Saturday, December 18, 2010

Today we join the following countries that allow gay and lesbian individuals to serve openly in the military:

Czech Republic
The Netherlands
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdom

Yesterday, we belonged with the following:

Antigua and Barbuda
North Korea
Papua New Guinea
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Sri Lanka
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago

Friday, December 10, 2010

Seriously, Digby is the bomb..

The Liberal Dilemma
by digby

Kevin Drum wrote an interesting post yesterday about the Democrats' dilemma in dealing with a hardcore opposition that literally doesn't care if their policies cause human suffering. (Indeed, they actually promote it, only they call it "tough love".)Democrats are always in the position of having to choose between some specific thing that will alleviate some suffering (however temporarily) in exchange for some heinous Galtian thievery and they end up taking the short term relief because they believe they have the responsibility to help people in the best way they can. Unfortunately, when dealing with nihilists, you end up creating more and more circumstances where such deals with the devil are necessary.

Thought #2 comes from Andrew Sabl, who takes on the question of what liberal opponents of the tax deal propose to do next if it's voted down. Andy says he doesn't really have a great answer here, but that his focus is largely on the long term, not the immediate future: "how can we change baseline expectations so as to achieve progressive outcomes in future negotiations?" Dave Dayen makes a similar point here.

I haven't thought this through carefully, but I think there's a big problem with this framing. It assumes that our weakness is mostly with negotiating tactics: Democrats need to demonstrate that they're willing to accept a whole lot of wreckage if they don't get their way, and once they've done that Republicans will realize that they have to start compromising.

But there are two problems with this. First, there's a real asymmetry between liberal and conservative goals. Liberals want active change. This means they can't just obstruct. They have to figure out a way to build a supermajority coalition for complicated legislation, and that means compromise. And everyone knows this. So compromise is baked into the cake. But conservatives, to a much larger extent, are often OK with simply preventing things from changing, either as their first best or second best position. For that, all you have to do is maintain a very simple position among a minority caucus. No real coalition building or compromise is necessary.

Second, political coalitions are simply too public to sustain an artificial bargaining posture. The problem with the Democratic caucus isn't that they negotiate badly, it's that the Democratic caucus is genuinely fractured. And again, everyone knows it. You can't pretend you're willing to go to the mat against high-end tax cuts when there are half a dozen Democratic senators who support high-end tax cuts and Republicans know there are half a dozen Democratic senators who support high-end tax cuts. To fix this, you need more liberal Democrats, not tougher leadership.

In any case, Andy's whole post is worth a read, especially his second point, which I think is a genuine and growing fracture point within the liberal coalition:

Civic republicans vs. non-republican liberals. Civic republicanism (small “r,” of course) is an awkward label for a common position: that the fundamental issue of our time is the ability of the rich, and corporations, to game the political system and prevent the rest of us from exerting true self-governance....In contrast, a non-republican liberal position is that giving material sustenance to the poor is more important than whether the rich get paid off, however regrettable and undeserved that is.

Andy describes himself as "mostly a liberal but with growing sympathies for republicanism," and I'm pretty much in the same place. Maybe a little further along, in fact, though I still find myself nearly always supporting compromise positions that genuinely help people in the here and now. The last couple of years have certainly put a dent in that attitude, though. The rich have rubbed our faces a little too hard in the fact that they simply have no interest in what's good for the country, only what's good for their own bank accounts.

I think that's happening to a lot of people and it's a true moral and ethical dilemma. The result of this constant capitulation though is that liberals are participating in their own defeat and weakening themselves for future battles every time it happens --- and ending up causing more human suffering in the process.

Jack Balkin makes the argument that the "parliamentarization" of our politics, with the Republicans establishing ideological cohesion, makes it inevitable that Democrats will also coalesce into a parliamentary-style party and do the same things when they get in the minority. If that's true then I suppose one could anticipate that it would mean most liberal policy would advance from a minority position as they "hold hostage" the Republicans in the same way the Republicans are holding Democrats hostage today. But even assuming you could get ideological cohesion among the Dems (which I doubt) I'm afraid this moral dilemma would preclude them from being successful. You have to be willing to kill some hostages to be successful at this game.

The question is then, what to do? Bill Black and David Cay Johnson have some ideas. They say you have to deal with the Republicans like you deal with bullies -- confront or outsmart. Of course, I think we all know situation where you find out that the people you think are your friends really side with the bullies (or in girl world --- the popular girls) instead of you.

Anyway, this is a central problem for liberals and progressives as we try to go forward dealing with the Republican wrecking crew and their allies in the Democratic Party. I don't know what the answer is.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

It is obvious to me that the Irish-British model is the way of the future

Never, ever, bring up Friedman to me in a conversation.

Germany and France are trying to protect their welfare capitalism with defense. Ireland is generating its own sustainable model of social capitalism by playing offense. I'll bet on the offense.
T.Friedman July 1st, 2005

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.


We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.


What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"

You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?

Well, Suck. On. This.


That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

All Hail Marty Moose

Well I'll tell you something. This is no longer a vacation. It's a quest. It's a quest for fun. I'm gonna have fun and you're gonna have fun. We're all gonna have so much fucking fun we'll need plastic surgeory to remove our godamn smiles. You'll be whistling 'Zip-A-Dee Doo-Dah' out of you're assholes! I gotta be crazy! I'm on a pilgrimage to see a moose

Friday, October 08, 2010

"If Christie weren't governor, you'd be home by now."

Governor of New Jersey Kills $8.7 Billion Train Tunnel:

The largest public transit project in the nation, a commuter train tunnel under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey to Manhattan, was halted on Thursday by Gov. Chris Christie because, he said, the state could not afford its share of the project’s rising cost.

Mr. Christie’s decision stunned other government officials and advocates of public transportation because work on the tunnel was under way and $3 billion of federal financing had already been arranged — more money than had been committed to any other transit project in America.

It has taken 20 years to design and get the funding which includes over $3 billion from the fed government which now will go elsewhere. The only rail link from New Jersey to midtown Manhattan is a 2-track tunnel, built 100 years ago and is at capacity. Now hundreds of jobs will move elsewhere as there will no longer be capacity to bring any additional NJ commuters into midtown. And 6,000 anticipated construction jobs will now vanish. What do you think this does to property values in northern new jersey?

Years of work by transit advocates, planners and collaboration between 2 states, a bi-state agency, and the federal govt has all been trashed because Chris Christie wants to run for president, or at least hang out in thinktanks when he stops being governor.

How about this billboard?
"If Christie weren't governor, you'd be home by now."

The the Regional Plan Association, the perhaps most-respected nonpartisan planning organization in the New York Metro Area issued the following statement on Christie's idiocy:


(New York, NY) - Regional Plan Association, an independent planning organization representing the tri-state region, today released the following statement regarding the cancellation of the Access to the Region's Core project:

Governor Chris Christie today announced he would cancel the Access to the Region's Core tunnel project - the largest public transit project underway in the nation - citing potential cost overrun concerns.

The decision casts a dark shadow over the economic future of New Jersey
. The State will lose out on an astonishing $6 billion matching contributions from the federal government and Port Authority. The tunnel would have opened New Jerseyans' access to Manhattan's lucrative job market, raised tax revenues for the state and local governments, boosted property values, provided a more reliable and faster commute to hundreds of thousands of NJ TRANSIT commuters and drivers, and saved on greenhouse gas emissions.

As Krugman says, even if roads did pay for themselves through gas and other fees (they don't, not even close), there's still a basic economic argument for subsidizing mass transit, because it ameliorates congestion. From an economic standpoint, there's "too much" congestion because congestion is an externality. You can reduce it by adding a toll, or by making an alternative route more attractive by subsidizing it.

This project was about the one thing which gave me some confidence in the idea that this country could actually do anything.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

It's the liberal overreach

The narrative sets in, get used to it.

The first real salvo in the "it's the progressives fault" for the looming Dem disaster in November. In the section subtitled "The Overreach" (you didn't see that coming, right?) he says:

After a meeting in December 2008 about the severity of the economic crisis, Axelrod pulled Obama aside. He recalls saying, "Enjoy these great poll numbers you have, because two years from now, they are not going to look anything like this." But even as Obama aides were aware of a growing disconnect, it didn't seem to worry their boss. Instead, the ambitious legislative goals usually trumped other priorities. Both in the original stimulus package and then in the health care and energy measures, the White House ceded most of its clout to the liberal lions who controlled the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. That maneuver helped assure passage of reforms, but it also confirmed some of the worst fears about how Washington works. "I'd rather be a one-term President and do big things than a two-term President and just do small things," he told his team after Republican Scott Brown was elected Senator in liberal Massachusetts and some in the Administration suggested pulling back on health reform.

Those "liberal lions" like Max Baucus who wrote most of the health insurance reform? Or Lindsey Graham who was a lead in the energy reform drafting, until he got into too much trouble with his base and left in a hissy fit? And as far as the stimulus goes, well, Krugman takes that one:

The way the right wants to tell the story — and, I’m afraid, the way it will play in November — is that the Obama team went all out for Keynesian policies, and they failed. So back to supply-side economics!

The point, of course, is that that is not at all what happened. Keynesian analysis implied the need for a much bigger program, more oriented toward spending, than the administration proposed. People said that at the time — we’re not talking about hindsight.

It's obviously not just the way the right wants to tell the story--it's how the Village wants to tell the story. The evil liberals got their way and forced Obama to overreach on all these policies--never mind that there is no public option, that the energy bill is a shell of what it should have been to either address energy independence or climate change, and the stimulus was about half a billion less than most liberal economists (and WH advisor Christina Romer) thought was necessary and less than what the more liberal House wanted.

Michael Scherer wouldn't recognize a liberal lion if it bit him on the ass. Say what you will about the stimulus, health care reform, the as-of-yet unpassed energy reform bill, you can't say that they ended up looking like the proposals progressives put forward.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Anti Bullying Curriculum = The Gay Agenda

Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here.

So much so for the uncontrovesial nature of programs with anti-bullying curriculum.

As kids head back to school, conservative Christian media ministry Focus on the Family perceives a bully on the playground: national gay-advocacy groups.

School officials allow these outside groups to introduce policies, curriculum and library books under the guise of diversity, safety or bullying-prevention initiatives, said Focus on the Family education expert Candi Cushman.

"We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled," Cushman said.

Public schools increasingly convey that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted, Cushman said, while opposing viewpoints by conservative Christians are portrayed as bigotry.

About 30 percent of American sixth-to- 10th-graders report being involved in bullying —either as a victim or bully, according to a 2008 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It's three times more common if you're gay, Byard said. GLSEN's 2007 National School Climate Survey found that almost nine out of 10 lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender students experienced harassment. Almost 61 percent felt unsafe in school. And 22 percent reported being physically assaulted in schools.

"The word 'faggot' is not part of any religious creed," Byard said.

Focus supports bullying prevention, Cushman said. "But this issue is being hijacked by activists. They shouldn't be politicizing or sexualizing the issue of bully prevention."

Cushman founded, which says it helps Christian parents "confront the gay agenda," which she said includes homosexual-themed curricula, books with sexually graphic content and anti-religion stereotypes, assemblies and celebrations.

What is the definition of someone who is anti-(anti-bullying)? It is astonishing that these people who say they believe in this jesus guy can verbalize this stuff with a straight face. Of course it will be more amazing if these groups can actually have an effect on any school boards curriculum. Maybe they can slightly tweak the message.

Dont bully anyone -- except if they are gay. Just as good no?

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

An evening with a primary challenger.

Last night, I went to a community conversation at the 14th street Y held by NYC 14th district congressional primary challenger Reshma Saujani.

I grew up in the east village and moved back here ten years ago after grad school. Between my neighborhood and my folks, I think it would have been hard to lose my way, although at that time I did look like Alex P Keaton.

When I was in high school my father got into a lively discussion with my elective history teacher (I took a class called prejudice and persecution) during a parent teacher conference. The next day, when i asked my teacher about the conversation, he said they discussed (inappropriately) how liberal i was -- my teacher tried to reassure my dad, but my dad appeared unconvinced. My teacher's impression was that short of organizing the homeless in tompkins square park, or threatening to go to the catskills and start a commune, my dad would be left unconvinced of my politics. Twenty years later, I am pretty far left but i dont wear che t-shirts.

Carolyn Maloney our representative for 18 years hasn't really had to campaign. She holds a solid democratic voting record, in a very safe district, but she isn't a democratic superstar. Given the demographics of this district you really should be a superstar. Being a progressive, i admire people who challenge incumbents, but i also want somebody who I think will be better from both a policy and a performance perspective. (Of course at this point, I have given up the whole judging the character of the candidate after that whole John Edwards fiasco).

Going into this town hall style meeting I was inclined to think Saujani is not the right candidate for NY-14. I saw some equivocation on tv about being to hard on financial industry.

There was also a bunch of news article about her very middle of political spectrum support ( and I hadnt read this article yet). Either way i wanted to give it a chance, and see what a rising star looks like.

It is very impressive meeting a candidate (there were maybe 50 in attendance) even if, like me, you have misgivings. Female, south asian, ivy educated, accomplished and articulate; a great face for future of the democratic party. It was a ten minute speech and then a Q & A period lasting an hour.

The speech was alot of boilerplate stuff. Subjects included a discussion about maloney not debating her, maloney taking pac money, general special interests control of washington, general ethics reform in washington, greater transparency in washington, silence of maloney on the burlington coat factory (ground zero) mosque, silence of maloney on immigration reform. All these things confirm to me that, like me she is socially liberal, but for this district these things are a distraction. My major concern was how she was on an economic policies.

In terms of jobs and the economy she mentioned some of the plans in her campaign literature; increasing the employer tax credit from $5000 to $1000, eliminating capital gains taxes on investments in micro-enterprises to empower entrepeneurs with innovative business ideas, doubling the money awarded to entrepeneurs through the small business innovation research programs, awarding green cards to immigrants who complete science and engineering education. Now, unlike my dad, I dont hate these ideas, they just aren't the economic priorities I see of someone representing this district.

A major point in her presentation was about how the biggest problem with the economy was the dysfunction in D.C. and the correlation that things will not get better until washington is fixed. ~ Now, I would consider myself a pessimist regarding the state of the economy but if I believed I had to wait for washington to be fixed before the economy turns around I might become downright apocalyptical.

She supports a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Even when questioned by an unemployed constituent she reaffirmed her support of a "pathway" to citizenship (admitting aloud that noone likes the term amnesty). A mid 30's caucasion male asked about NAFTA and Saujani said she supports free trade. He followed up with a question about how fair the free trade was with all the subsidies countries provide. He gave an example agricultural products in america destroying the mexican farming industry. The conversation sort of ended there.

Specifics about what aspects of the current congress's legislative output that she would have fought to change, were lacking. The message concentrated on an idealism zeitgeist. At one point she said that her and maloney are both democrats and will vote the same on most legislation what really differentiate her is that she is running a campaign on reform ideas not legislation." Unfortunately for me, I wanted to more about the legislation.

I asked the last question. I dont know if it was fortuitous or I just timed it right. It came after a heated exchange with a fellow who questioned her political financing; a bunch of back and forth about who gived her money. Their kerfluffle, really set the tone for me, in contrast, to phrase the question more friendly way.

I grew up in this neighborhood and I am all for gettting fresh blood in
washington, but I haven't heard how you would have changed the legislation that was passed in a more progressive manner. In terms of healthcare legislation, I wanted single payer, in terms of financial regulation i wanted a volcker rule with teeth, as part of housing relief i wanted a real cramdown . I am sure you are a good democrat but i dont know if you are my type of democrat.

She closed the evening by saying she wants to change things in washington, that she is in this race to help people, not to make money. She said she was for single payer and that we probably have alot else in common. It was a really nice response and it made me feel good to hear it. No matter what happens in this race, she is going to go far in politics (democratic or other). Unfortunately for me I dont know if is acceptable for me to be is closer to harold ford than you are to Bella abzug.

As I was leaving, A man in his 60's came up to me and asked me if I knew the candidate before and what was my impression of her. I said no I didnt know her and, in fact, going into the townhall I was inclined against her from the stuff i had read. I had a discussion with him in the hallway where I went on about political hotpoints, societal problems caused by income inequality, reinstating the "death" tax, increasing the capital gains tax rate. All these things which i didnt have the guts to say in my question to the candidate, i was confessing to this guy. I said, "I have a hard time supporting someone for this district who thinks the banks/bankers are being treated too tough. The rich in this country should get in back of the ne if they want be pitied." He replied;

"I am not into political events or politics. I have been in this neighborhood a long time. My kids grew up here but I know very little about Maloney. You don't really take notice until things really start to fall apart around you. That is what happened to me. That is why I am here."
He said he had a good impression of Saujani.

A carribean woman who used to work at beth israel came into our conversation and added "I am going to support her because I like the young people." She mentioned that she was empathetic to my hallway preaching," Thirty years ago i realized that the rich have been taking it all, and I realized that i was going to have to work extra hard to take care of me and my family."

so there you go..

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

If you pack pooy, I will kill you

Blue and green shorts, kaki pants, jeans, keen sandals, flip flops, 2 hoody, rain jacket, blue short sleeve button down, orange short sleeve button down, blue plaid or other long sleeve button down, underwear, socks, atleast 5 tshirts, beach towel, hat, sunglasses.

Do NOT bring-
Orange t-shirts (too small!), plaid shorts (too tattered),crazy cargo pants .
I bought you an extra tan pair of shorts and I have your swim trunks (though you should still bring your grey ones)

If you pack pooy, I will kill you.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Ben Stein : Deep Thinker

The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say “generally” because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day’s work. They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job. Again, there are powerful exceptions and I know some, but when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative. To assure that a worker is not one of them, he should learn how to work and how to get along—not always easy.

(This brings to mind an idea I have long had: that high schools and colleges should have a course on “how to get along” and “how to do a day’s work.” This would include showing up in clean clothes, smelling well, having had a good breakfast, dressed in a businesslike way, calling the other employees “sir” or “ma’am” and not talking back. This would include a teaching of the fact that the employee is not there for amusement, but to help the employer make money and to get a job done. It would include the idea that once you are at work, you are not at play. It is an idea whose time has come.)

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Abstinence Plus? vs Fidelity Plus?

Of course this wouldn't be a Republican sex scandal if Mark Souder weren't a hard core family values advocate. You know, the kind who preaches abstinence:

Tracy Jackson, the female staffer who interviewed Souder in this video, was his mistress.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Republicans Voted Against Reforming Wall Street

The stock market has rebounded, but unemployment is at 10% and the percent of people underwater on their homes doesn't look to recover for the near future. Wall street has recovered, but mainstreet and nostreet are still struggling

There is no bleeding liberal heart argument here that the practical thing is to get something done to help the people, we did that for healthcare only because people were physically ill and while we were ok with the outcome we have a bad taste in our mouths about how it went down.

Compromise for the greater good here, makes no political sense and it makes no sense policy wise. Unlike healthcare, i wouldn't feel badly if the republicans block these reforms indefinitely. This legislation is wildly popular. Decimating the republican brand, by having them vote against this legislation for months, might be worth not getting anything done. This bill will be the most popular bill obama ever passes. Energy, Immigrants, Environment, nothing else will come close. Everytime an elected official votes against it, they will be on the wrong side of not just history but of public opinion.

The frame job that this isnt strong enough wont hold,, no matter how much the democrats screw up the public media and how much Goldman Sachs spends.

The issue is too clear for the american public, no rovian language, no luntzian wordspeak can make up seem down...

Republicans voted against reforming Wall Street.

That is the frame.

That is the meme.

Republicans voted against reforming Wall Street.

The reps are hoping the dems make some backroom deal and strip out the protections for the customers and go easy on the banks. My advice to the dems is similar to what the computer Joshua told professor Falken in War Games:

The only winning move is not to play


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Also, Al Gore Is Fat

Important to remember that salient point.

The ice block tumbled into a lake in the Andes on Sunday near the town of Carhuaz, some 200 miles north of the capital, Lima. Three people were feared buried in debris.

Investigators said the chunk of ice from the Hualcan glacier measured 1,640 feet by 656 feet.

"This slide into the lake generated a tsunami wave, which breached the lake's levees, which are 23 meters high -- meaning the wave was 23 meters high," said Patricio Vaderrama, an expert on glaciers at Peru's Institute of Mine Engineers.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Man from the future arrested at Large Hadron Collider

This is quite unnerving:

A would-be saboteur arrested today at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland made the bizarre claim that he was from the future. Eloi Cole, a strangely dressed young man, said that he had travelled back in time to prevent the LHC from destroying the world.

We all know the Large Hadron Collider was a bad idea. Messing with things that complicated can only end in disaster. Eloi Cole came from hundreds of years in the future to save us, much like John Conner sent the Terminator back in time to save a younger John Conner from another Terminator in Terminator 2.

Police said Mr Cole, who was wearing a bow tie and rather too much tweed for his age, would not reveal his country of origin. "Countries do not exist where I am from. The discovery of the Higgs boson led to limitless power, the elimination of poverty and Kit-Kats for everyone. It is a communist chocolate hellhole and I'm here to stop it ever happening."

First of all, I don't like the editorializing going on here. So what if he was wearing a bow tie and "too much tweed." Maybe that's just how they dress in the future? Anyways, is this something we should just simply discount?

Mr Cole was taken to a secure mental health facility in Geneva but later disappeared from his cell. Police are baffled, but not that bothered.

Now we'll never know what awaits humanity in the future. Maybe Cole could have explained to us how to solve global climate change and bring peace to Israel and Palestine. We'll never know now, and it's our own fault.

Friday, January 22, 2010


Four year old Haitian child Carlos tragically underwent surgery to amputate his leg. He's now recovering in a ShelterBox tent and using one of our children's packs.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Lucy Holding the Football

courtesy of Talking Points Memo

Snowe? Really?
We're starting to pick up hints that the White House is making another serious bid to pick up the vote of Sen. Olympia Snowe. Really? If they do it and get a reasonable bill, great. But it's exceedingly difficult for me to see that as a realistic possibility.

Q: What is the worlds largest deliberative body which resembles a punching bag?
A: Senate Democrats.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Haiti 50,000-100,000 dead.

Sounds more like what I expected in the ballpark than hundreds of thousands reported earlier. Just for comparison estimated from previous events.

1999 turkey 17,000
2003 Iran 27,000
2004 tsunami 230,000
2005 pakistan 80,000
2008 china 70,000

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Jets or Giants

I had breakfast about every morning when I am in town, or I should say, several mornings, at the Regency. I see my friends the Tisches. Steve Tisch is my close personal friend. I have been to more Giants games. I spent the holidays, I had lunch over the holidays with Woody Johnson. We met for the first time. I am happy for his team.
Harold Fold 01-13-2010

What type of answer is that for someone who wants to represent the common man of NY? What a jackass.

Pat Robertson: Man of God 01-13-2010

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said. "They were under the heel of the French...and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.

"True story. And the Devil said, 'OK it's a deal,'" Robertson said. "Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another."

Sunday, January 03, 2010