« Two Irreconcilable World Views | Main | Happy Monday »

December 01, 2008

Are We There Yet?

On second thought, let's not go there.
'Tis a silly place.

- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Taking a short hiatus from the never ending roller coaster ride known as Microsoft Excel, the Blog Princess just felt a post-racial thrill run up her leg, courtesy of Glenn Reynolds. Naughty man:

SO MUCH FOR post-racial America, I guess. “The number two man at NBC News believes Barack Obama’s skin color gives him more legitimacy around the world than possibly any American leader in history.”

UPDATE: Reader Thomas Prewitt writes: “I find it curious that no one at NBC ever said that our black female Secretary of State has more legitimacy around the world than possibly any Secretary of State in history.” Yeah, go figure.

Tigerhawk adds his thoughts:

Sheppard thinks that it is racist of the executive, Mark Whitaker, to say this:
Imagine that. Because Obama is black, before he even steps into the White House and accomplishes one darned thing he already has more legitimacy around the world than possibly every American president that came before him.

Isn't that racist? Isn't suggesting that someone is better or more "legitimate" solely because of the color of his or her skin a tremendously offensive concept?

Sheppard is, I think, unfair to Whitaker. The quoted passage might as easily be an assessment of what is -- that most of the world is racist and will therefore ascribe greater legitimacy to Barack Obama because of his race -- as what ought. Nothing in the quoted passage suggests that it is good that the world is this way. Acknowledging racism is not racism.

Although Tigerhawk and I are apparently both "thinkers", I'm not sure I agree.

Why should it be wrong for reasonable people to dislike the notion that their country suddenly becomes 'more legitimate' when led by a President of color? Especially one who has done precisely nothing to earn America increased standing?

This is hardly the first time American foreign policy has displayed a diverse face. We have, to date, been represented by two Black Secretaries of State (though Colin Powell, darling of the progressive set, was the least travelled Secretary in modern history, largely phoning it in during his tenure).

Helpful, that. Condi Rice, on the other hand, was not only Black but female. Should not such a diverse cabinet pick have scored us double brownie points in the moral legitimacy department, if Tigerhawk's racism theory were correct?

Somehow, I doubt that was the case; mostly because Secretary Rice never made her race an issue. Lamentably, Ms. Rice failed to brandish her skin color like a sword in the vitals of the ungodly. Certainly she has thought deeply about the subject: when asked to comment on the lingering effects of racism in America, the Secretary expresses herself eloquently.

NBC's Whitaker is probably right to think that in some quarters, Obama's skin color alone will buy him "legitimacy points". His remark reminded me of Shelby Steele's trenchant post-election observations:

“… no white candidate in America could have won an election based on those policies. It had to be a Black. It had to be somebody who could bring to bear on this old-fashioned, socialistic point of view, the moral authority of race; the moral authority of being Black. That’s… that’s the insidious and interesting thing to me.

No white man could… John Edwards could never win an election based on policies like that. I’m going to raise taxes? You’re running and you win …based on a program…[of raising people’s taxes]?

The price America’s paying for it’s racial history is this reversion; …. I’ve had friends - liberal friends - say that, “Well, it took me a little while, but I said ‘Well OK, maybe I should pay more taxes’” …. If I’m going to get a black man in the White House, I’ll do it…I’ll do it… I’ll pay the price.” … that same racial moral authority is going to be his greatest weapon as a President. Who’s going to want to stand in his way and block all of these beneficent things that he wants to do … this redistribution of the wealth to people who’ve been locked out? It’s always going to work for him.

Because whites are still motivated by race, the dummies!

The question is (just as with affirmative action, a deliberately imposed policy of unfair racial discrimination aimed at "fixing" unfair racial discrimination that may or may not already exist) how long does this go on? When, if ever, do we begin trying to move beyond racially discriminatory policies and endemic racism wherever they exist and simply try to get along with each other as human beings?

If one totaled black earnings, and consider blacks a separate nation, he would have found that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world's 16th richest nation. That's just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans have been chief executives of some of the world's largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, headed the world's mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black. A few black Americans are among the world's richest people and many are some of the world's most famous personalities. These gains, over many difficult hurdles, speak well not only of the intestinal fortitude of a people but of a nation in which these gains were possible. They could not have been achieved anywhere else. Acknowledgement of these achievements is not to deny that a large segment of the black community faces enormous problems. But as I have argued, most of today's problems have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination. That's not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated but as my colleague Dr. John McWhorter said in "End of Racism?" Forbes (11/5/08), "There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on." The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks.

Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people. Led by guilt, college administrators, employers and others in leadership positions, in the name of diversity, buy into nonsense such as lowering standards, racial preferences and acceptance of behavior standards they wouldn't accept from whites. Maybe the election of a black president will help white people over their guilt feelings so they can stop acting like fools in their relationships with black people.

Maybe whites who reject the Democratic party aren't racist, but just fed up with a party that promotes victimization and personal irresponsibiity, that uses class warfare to divide Americans and encourage them to think the American dream is a zero sum game.

Maybe it's not that we don't care about black poverty and illegitimacy, but that we reject big government initiatives we believe have been deeply destructive and harmful to black families; that would be harmful to ANY family, of ANY race simply because human beings respond in predictable ways to incentives and if you reward irresponsibility and blur the consequences for poor personal decision making, in the aggregate more people will be irresponsible and make poor choices.

Maybe, just maybe, we're applying exactly the same standards we apply to our own family members and our own children. That's not prejudice. In point of fact, it's respect.

If we want to get past race, we need to treat people the same regardless of race. Now that's a transformative platform for change.

I guess I've seen enough of exploiting racism. I don't think it's a tactic America needs to engage in even if it benefits us. We're better than that. When I look at decades of intentional government programs aimed at eradicating poverty and fixing racism and I see 70% illegitimacy rates for black children that didn't exist before such programs began, I wonder what the justification for these programs can possibly be? When I look at 40 years of education programs aimed at "fixing" uneven black literacy and educational outcomes and see that these outcomes persist, I have to ask myself, "Is government intervention the solution?"

Or is it the problem?

And when 90% of blacks continue to vote for these programs I have to wonder why they aren't asking these questions too? I have to wonder why they aren't looking at the data and at their own history, at a time when they were far more oppressed and yet their children learned to read and write in schools which weren't federally funded, at a time when there were black businesses even during Jim Crow, and I have to ask myself why they continue to buy into a mantra of government dependency?

Because clearly Black history bespeaks a legacy of industry, thrift, and resiliency in the face of adversity. Unfortunately, this is rarely the history that is taught during Black history month:

"Because they had been led to believe that the Freedmen's Bank was a government institution, they lost a tremendous amount of confidence in the whole federal apparatus in Washington. Even after the memories faded, they turned to the creation of private banks in attempt to 'seek for themselves.'" This ambitious effort turned out to be one of the most constructive phases of black Americans' history.

Butler continues, "The history of this effort-as with the history of banking in America-was filled with triumphs and failures, but it was this banking industry which provided the seed money for business enterprises in the period following the Civil War." Citing Abram Harris's 1936 study of the black banking tradition, Butler claims, "From 1888 to 1934, no less than 134 banks were founded and organized by Afro-Americans. Under this classification are private banks doing a general banking business and banks operating under state or national charters. It does not include credit unions, industrial loan associations, or building and loan societies," of which there were many.

It was this banking tradition that made possible the impressive growth of black businesses in the United States. Between 1867 and 1917, the number of black businesses increased from 4,000 to 50,000. This could not have occurred without the sources of capital provided through banks and similar lending institutions. In 1907, Booker T. Washington wrote, "Nearly every colored community of any size has a building and loan association, and these organizations have been of the very highest value in teaching the people habits of saving and enabling small wage earners to purchase homes. It is said that one-half of the homes owned by colored people in Virginia were built by the aid of building and loan associations."

In William Kenneth Boyd's 1927 study of Durham, North Carolina, he writes, "The increase in wealth, the rise of institutions for public welfare, and the spirit of cooperation have not been confined to one race. The progress of whites has been accompanied by corresponding progress among the Negroes."

As I mentioned the other day, we all want to see our country and our world prosper.

We often disagree as to the best means of making that happen. Respect (or moral legitimacy, for that matter) ought not to depend upon the color of one's skin, but rather upon the moral authority of our arguments and the rightness of our actions. I see nothing wrong with Noel's argument. If his point was that automatically granting more legitimacy to Obama based solely on the color of his skin is a racist attitude, I think he's absolutely correct. Supposedly the point of electing Obama was that his ascension to the Oval Office was a sign that we were finally ready to move beyond such tortured gyrations.

I think we have a long, long way to go.

Posted by Cassandra at December 1, 2008 01:49 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2564

Comments

I'm not sure you've perfectly captured my point, but no matter. The space between us on this issue is very small.

A couple of observations about other points. You wrote: I see nothing wrong with Noel's argument. If his point was that automatically granting more legitimacy to Obama based solely on the color of his skin is a racist attitude, I think he's absolutely correct.

I think that is a cramped reading of Whitaker's point, or at least the point as he probably meant it to be understood. It is not that Obama has more legitimacy "solely" because of the color of his skin. Robert Mugabe is also black, and his legitimacy is, shall we say, in doubt. Rather, it is the intersection of his skin color and the fact that he is the leader of a "white" country. Now, you can complain all you want about whether that is an offensive way to look at the United States, but there are almost certainly 3-4 billion people in the world, at least, who look at us that way. We are, in their mind, a "European" power with all the baggage and more of colonialism. Fair or not, that is how much of the world sees us. That we elected -- not appointed, as with Powell and Rice, but elected -- a black person as our president is a shock to the world's preconceived vision of the United States, and will at least temporarily cause literally billions of people to think of us a bit differently. Is that because they are racist? Yes, taking a literal view of racism. Or you could conclude that these people are themselves victims of Cold War Communist "liberation" propaganda, which found it expedient to wrap the United States up in the fundamentally European legacy of colonialism. Either way, recognition of that fact -- that we, a white-majority country, have upset the world's perception of us by electing a black man as our leader -- is not necessarily racist. Nor is it necessarily racist to want to benefit from that.

Of course, your results may vary.

Posted by: TigerHawk at December 1, 2008 11:13 AM

Granting Obama legitimacy as a leader and granting America legitimacy, first of all, are two entirely different things :p

I'm not sure that Whitaker really distinguished between the two all that clearly, TH:

...the leader of the biggest democracy in the world is now a person of color and that is going to give him what political scientists would call a legitimacy in the street around the world that I don't think an American leader has had, ever perhaps.

What I see there is that because Obama is black, he speaks with more "legitimacy" than any other American leader in history.

And I think you have to start reading things into his statement to get from what he said to what you said, which is that because white America elected a black President, the world will have more confidence in us.

Different ball of wax. Do you see what I'm saying?

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 11:34 AM

You say "cramped".

I say I'm not sure what the rational basis is for reading more into his statement that is literally there, other than perhaps a desire to give him the benefit of the doubt?

As to the "solely" part, the man hasn't done anything yet. I was addressing that part of Noel's statement, with which I happen to agree. It does bother me, all these grandiose comparisons to Lincoln, FDR, etc. The man isn't even in office yet, the "Office of the President-Elect" signs and press conferences notwithstanding. He hasn't *done* anything.

This begins to remind me of his 4 years of law practice, during which the recent Harvard law grad managed to rack up the truly impressive 3900 billable hours....

...oh, and write two autobiographies :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 11:40 AM

Maybe I'm giving the NBC guy the benefit of the doubt, but I still think that Noel was, in effect, looking to be outraged. One can wish that we had a colorblind world and still recognize that the color of Obama's skin is going to win him a lot of points and, yes, make him more legitimate with the masses, particularly in Asia and Africa. Noel's column seemed like a legalistic "gotcha" more than a real effort to think the problem through.

As for the comparisons of Obama to FDR and Lincoln, I quite agree. Let's see what he's got. I must say, though, that the first moves with the cabinet and such are better than I had dared hope, especially on the national security side. We're a long way from greatness territory, but he is not shaping up as Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, either, both of whom made bad moves on appointments very early on.

Posted by: TigerHawk at December 1, 2008 11:59 AM

Maybe I'm giving the NBC guy the benefit of the doubt, but I still think that Noel was, in effect, looking to be outraged.

Oh, I'll give you that :)

I agree on the cabinet appointments, though I have to say that if I'd voted for him (*and* I'd been paying attention to what he promised on the campaign trail) I would be more than a tad bit upset.

There is a rather twisted narrative out there on Herr Obama:

1) "See? You wingnuts were all worried for no reason! He's not a socialist! Look at all these moderate cabinet appointments!"

O-kay... so then when you point out that not only has he appointed these folks, but he is *also* now retracting several MAJOR campaign positions and essentially adopting what looks like a continuation of the Bush policy on the bailout (Geitner is, after Paulson, the man most responsible for designing the bailout and is not expected to change it); the Bush policy on Iraq (now instead of withdrawing 1-2 brigades a month, Obama is talking about adhering to Bush's proposed withdrawal scheme - which is fortunate because there's no way in hell he was going to be able to pull the troops out that fast anyway and he KNEW that.. :p) and the Bush tax cuts);
we're told:

2) "Trust him"

Yeah. Trust the guy who ran on a mantra of "We need CHANGE after 8 years of failed Republican policies" and now appears to be in no particular hurry to change those policies?

O-kaaaaaay :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 12:23 PM

I just find the hype amusing - that's all :p

I agree that we should wait and see what he does, and I do hope he succeeds. I've been encouraged by his picks so far, TH.

Right now he's not president yet, so I feel like I can snark a bit. Obama hasn't really done anything to annoy me. In fact, I think he's doing pretty well.

It's more the pundits I'd like to strangle!

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 12:29 PM

Power is the only thing that matters in the end, Cass. All this fluff stuff about skin color is the Left's version of cringing at Sarah slaughtering turkeys. People sipping their tea and lattes while talking about the noble savage are nothing but pawns in the Great Game.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 12:40 PM

The Chinese despise black people. You are not going to see a popular uptick in China because of Obama. ANd people think the Africans are going to help them out on this score? The Africans are already making business deals with the Chinese, in terms of raw resources or what not.

I would say that we are going to see what happens to a flock of sheep when a pack of wolves gets teleported into their midst, but I think the reality may be more interesting than that, actually.

It'll be interesting to see if Obama can triangulate the world's population (1 billion chinese, 1 bil Indian, etc) like he did with America. Gonna be interesting times.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 12:44 PM

Give me a holler when the earth starts to heal -- we're over here enjoying Early Onset of Winter due to all the Gorbal Worming.

Glad I brought my Balkan winter gear with me...

Posted by: BillT at December 1, 2008 12:47 PM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 12/01/2008 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 December 1, 2008 12:59 PM

Give me a holler when the earth starts to heal -- we're over here enjoying Early Onset of Winter due to all the Gorbal Worming.

No no no Unka Bill! That's just the point! The world started healing and Gorbal Worming has now reversed itself cause we elected The One (PBUH&J*). Don'tcha see?

* Peace Be Upon Him and Jelly

Posted by: MikeD at December 1, 2008 01:51 PM

The world started healing and Gorbal Worming has now reversed itself...

Wanna bet we actually start seeing *that* in print -- or at least in some of the "enlightened" blogs -- within the next few months?

I'll be keeping a weather eye on the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates and give you kids a heads'-up when Eden reconstitutes itself...

Posted by: BillT at December 1, 2008 02:35 PM

Wanna bet we actually start seeing *that* in print

No bet, I believe you're right in that estimation.

Posted by: MikeD at December 1, 2008 03:11 PM

Given that your premise is flawed, it's difficult to "buy-in" to your syllogism.

Posted by: Blogger at December 1, 2008 03:26 PM

Be sure to get the number of any New Eden babes, ya hear, Bill?

Given that your premise is flawed, it's difficult to "buy-in" to your syllogism.

Woah, Bill, catch me here. Didn't somebody like this say something about a "syllogiasm" at Blackfive or another conservy blog?

I swear that somebody with a similar user name wrote the exact same thing somewhere around the net.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 03:30 PM

Well! There's nothing like a crisply articulated, precise thesis, amply supported by well reasoned arguments, to completely shoot down thirty or forty minutes' work.

I consider myself duly refuted. Not sure what was refuted, or *by* what, but if you say so I suppose we'll have to take your word for it... :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 03:33 PM

Given that your premise is flawed, it's difficult to "buy-in" to your syllogism.

Darn -- Barney Frank and Chris Dodd *loved* those flawed premises.

Ummm -- okay, it wasn't the flawed premises, it was the flawed *mortgages* on the premises.

And a "syllogiasm" is what Chris Matthews had...

Posted by: BillT at December 1, 2008 03:42 PM

I still think that Noel was, in effect, looking to be outraged.

I was struck less by that, than by the point that Condi and Colin Powell have already represented America abroad. To me, the elected vs. appointed point is not as big a deal, frankly; especially when the position is Sec. of State.

One can wish that we had a colorblind world and still recognize that the color of Obama's skin is going to win him a lot of points

Will it, though? I wonder if this isn't a naive assumption.

...and, yes, make him more legitimate with the masses, particularly in Asia and Africa.

Yes, perhaps. Again, though, how much of a direct benefit to us is that, though?

Noel's column seemed like a legalistic "gotcha" more than a real effort to think the problem through.

I took his point to be more that all of a sudden, Obama's race is a big freaking deal, when Condi's wasn't. Why is that? What wasn't her race an advantage when she was conducting foreign policy on our behalf? Didn't it confer added "legitimacy", too?

I think that's a very valid point, TH, and I'm surprised you don't see it. I also think any such legitimacy is probably not going to count for much when weighed against national self interest. Call me a cynic, but I don't think nations are quite that flighty. They didn't seem all that bowled over by Obama back in June.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 03:46 PM

And for your punishment....

Posted by: DL Sly at December 1, 2008 03:48 PM

Hmmmm......lost the quoted part....
"I consider myself duly refuted."

Posted by: DL Sly at December 1, 2008 03:50 PM

What wasn't her race an advantage when she was conducting foreign policy on our behalf?

Race traitors and Aunt Jemimahs don't count.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 04:30 PM

I also think any such legitimacy is probably not going to count for much when weighed against national self interest. Call me a cynic, but I don't think nations are quite that flighty. They didn't seem all that bowled over by Obama back in June.

I totally agree. However, Bush's unpopularity abroad has been costly. Leaders of other countries who might be willing to go out on a limb for the United States in the abstract had a much harder time doing so because Bush was so unpopular with their own masses (whether or not the "masses" were voters or not). Even getting back to neutral with the Great Unwashed in these countries will help leaders who are predisposed toward helping us go the distance.

Put differently, if George W. Bush had been personally more popular, does anybody doubt that the "Coalition of the Willing" would have been larger and lasted longer?

Posted by: TigerHawk at December 1, 2008 07:36 PM

Put differently, if George W. Bush had been personally more popular, does anybody doubt that the "Coalition of the Willing" would have been larger and lasted longer?

That is what you all have argued (or that if he had been more 'eloquent', he could have persuaded them).

I think you are wrong. Blair was eloquent. The was, if anything even more unpopular in Britain than here. Blair was not as unpopular as Bush. You really cannot lay it all at Bush's door, hard as you try :p

I watched Blair argue at the House of Commons. I think what you all keep ignoring is basic human nature. People are toads. There were some who went at Blair hammer and tongs. He effectively beat them back, but when it's one man against a mob, it doesn't matter. It's only a matter of time.

No one seems to see that, or give Bush and Blair the credit they deserve.

I hope they get it from history. I am so tired of hearing people carp about mistakes. Churchill make awful mistakes. Every leader makes mistakes. Bush make mistakes.

The whole first part of the Civil War consisted of one union defeat after another. We didn't start winning until late in the war - we were getting our asses kicked early on. But we won, and that's what history remembers. Lincoln is remembered as a great president because he showed enormous resolve, vision, and the ability to change course when all seemed lost. He found a winning general - Grant.

And the rest is history. Of course, at the time everyone thought he was an untutored buffoon. Go figure...

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 08:53 PM

Sorry about the typos... I've been working since 1 last night.

Overtired.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 08:54 PM

And for your punishment...

Well at least it wasn't a spanking :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 08:56 PM

Put differently, if George W. Bush had been personally more popular, does anybody doubt that the "Coalition of the Willing" would have been larger and lasted longer?

It wasn't Bush's popularity that was holding Britain along, it was Blair's. Two very different things. Leaders do what they want, and it doesn't matter what Bush's popularity is. They may respect him more or less, but that won't make them agree to sell out their nation's interests.

No American President will be popular unless that President gives up American power and bribes the masses with it. Then he won't have any power to require a Coalition for.

In line with Cass's note, the best popularity comes from winning, smashing your enemies, and rubbing your political opponent's nose in the fact that they got it wrong and are now weaker for it. That actually gives one more brownie points than popularity.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 11:40 PM

No American President will be popular unless that President gives up American power and bribes the masses with it. Then he won't have any power to require a Coalition for.

I'm talking about vis a vis European allies. Also includes anybody else, for that matter, but namely the camp that believes America would do more good in the world by playing along according to EU rules.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 11:42 PM

"Well at least it wasn't a spanking :p"

Heh
You were holding your breath as you were clickin' the link, though, weren't ya?

*snnnicker*
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 2, 2008 01:01 AM

Given that your premise is flawed, it's difficult to "buy-in" to your syllogism.

I wonder if that ever works for "Blogger" there? Does it make him/her feel better about him/herself to effectively do a blogging drive-by? I could simply surf on over to DU or HuffPo or DailyKos and pick threads at random and paste it in there, but what's the point? I'm not achieving anything, nor am I winning hearts and minds.

Trolls really confuse me. What's the point of it?

Posted by: MikeD at December 2, 2008 09:23 AM

Maybe It heard that Bill was looking for *performers* for his flea circus and decided to drop some off for him.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 2, 2008 11:35 AM

Perfect!

Cue the orchestra!

Dim the lights!

HF6, give Sly a hand with the vanilla icing...

Posted by: BillT at December 2, 2008 12:25 PM

but what's the point? I'm not achieving anything, nor am I winning hearts and minds.

Trolls really confuse me. What's the point of it?

THe same point in shooting up schools and then killing yourself.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 2, 2008 03:02 PM

HF6, give Sly a hand with the vanilla icing...

Shouldn't you get some bait out for the Phantom of the Opera?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 2, 2008 03:02 PM

Good point.

HF6 -- hold the vanilla and go with the clear glaze!

Posted by: BillT at December 2, 2008 03:31 PM

Only if the glaze tastes like vanilla...

Posted by: Sly's Wardrobe Mistress at December 5, 2008 03:04 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)