon be reduced to writing placards to place next to his tin cup in his new workplace, a subway station.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@steve duncan: Not getting laid much, eh? Bitter, party of one…
April 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
All this sound and fury, this faux outrage over a tempest in a teapot, isn’t going to heat the world. The globe is cooling, folks; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
===========================================
April 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Why run Chris Mooney pointing out that Will is misleading people and then keep giving Will a platform from which to mislead them?
Hmm. Because Hiatt’s an unprincipled, soulless, ass-munch?
April 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
You can blather until you are blue in the face, and you may be soon, but here’s the bottom line. Antarctic sea ice extent is above the average for the last thirty years and Arctic sea ice extent is recovering toward the average of the last thirty years. With a cooling globe, sea ice extent at both poles will continue to increase for at least 20 years, unless the relatively spotless sun and its indolent progress into the next solar cycle presage a new Grand Solar Minimum and another Little, or Greater Ice Age. We far more likely face a climate catastrophe from global cooling than we do from global warming.
==============================
April 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Accumulated Cyclone Energy is the lowest it has been for thirty years, ice is accumulating at both poles, the globe’s atmosphere and oceans are cooling, the sea level rise is faltering, the sun is hibernating and its spots may disappear in another six years. We’re freezing back up, thanks to natural cycles, and for some of you, you heard it here, first.
==========================================
April 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
They keep George Will around to “balance” their stable of columnists. He’s the sniveling conservative sophist. Every metro newspaper needs one to counterbalance the reality based factspeakers. “Fair and balanced” or, in George’s case, “They report, I distort.”
April 9th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Kim! Your back!
This is my read from our last encounter.
You are male. You use a female sounding pseudonym and voice with the expectation that a predominantly male blog will be more inclined to discuss and listen to your agenda; or, even better, acquiesce to your argument in the perpetual and pathetic male way, the old male bait-and-switch switched back, we submit to female reason for the promise of sex, but in this case, we get fucked. Right dude.
You are young. I know this because you worry over using too many negatives in a sentence and you openly express pride in your writing abilities. “Better than George Will.” Remember Kimmy? Conceit we learn to hide as we get older. You are not yet 30.
You work for someone promoting both Nuclear Power and Big Coal. A lobby, a group, whatever. It was a no brainer to figure that out, right kid? You gave that away several times.
They pay you over 200,000 grand, perhaps as much as 300,000 grand. Nice scratch, kiddo. I’d sell out for that. I will give you this, you have some expertise and you are a hard worker.
Your are also pure trash.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Because the Post is ONLY about money now, getting eyeballs to look at pages. Journalism hasn’t been a priority for them for a looooong time. Buffoons draw eyeballs and clicks.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
As the saying goes, Max424, you are not even wrong. How about addressing my points? I know, you couldn’t do so last time, either. Why do I even expect it? However, you are fairly amusing.
Now, watch the thermometers, and the quiescent sun. Think, man, think. Reconsider when your observations don’t match your expectations. We are cooling, folks, for how long even kim doesn’t know. Now, why are we cooling?
=====================================
April 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Jeffrey Davis, #27. The GHG effect of water vapor is far higher than that for CO2, and it has been the mistaken multiplication by water vapor feedback that has caused the climate models to be so deperately wrong. Water vapor is not the large positive feedback to initial CO2 forcing that it was assumed to be. We know, or suspect, this for two main reasons. The expected humidity is not showing up in the troposphere and the models based on the mistaken water vapor feedback have failed. Real scientists would question their assumptions when observations failed to validate their assumptions. Many modern climate scientists seem to prefer to prevaricate with inadequate statistics, and to hide their data so their studies can’t be replicated and confirmed.
The natural cycles I’m talking about are mostly oceanic temperature cycles, and probably solar output cycles, not the Milankovich ones. But, nice try, anyway. It wasn’t a bad effort.
==================================================
April 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Jeffrey Davis, also at #27. I suspect that it is, as Tsonis points out in a recent paper about ‘Synchronized Chaos’, the coupling and decoupling of natural cycles that determine climate and global temperature. And I suspect that one of the main determinants of those cycles, is varying albedo, or reflectivity of the earth. Absent large, I’m talking continental, changes in ice extent, it is probably the short term behaviour of clouds and cloudiness which most affect albedo. Cloudiness can have a pretty large effect on how much of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the earth’s surface, predominantly in the tropical oceans.
=============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Re Kim
One really has to be amused at Mr. Kims’ ability to cut and paste all manner of crap from denialist web sites. It should be noted that he has yet to provide a citation to an article that has appeared in a peer reviewed journal.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
SLC at 34. It’s very amusing that you don’t even try to refute me, just use an argument to authority. I invite anyone to check out the information I’ve presented and discover for yourself whether I am right or wrong. And in case you haven’t the discernment to tell, I’ve cut and pasted nothing; these are conversations I’m having with real commenters, some of them pretty good.
==================================================
April 9th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
SLC, also at #34. Heh, you apparently didn’t get the memo; the new ‘deniers’ or ‘denialists’ are those denying global cooling.
=============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
You don’t get to decide who the denialists are, kim.
And no, we didn’t “hear it here first.” The global cooling talking point was put out by the party organs three years ago, and you’re just repeating it without evidence.
It’s funny how the denialists went from “there is no global warming trend” to “the global warming trend ended” without ever having gone through a period acknowledging what the actual, us, what are those guys called? Oh, right, SCIENTISTS have concluded.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
SLC, still at #34. I must be asleep at the switch; Tsonis’s article is peer reviewed. It would be well worth your effort to peruse it. He shows an excellent correlation between the the temperature record for the last century and the coupling and decoupling of natural climate cycles. It is a much better correlation than between temperature and CO2 levels, which only correlated well in the last quarter of the last century. Both before and after that time temperature correlates poorly or negatively, as now, with CO2 levels. It was the correlation during the latter part of the 20th Century that has given rise to the mistaken idea that CO2 caused that temperature rise. It is the grandest example yet of the logical fallacy of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. That CO2 and temperature rose together for that short quarter of a century was a coincidence. And on that we hang prospective policy changes about carbon that are unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous? Only in a very foolish world and polity.
================================================
April 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
joe from Lowell at #37. No, the denialists mark themselves or self identify. You must look hard to find any skeptics who still deny that the globe didn’t warm in the last part of the last century. And yet, the original term was ‘global warming deniers’. What the skeptics deny is the causal link between rising CO2 and a global warming. At the present time, CO2 levels continue to rise and temperature has been dropping, in both the atmosphere and the oceans, for about 5 years. That simply does not make sense within the failing paradigm that CO2=AGW.
And asserting that the globe is cooling is not a matter of following a party line. It is a matter of observing the temperature series, which you can do yourself, on a daily basis if it would help you. The most significant series is Josh Willis’s Argos oceanic buoys, which show slight cooling since 2005 of all the oceans since around 2005. It is the most significant because the heat content of the oceans is so much greater than that of the atmosphere. The next two most important series are the microwave based satellite tropospheric series, UAH and RSS. These also show cooling, more than slight for the last 5 years. Less reliable are the surface based series, HadCru and GISS, which also show cooling, but less of it and more recently.
So, yes, the new deniers, or ‘denialists’ to use your coy and clumsy term, are those denying global cooling. Skeptics only question the link between CO2 and significant climate change.
====================================================
April 9th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
joe from Lowell, another part of what some of you have first heard here is about the quiescent sun. This last solar cycle, #23 it turning out to be longer than expected and there is some association between long solar cycles and cooling climate. Another point to remember is that we are at or near a minumum between cycles, and the cycles are defined by the spots. So it is expected that as Solar Cycle 24 ramps up, then sunspot numbers will increase.
What is probably new to many of you is that there is a researcher named Bill Livingston who is measuring the internal magnetism of the spots that we do see, and that magnetism is on a decline curve for sunspots to become invisible by 2015. That is not to say that the internal dynamo which produces spots is failing, only that they will be too weak to be visible.
Now, here it gets interesting, and that has to do with the effect of the spots upon global climate. The sunspots completely disappeared during the Maunder Minimum and the earth got cold, the Little Ice Age. Spots became very sparse, quite large, and exclusively Southern Hemispheric during the Dalton Minimum, at which time the earth also cooled. However, there were also a number of large volcanoes during the Dalton Minimum, which cool the earth by increasing its albedo, or reflectivity. So no one, not even the experts, know for sure that a paucity of spots translates into a cooling earth. For sure, if it does, we do not know the mechanism by which that happens.
So, if the present somewhat unusual behaviour of the sun is presaging a new Grand Solar Minimum, and if that translates into a cooling earth, then cooling may be dramatic and last a hundred years; this is exactly the wrong time to be encumbering carbon with a regressive tax.
Those promoting carbon restrictions, at great expense, are wrong-footing us into mitigating a warming that isn’t happening instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening.
We risk climate catastrophe from global cooling more than we risk one from global warming.
=============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I’ll break it down very simply for you. The sunspots are going away. It got cold the last two times they went away. It’s probably going to get cold again.
=============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
About that word, skeptic:
Has anyone ever seen a global warming “skeptic” display the slightest bit of skepticism about any claim purporting to refute the established scientific consensus about global warming?
They find any single article or advocate that tells them what they want to hear, and Halleluia! This is going to change everything.
Then it doesn’t, and they’re onto the next one.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
joe from Lowell at #42. That’s a pretty poor argument you have there. How about addressing and attempting to refute some of my points?
There are a lot of ’skeptical’ claims I’ve heard over the last few years with which I don’t agree. What I’ve presented today and on two other recent threads here is my synthesis of the state of the climate science art. I’ve put a lot of caveats into what I’ve said, and I’m certainly skeptical of my own beliefs, because they’ve evolved and continue to evolve as I’ve studied this. For instance, I used to believe that the sun directly controlled climate by the amount of energy it put out. Leif Svalgaard, and others, have convinced me that there is not enough variation between maximum and minimum output of the sun, which is about a half percent, to account for the range of variation in climate. I’ll readily admit that neither I nor anyone knows how the sun controls the climate, or even if it does. I believe it does, but by an unknown mechanism. In other words, the science isn’t settled. Nosiree, Bob; not by a long shot.
Now, how do you explain falling global temperatures with a rising level of CO2 within the CO2=AGW paradigm? I’ve issued this challenge repeatedly here, and it hasn’t been answered yet.
===========================================
April 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
joe, you’ve imagined a strawman, and you haven’t even successfully knocked down your imaginary strawman. Most of the skeptics with whom I’m familiar have had a similar evolution of their beliefs. We’ve had to change our beliefs, because both the climate and our understanding of it is evolving. It is the alarmist true believers who can’t seem to let go of the idea of CO2 dominance of climate. Give it up; it’s false.
=============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Re Kim
Showing just how incompetent Mr. Kim is, he fails to provide a complete citation of the article by Tsonis that he quotes from, i.e. the journal in which it was published, the volume number, the page numbers, and the date. That’s how scientific and engineering papers are cited. Real scientists and engineers who have published in technical journals supply this information so their claims can be checked by interested parties.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
kim at 39. Once again, I’ve slipped one too many negatives into my second line, there. What I mean is that you’ll not find many skeptics who still deny that it warmed during the last quarter of the last century.
==============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
SLC at 45. Another poor argument. Hasn’t anyone ever told you that google is your friend? A commenter last session had no problem finding the paper, from the University of Wisconsin, at Milwaukee. Enough clues. You can find it if you are curious. I don’t care if you don’t find it if you aren’t curious. This stuff isn’t supposed to be easy, like your food served up to you on a platter.
And I’m not really trying to be persuasive; that is a secondary goal. What I’m really trying to do is warn you. Look to your arms, and look for yourself. This is a voyage of discovery with no free trips for the indolent.
====================================================
April 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
The fact is, honey, that you can find it more easily by googling than if I gave you a formal cite. Surely, in this day and age, you know that much anyway.
===========================
April 9th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Heh, SLC, I’ll bet you didn’t even bother to look for it before weighing in with your crabby and finickey objection. When your first reaction is a shabby kneejerk response instead of a genuine search for the truth, I really have to wonder about your motivation to question your own beliefs. C’mon, all you have to lose is your fear and your guilt about man wrecking the environment with our energy use. There are plenty of real things to feel guilty about on that account. Get real. It’ll be good for you. And good for the earth, too. Tighten up.
============================================
April 9th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Well, good night all. This has been a pretty poor session. Whatsamatta, running out of ideas that you have to descend to such pitiful rhetoric? I didn’t get a substantive response tonight, and the other times I’ve commented here, I did.
=================================================
April 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
kim Says:
Be witty , pay for your stimulants online and save .
Kam janicki
April 10th, 2009 at 12:22 am
I think Will should be fired for pretending to think he is the least bit qualified to analyze a specialized scientific field. Whether he got it right or wrong, summarizing technical papers is so far outside of Will’s purported area of expertise that it is no better than roulette for Will to even try.
This goes for commentators like Kim, as well. She thinks that she is qualified to do some armchair analysis in a field which she is not trained. I wouldn’t trust her conclusions for the same reason you shouldn’t trust me to remove your brain tumor. I’m not a Neurosurgeon and she is not a Climatologist. (Kim: If I am mistaken, please post a link to your web-page on the site of the accredited university/NSF funded institute at which you teach/do research in fields related to Climatology)
If a lay-person wants a good summary of the opinions of experts on issues related to global warming, I would recommend that they go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
From reading the link above, it is pretty obvious that the majority of Scientists who are qualified to have an opinion on global warming believe 1. that it exists 2. that is is caused by humans.
Also, please don’t complain at me about the quality of the article on Wikipedia. If you have something constructive to add to the article, you are welcome to add it. Wikipedia is not only an excellent tool for knowledge aggregation, but also one of the best tools that we’ve got for consensus building on issues of fact.
If you would like to form an opinion of your own, I would recommend you get a PhD in a related field from a leading university.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:46 am
@ 50 Kimmy dude, may all your sessions here be so fruitful.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Re Kim
LC at 45. Another poor argument. Hasn’t anyone ever told you that google is your friend? A commenter last session had no problem finding the paper, from the University of Wisconsin, at Milwaukee.
I have a flash for Mr. Kim. If he submitted a paper to a technical journal and cited as a source the authors’ name and a suggestion that Google should be used to find the paper in question, his paper would be immediately rejected for publication. As somebody who has had some 40 technical papers published in the technical literature, I think I can speak with some authority in this area.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Eugene Robinson – he is a total class act. I just love watching him with Rachel and Keith.
April 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
@ 54
SLC, don’t bother trying to educate Kimmy. As we all well know, in right-wing circles the less you know about a subject the more qualified you are to spout off inanely about it.
It’s all about what your gut says. Kimmy’s gut says global climate change is wrong. My gut says Kimmy solicits sex from children. Never argue with your gut — unless your gut has facts, in which case your gut is wrong and you should just flip a coin.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
@ 54 “Never argue with your gut — unless your gut has facts, in which case your gut is wrong and you should just flip a coin.”
From this point forward, however my journey unfolds, I will hold this wisdom close to my heart, and have a coin in my pocket at all times.
Too fucking funny, jvill.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@ 55
Eugene Robinson strikes me as a true gentleman, which is the highest praise I reserve for my gender.