« Monday Day Brightener | Main | Snake Handling Jesus Phreaks »

September 09, 2008


There was a time in America when women were the teachers. We were the keepers of family rituals and tradition, of moral standards and rules for everyday living passed from mother to child. We made sure holidays were observed and family ties preserved. The hand that rocked the cradles of this country did, in many ways, shape the world around us as our children moved from beneath our sheltering arms into the world, taking our values with them.

It was women who ensured our children knew right from wrong. No decent mother trusted a school to teach her family these things. These were lifetime lessons; learned after playground fights, struggles to complete homework on time or resist the temptation of stealing penny candy from the corner store. More often than not they were lessons learned after we made mistakes, discovered only because someone kept a watchful eye on most everything we did. And after the tears were dried and we'd spent time in our rooms, there came The Talk.

That was when we learned why what we had done was wrong; how it damaged the fabric of the society we lived in. There must be a million aphorisms Moms have scolded their children with over the years. All have a moralistic bent. All are intended to teach a lesson; to make us think and engrave the experience on a young heart and mind. They are, when it comes right down to it, good questions.

"What would the world be like, if everyone did as you just did? How would you feel, if someone did that to you?"

That one that never failed to get me, because I didn't have a good answer for it. The truth was if I'd done wrong, I knew I wouldn't want to live in that kind of world. I knew I wouldn't want to be treated the same way I'd treated others - that was how I knew what I had done was wrong.

And I felt ashamed, as I was meant to. This was, after all, the point of the lesson. By learning to identify with others, we learned to treat them the way we would want to be treated ourselves, to feel shame when we fell short of that standard. In time the conditioning became so ingrained that the imagined pain of another human being was enough to stop us in our tracks; to make us want to do right instead of wrong.

Though we did not realize it then, motherhood is a position of great power and influence. It is a position women have largely abandoned to television, the Internet, day care providers and beleaguered public school teachers as we chased the siren song of women's emancipation from the odious chains of home and hearth. But the beckoning promise of a more liberated future; one free from the biological imperatives that continue to operate with blissful disregard for anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action initiatives alike, contained what should have been a telltale flaw in logic.

No person - male or female - can juggle two full time jobs without letting one suffer.

The answer to this, of course, from traditional feminists was, "Men will have to step up to the plate." But the fatal flaw in this assumption is that their husbands were already working one full time job. They, too, were subject to that same logical law, and men with children compete in the marketplace against men with no children. There is no requirement for their employers to pay them the same salary, if they take time off to care for children, as a man who works longer hours. Hence their careers, promotion opportunities and pay prospects all suffer.

Enter Todd Palin. His career has already been negatively impacted by his wife's election to the governorship of Alaska. He gave up a management position in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. One would think women, and feminists in particular, would be heartened to see a strong, masculine man ardently supporting an ambitious women as she rises like a meteor through the hardscrabble world of politics.

You would be wrong. Over the past week or so, Governor Palin, her husband, and now her 17 year old daughter have been subjected to the most irresponsible and vicious rumor mongering imaginable. No slander seems too base, no form of innuendo too slimy for partisan mudslingers driven to increasingly pathetic fits of hysterics by the threat of losing a hotly contested election.

And the worst thing about it is that the most egregious offenders have been women.

While I don't happen to believe Governor Palin needs defending, I do know that her 17 year old daughter Bristol doesn't deserve the abuse she has taken from full grown women who ought to know better. And so I can't help wondering:

Does the Left feel proud of itself for knowingly spreading lies and gossip about a minor? How do they justify their actions, other than with the transparently shallow excuse that two wrongs (if you buy the premise that simply opposing them politically is a "wrong", much less that the children of political candidates are appropriate targets for their political attacks) make a right?

Do progressives feel such actions are worthy of their political beliefs? Do they puff up with pride at the sight of "authoritative" timelines so sloppy that even a novice Google user can easily demonstrate that the "pregnant" picture of Bristol Palin was taken in 2006 (which, if she was carrying Trig Palin at the time, would make it the world's longest pregnancy)?


Despite this obvious problem with Vanity Fair's "authoritative" timeline, 69% of Vanity Fair readers believe Bristol is the mother of Trig Palin. So much for the intelligence of the average Vanity Fair reader.

Did Vanity Fair care that the ex-wife named in the Todd Palin's business partner's divorce case has publicly stated there was no affair between her husband and Sarah Palin? Of course not. That information was obviously on a "need to know basis", and Vanity Fair decided its readers didn't "need to know" such mundane details:

if you think the mainstream press is ignoring the Enquirer allegations, guess again. Politico reports that numerous national journalists have gone to an Alaskan courthouse to examine the divorce file of a Palin friend -- the subject of the rumors -- after he tried to have the papers sealed. The man's ex-wife, by the way, denied to Us Weekly that any affair took place.

Is there anyone within a 10 mile radius of the Palins whose privacy these creeps won't invade? Apparently not.

As a mother of two sons myself, let me ask: as a Democrat, how would you feel if someone you know casually entered politics and all of a sudden the press and Republican operatives suddenly started delving into your private life, your trash, your personal records, looking for dirt on them? Suddenly, through no fault of your own, your privacy just disappeared.


It's not a pretty picture, is it?

How would you feel if suddenly, some person you served with on a board sent a chain email halfway around the world blasting you to kingdom come?

Anne Kilkenny - a Democrat - (why, oh why am I not surprised) has bravely stepped up to the keyboard to tell us that Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ in Manolo Blahnik pumps. Debbie Frost, who for I all know may be slightly to the reich of Attila the Hun, thinks Gov. Palin is the Second Coming of Meg Thatcher.

The point is that I know precisely nothing about either of these women. Why on earth should I care what they think of Sarah Palin? Reasonable people do not vote on the basis of chain emails written by persons whose character, intelligence and motivations are unknown to them. Dear God in heaven, have we all lost our minds?

And then there's the Parade of Feminists. You know: the ones who are basking in the glow of a fellow Sistah finally shattering that glass ceiling.... NOT? Those who, of late, have lamented the dearth of women on the op-ed pages need complain no more. The rise of Sarah Palin has brought forth an ever-replenishing cornucopia of feminine stupidity and malice (but I repeat myself) that may well explain the erstwhile lack of such precious delights:

Exhibit One:

Froma Harrop, a feminist oxymoronically concerned about who's minding Sarah Palin's children, would like her to just stay home with the kiddies. In fact, she's so concerned about Sarah's children that she's beside herself over Bristol's pregnancy; so much so that she somehow imagines Mothers go out on dates with their teenaged daughters, perhaps inserting themselves firmly but gently as loving chaperones in the back seats of Chevrolets everywhere.

"No dear", they say, sweetly, smacking the offending digits from their virgin daughters' blushingly virginal naughty bits. "Don't put your hand there until the two of you are legally wedded. Or at least until you're sure you're both protected by two forms of birth control."

Yes, the compassion just oozes from every pore:

...all she could now see was that picture of Palin's pregnant 17-year-old looking defiant and stupid ...


A 44-year-old who parades her dysfunctional family as a poster-child for conservative values.

Wunderbar. Here we go again - another lecture about "conservative values" from yet another bigoted progressive who thinks every conservative is Jerry Falwell. Nice job of painting with the broad brush, Froma (or whatever your name is). Grow up, why don't you? Or better yet, learn to think. Thinking requires nuance. It also helps to get the facts - facts such as the inconvenient (for you) fact that Gov. Palin believes teens should be taught how to use condoms. But then you didn't bother to find that out, did you? Because it interfered with the narrative you wanted to spin. However, there's plenty more patronizing snottyness where that came from. After all, Ms. Harrop is a Tolerant Lefty:

I noted that even when a pregnancy leads to marriage for teens of any race, a divorce quickly follows. And many of these women end up having several children with different fathers-- and very difficult lives.

Really? How odd. Because, you see, I was a teen mother and I've been married for nearly 30 years now. To the same man. I have several friends. All teen mothers. All married for 20+ years. All college educated. All happily married. I put both my sons through college too, with money I made in my own right after 18 years as a wife and full time homemaker. I've succeeded in both worlds, as a homemaker and as a career woman.

Imagine that.

Exhibit Two: Anna Quindlen, another charming lady who likes to paint with the broad brush. Attila takes on several of her points, but this needs refuting:

I never thought I would live long enough to see the day when the Republican presidential candidate would cite membership in the PTA as evidence of executive experience, when the far right would laud the full-time working mothers of newborns, when social conservatives would stare down teenage pregnancy and replace their pursed-lip accusations of promiscuity with hosannas about choosing life.

How neatly Ms. Quindlen misstates the view of 'social conservatives', who have long sponsored shelters for unwed mothers. There has never been any widespread condemnation for pregnancy itself. Sex is a thing the right understands. After all, social conservatives or not (and I do not number myself in that population) everyone has sex. The condemnation has been of abortion. So their embrace of Bristol Palin is hardly hypocritical. Quindlen is more on target with this observation, if only in a limited fashion:

...expediency is an astonishing thing, and conservative Republicans have suddenly embraced the assertion that women can do it all, even those conservative Republicans who have made careers out of trashing that notion. James Dobson of Focus on the Family once had staffers on his hot line saying, "Dr. Dobson recommends that mothers of young children stay at home as much as possible." He now applauds a woman who was back at work three days after her son, who has Down syndrome, was born.

She is right to note hypocrisy in Dobson's supporters, but wrong to tar all conservatives with the same brush. Republican women, contrary to her wishful thinking on the subject, come in all shapes, sizes, and ideological colors. It's a big tent, Ms. Quindlen, and you only show your own narrow-mindedness and ignorance when you act as though a huge party had no more than one faction. She is also patently dishonest here:

Amid the drumbeat of female Amazonian competence occasioned by the Palin nomination ran one deeply discordant assumption, the assumption that women are strong and smart and sure and yet neither sentient nor moral enough to decide what to do if they are pregnant under difficult circumstances. The governor has talked about the choice she and her pregnant teenage daughter have made, but would deny other women the right to make their own choices. She talks about fighting the old boys' network and corrupt politicians, but would turn over the private reproductive decisions of American women to both. This is not choosing life. It is choosing unwarranted intrusion into the family lives of women. Which, ironically, is exactly what the Republicans accused the press of doing in the case of Governor Palin.

This is arrant feminist victimization nonsense again. "Old boy network"? Were women deprived of the vote while I was sleeping? Have we lost the right to petition the courts? Has Roe been overturned? To hear these women talk, you'd think we'd gone back to the days when we were chained to our Easy Bake ovens.

Exhibit Three:

Dahlia Lithwick unveils yet another of the stunning logical nonsequiturs which have made her the target of "sexist" critics like yours truly. No wonder so many people are a-feared of Sarah Palin. Apparently, her ascent to the national stage will limit choices for 17 year old girls still living under their parents' roofs women:

There are legitimate reasons to differ over the morality of abortion. There is also a legitimate disagreement over the fitness of a 16- or 17-year-old to decide to terminate her pregnancy. But the GOP position on abortion not only treats teenagers as less than grownups, but also shows a growing inclination to treat grownup women as little girls. As important as the decision to end a pregnancy may be, the matter of who gets to decide may be even more so. And that decision is increasingly being taken out of the hands of women, and put into the hands of strangers.

Ms. Lithwick's brand of logic is always interesting to me. Is it her contention that the legal age of majority should be eliminated so that no child should ever have to speak with his or her parents before undergoing a major surgical procedure? Or are we simply conflating the issue of parental authority over medical decisions with abortion in full grown women because it is so enticingly inflammatory to do so? Amusingly, her "logic" here begs the very question raised in Anna Quindlen's article, namely:

...the assumption that women are strong and smart and sure and yet neither sentient nor moral enough to decide what to do if they are pregnant under difficult circumstances.

Like so many abortion advocates, (full disclosure: I am pro-choice) Ms. Lithwick imagines women (those emotional, delicate flowers!) will dry up and blow away if confronted with the fact that what they are aborting is in fact a human being or that as she misleadingly implies, men think women are too irrational to make clearheaded decisions regarding their own health:

Justice Anthony Kennedy gave huge currency to the argument that women cannot be trusted with the decision to abort in his majority opinion in a 2007 decision banning a type of late-term abortion. Relying on yet more equivocal data, Kennedy lavished concern on women who regret their abortions, whose "distress" may someday lead to "severe depression and loss of esteem." It's a long road indeed from Roe when a woman's private choices about her future and her body are subordinated to Justice Kennedy's 20/20 psychological hindsight.

Having actually read the decision she references, I find Lithwick's assertion that Justice Kennedy gave "huge currency" to a woman's mental state both baseless and dishonest, but this should surprise no one who has watched her blithely conflate parental consent for surgical procedures performed on minor children living at home with the decisions of adult women as though there were any rational relationship between the two issues. Sillier by far is Lithwick's hyperbolic assertion that Palin's rise in politics somehow betokens "fewer choices for women".

Got paranoia? If only we women were that powerful.

Certainly there have been silly arguments made in defense of Sarah Palin and even sillier arguments made against her. In many ways, the histrionics and vicious rumor mongering on the left have provoked some very ill advised responses from the right, including a definite tendency towards reflexive defenses of the Governor which aren't always well considered. Glenn Reynolds makes an excellent point:

... Republicans should be careful about launching a cult of Sarah Palin. She's the V.P. pick, not the head of the ticket. She's still a relative newcomer to national politics. She's virtually sure to commit at least one major mistake between now and November. And -- yes, I know I said this before -- she's the V.P. pick, not the head of the ticket.

The Dems built a cult around Barack Obama. It energized some folks, but it ultimately backfired. Republicans might want to restrain themselves just a bit, here.

And if that's true, Progressives need to restrain themselves a lot, or risk betraying everything they claim to believe in. Unless, of course, that's not important to them.

Update: Yikes! Remind me not to make Belle angry!

Posted by Cassandra at September 9, 2008 08:09 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Ah, but they're betraying everything that they believe in because they're doing it to preserve everything they believe in. Just like Wahhabi -- they justify violating every sacred tenet of their faith because they're doing it to spread the sacred tenets of their faith.

That is the problem with True Believers. They don't view the world standing erect and looking at it straight on -- they bend over and stare at it from between their ankles, with their heads cocked at a 60-degree angle.

Posted by: BillT at September 9, 2008 10:03 AM

McCain's choice of Palin just exposed the rank hypocrisy of the democrats. Their supposed "Cloak of many colors" never did represent anything more than a marriage of convenience. As a cloak, McCain pulls one thread and it falls apart like the cheap suit it really is.

The "King" truly has no clothes.

Posted by: vet66 at September 9, 2008 10:36 AM

In many ways, the histrionics and vicious rumor mongering on the left have provoked some very ill advised responses from the right, including a definite tendency towards reflexive defenses of the Governor which aren't always well considered. Glenn Reynolds makes an excellent point:

... Republicans should be careful about launching a cult of Sarah Palin. She's the V.P. pick, not the head of the ticket. She's still a relative newcomer to national politics. She's virtually sure to commit at least one major mistake between now and November.

Well, maybe she will, now.

Yet she's still a mother of five, a cheerful spirit, a pilot, a hunter, and one thing more.

The Chesler Chronicles said:

Democratic feminists are not at all happy about this because despite Palin’s oratorical gifts and enormous charm, she is a feminist–but from “another world,” one in which feminists are married, God-fearing, pro-military, pro-guns, pro-American energy independence–and anti-big government, anti-taxes, anti-jihad and anti-abortion.

That being the case, it's going to have to be a heck of a mistake to make any difference. I mean, we're not talking about forgetting that Czeckoslovakia broke up a few years ago, or confusing the terms for Sunnis and Shi'ites. She's going to have to bite the living heart out of a rabbit onstage.

Even then, she could just say she was showing sisterhood with our noble Iraqi brothers.

Everybody makes mistakes. Character is the issue, though, and it runs deep. The real assaults by the media are aimed there, and that's why the attacks have been so ugly so fast. I don't think anyone is fooled about that. She'll get a stern and lively defense from me, because the attacks aren't about pointing to her "mistakes," but about trying to find some lie that will destroy her and her family outright.

Posted by: Grim at September 9, 2008 10:44 AM

Well, exactly.

I think the 'gotcha' politics are really a bit silly. Both candidates misspeak, both candidates have made their share of mistakes, and I think we all know that when you get in these jobs you have full time advisors who jobs it is to keep you briefed on what you need to know. To expect a candidate to keep all this stuff inside their head 24/7 is just stupid. That is really no indication of decision making ability (and that is what you hire an executive for, not to be a human hard disk).

Posted by: Casserole at September 9, 2008 11:11 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 09/09/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at September 9, 2008 11:31 AM

My answer to "gotcha politics" is Google. Why memorize something when you can find it in less than a minute.
We talk about Sarah Palin not being perfect as if that was possible.
She is my type of conservative, that is enough.
Like Grim, "Character is the issue," and she passes with high marks so far.

Posted by: Russ at September 9, 2008 11:36 AM

Nobody else asks rhetorical questions with your verve, Cassandra. Re Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, she puzzles me, too. She says she was a pretty fair debater in her day, but I'm not as impressed by that as I used to be. I gave Todd Palin props in a new essay over at AmSpec Online; I suspect it'll amuse any number of villains in this august company.

Posted by: Patrick at September 9, 2008 12:29 PM

I distrust anyone who claims that being an officer of the PTA is not adequate preparation for political office. :)

I have always been amazed by the women (like my mom!) who could raise a bunch of kids, AND be a PTA officer, AND be a band booster, AND be an athletic booster, organizing fundraisers and chicken noodle dinners and ordering supplies and coordinating logistics for these events, and on an on. It seems provincial, but there is a lot of skill and commitment to organize these things successfully.

I was lucky to be able to manage getting my two children to school and homework done and dinner on the table, let alone participate in their extracurriculars.

Posted by: April at September 9, 2008 12:31 PM

What I found amusing about that one is that suddenly PTA is *not* (and I emphatically repeat, NOT) executive experience, but being a "community organizer, whatever the helk that is, IS?

*rolling eyes*

Seems to me they are fairly analogous tasks. I have been president of a few charitable groups. Is that "executive experience"? I think so. You are making decisions. That is the definition of executive experience: being in an executive role with responsibility for running an organization.

Arguably, the head of a PTA is more analogous than a community organizer b/c the co isn't running anything. Most PTA's have budgets, agendas, they take votes, often they sponsor fundraisers and other activities and initiatives that can be quite ambitious at times.

But hey; that's just me. Why are women all of a sudden putting down "women's jobs"? :p

Posted by: Casserole at September 9, 2008 12:42 PM

Thanks for your even-handed discussion of this issue! My initial gut reaction to Palin was very positive, however I distrusted my gut. (I'm liberal on most social issues, conservative on most fiscal) and I wanted more information.

It's pretty clear she is being unfairly treated by the media, unbelievably so. A careful look at her positions and statements that are on record show that she is not at all as extreme right as she has been portrayed, and while I might disagree with her on some issues, I admire and respect the convictions and determination that have landed her where she is.

Let's be honest: she's not perfect, but who is? They are politicians after all, criminy! At the moment (like Obama) there's very little middle ground -- slavering worship and knee-jerk defense or outright condemnation and vitriol. I think she will stand up to a fair hearing. Most of the shit that's being slung on her now won't stick and will only solidify supporters and marginalize the media even more.

Posted by: chickia at September 9, 2008 12:48 PM



Whenever I hear that word I can't help thinking of Steve Martin in LA Story :)

Tigerhawk supposedly wants me to explain why I think Todd Palin is 'hot'. Aside from the obvious fact that he's just baiting me, some things don't need explaining. Like Palin, they just 'are'. The guy's quiet, he's confident, he's happy to be who and what he is, and in this day and age when everyone seems to have an attitude about something, he seems blessedly free of the malady.

'Nuff said :)

Posted by: Casserole at September 9, 2008 05:09 PM

Oh, and re: PTA experience.

Some of these people might have a point in an election where the other candidates actually had some executive experience!

But this ain't it. So then the question becomes, "What executive experience, among the contenders for the job do you have? You can go on and on about how the PTA isn't "serious" executive experience for the Vice Presidency when compared to the luminous.....

[fill in the blank]

...that Barack Obama offers in its place.


Well, alrighty then :p Kind puts it all into perspective, don't it? Experience fits into different bins: executive, foreign policy (and I'm sorry - taking a trip doesn't qualify), legislative (and none of these people is running for a legislative position last time I checked). People will have to judge.

But when you interview someone to run a cash register, the fact that they can handle a chain saw isn't really pertinent, is it? You want to know that they've run a cash register, whether at SuperWalMart or the corner 5 and dime.

Posted by: Casserole at September 9, 2008 05:15 PM

Anyone remember the roasting and subsequent banning from Hollywood of Ingrid Bergman?

My ultra right winger homeschool group (bunch of Romney fans they are) are not even having a hissy about Bristol P. No, they don't like the Saracuda because she is a working mother.

Posted by: Cricket at September 9, 2008 05:35 PM

I also found a point of similarity between the Islamic JIhad's view on women and the Left's actions toward Palin.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 9, 2008 05:48 PM

The rhetoric coming out of the democratic fright machine these days is the verbal equivalent of stoning a heretic.


Posted by: vet66 at September 9, 2008 07:14 PM

Yes, where is AFE on this all imporatant development? He has not issued a fatwa in days.

Posted by: Cricket at September 9, 2008 07:42 PM

This may be slightly off topic but who cares I know how you all hang on my every word.

One day when the history of this young century is written it will be known as the century of the woman. Not the century of what a woman should be in the eyes of Anna Quindlen but nonethelesser the time is yours womanfolk.

In 2003 there were 1.35 female college graduates for every male graduate. I can't explain with any degree of certainty what that .35 woman is. Perhaps some of those graduates are fat chicks. Or maybe we have some anorexic co-eds messing up that statistics. But the point is, well the point is what it is.

As you all know I am a teacher and let me just tell you that from my perspective I want the future in the hands of the girls. The boys are unfocused, not as serious, not as fun and prone to total dipshittery. I know girls mature more quickly but the stats show that the boys are not catching up in college. Probably because they have done themselves serious harm in high school.

It could be that college isn't all that important, besides the women will need someone to clean the gutters and drive the garbage truck.

Posted by: Pile On at September 9, 2008 08:18 PM

You said something, Pile?

*running off, cackling madly*

Posted by: Cricket at September 9, 2008 10:51 PM

Tigerhawk supposedly wants me to explain why I think Todd Palin is 'hot'. Aside from the obvious fact that he's just baiting me, some things don't need explaining. Like Palin, they just 'are'. The guy's quiet, he's confident, he's happy to be who and what he is, and in this day and age when everyone seems to have an attitude about something, he seems blessedly free of the malady.

And he's HOT. Oh, wait, that was the original topic up for discussion. My bad. I was distracted by the man's eyes, his smile, and the fact that he resembles Tim McGraw.

Posted by: maison-avant-six at September 9, 2008 11:06 PM

"...the fact that they can handle a chain saw isn't really pertinent,..."

*pulls cord of Stihl*
WHHIIinnnggg dinngg dinngg dinngg

Wha' chu got against chainsaws, Lady!?

Jus' remember, if they take away our guns, we can always use chainsaws. And, hey, with the ever-present presence of visqeen, clean-ups are a breeze!

Posted by: DL Sly at September 9, 2008 11:40 PM

The degree to which the Left appears to have lost (what passes for) their minds is pretty strong evidence that they are afraid.

Well, in response, I offer these words of wisdom: Be afraid. Be very afraid...

Posted by: camojack at September 10, 2008 01:23 AM

*pulls cord of Stihl*

Stihl makes thongs?

Posted by: BillT at September 10, 2008 02:44 AM


This is why I love you people.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 10, 2008 04:24 AM

I would have answered

*counters with rod of Rebar*

but I figured bthun and camojack would be the only ones to get it...

Posted by: BillT at September 10, 2008 06:17 AM

Sorry Bill,

I've been busy trying to conjugate si ergo... =8^}
In the middle of the conjugation I was reminded of a reading/admissions test for a certain college. One that will remain unnamed.

Section #1


Section #2

Section #3

Section #4



Posted by: bthun at September 10, 2008 06:43 AM

Would you people *please* not conjugate in public?

Posted by: For Pete's sake, get a room at September 10, 2008 06:45 AM

I cans hep it! I is a child o da sixties! er fifties... oh nevah mind.

Posted by: bt_smile-you're-on-candid-camera_hun at September 10, 2008 06:50 AM

"Two, four, six, eight! You can't make us conjugate!"

-- Slogan of the "We're Flunking Latin And Don't Want To Be Drafted And Toronto Is Really, Like, Chilly, League," August '68.

Posted by: BillT at September 10, 2008 07:28 AM

"Stihl makes thongs?

They do if you don't handle them right.


Posted by: DL Sly at September 10, 2008 11:17 AM

Yeah, but when they take away our chain saws...well, when chainsaws are..uhhhh.outlawed, I..uh..lipstick!

Posted by: April at September 10, 2008 03:21 PM

"Yeah, but when they take away our chain saws...well, when chainsaws are..uhhhh.outlawed, I..uh..lipstick!"
BO should take heed, chainsaws and lipstick led to the downfall of this fellow.

Posted by: bthun at September 10, 2008 04:00 PM

I would have answered
*counters with rod of Rebar*
but I figured bthun and camojack would be the only ones to get it...
Posted by: BillT at September 10, 2008 06:17 AM

Although I most certainly 'preciate the vote of confidence...you should prob'ly give folks the benefit o' the doubt.

Posted by: camojack at September 11, 2008 01:37 AM

Good point.

I *should* have included Sly.

Posted by: BillT at September 11, 2008 02:52 AM

*slides kukri back into sheath*

Apology accepted.
Although, I can't speak for HF6....

Posted by: DL Sly at September 11, 2008 02:21 PM