Alert!: Bad Thing Happens to Obnoxious Yuppie Dickhead! Stop the Presses!
Posted by
KTK
This 32-year-old clown who lives in his mother’s townhouse in an expensive part of Washington, DC, bought a Hummer too big to fit in his mother’s garage. He then paid extra to have it jacked up and fitted with super-sized tires. It gets 14mpg and he justifies it by saying he needs it to create the right “image” for the “sports marketing” company he wants to start. He parked the 7-foot-tall penis substitute on the street, and within a week somebody vandalized it, slashing all the tires, breaking all the windows, and keying “FOR THE ENVIRON” [sic] into the paint.
Tough break. That’ll probably put a real dent in his startup bobble-head doll business. Along with the $38,000 he paid for the thing (used), replacing all the tires and windows might even delay his moving out of his mother’s house, not that he appears to be in any hurry. I’m all for the environment, but vandalizing ridiculous cars is probably not the best way to deal with the issues. And if whoever did it gets caught, they should be made to pay restitution fully equal to the cost of a set of windows and tires . . . for a Prius.
All that being said, however, why exactly did the Washington Post give this story more than 20 column inches in today’s paper? A rich white loser in NW DC got his car vandalized? That’s the lead story in the B-section of the paper that broke the Watergate case?!
It’s the complicity in this jerkoff’s insular sense of entitlement that bugs me about this. The article notes that he’s aware of the stupidity and wastefulness of such a machine - he just doesn’t care. But apparently the Post doesn’t care either - and by that I mean not only do they think that his financial inconvenience is more important than his indifference to the environment, but they think that he, individually, is more important than everything they didn’t write about that day.
Washington, for those who don’t know, is divided geographically and economically. The Northwest map quadrant is the affluent section; it houses Georgetown and American Universities, the trendy neighborhoods and popular bars and clubs, the legal and lobbying industry clusters, much of the federal government real estate, the foreign embassies, the exclusive residential neighborhoods like this guy’s mother’s street, and almost all the white people. The Southwest is mostly governmental. The Eastern quadrants are heavily residential/commercial, almost entirely black, and largely a wasteland. Everything you hear about upper-class Washington - the Georgtown political parties, the Embassy Row receptions, the catered fundraisers, the insider salons - that’s Northwest. Everything you hear about ghetto Washington - the local-government bungling, the murders, the drugs, the ravaged school system and dilapidated hospitals - that’s Northeast.
The idea of the Washington Post devoting 20 paragraphs and an anguished photo to the story of a single car vandalism in the NE would be gut-splittingly ludicrous. Murders go unreported there, by the dozens. Every lesser crime, every imaginable urban misery, occurs there in handfuls, or scores, or hundreds of repetitions on a daily basis. The political destruction of local government by Congressional Republicans, and that government’s own ineptitude, are an ongoing, deadly story. Almost none of it makes the hometown paper. Certainly anyone who called the Post City desk and said they lived near the University of the District of Columbia (NE), and not American University (NW), and they’d had their tires slashed and wanted the paper to send over a reporter and photographer to run a sympathetic profile about how they’d been victimized by those mean liberals would be laughed off the line; the reporter could dine off the story of that prole’s presumption for months. But one aggrieved white guy on the border of Chevy Chase is news no matter what happens; the fact that he’s unhappy about anything is reason enough to give him all the attention he wants.
I think this reporter should be required to log at least two dozen human-interest bylines from within walking distance of the Brentwood Metro station before she’s allowed to write about white people again. And as for Hummer-boy, here’s something to entertain himself with while he’s waiting for his new paint job to dry.
[…] These smug drive-by’ers aren’t the only ones who think this guy “got what he deserved”. Check out this liberal blogger’s take on it: Tough break. That’ll probably put a real dent in his startup bobble-head doll business. Along with the $38,000 he paid for the thing (used), replacing all the tires and windows might even delay his moving out of his mother’s house, not that he appears to be in any hurry. I’m all for the environment, but vandalizing ridiculous cars is probably not the best way to deal with the issues. And if whoever did it gets caught, they should be made to pay restitution fully equal to the cost of a set of windows and tires . . . for a Prius. […]
Pingback 7/18/2007
[…] At first glance the story is simple. A man bought a hummer, it was quickly vandalized, and the motive was apparently “FOR THE ENVIRON.” Given the fact that this type of anti-hummer rhetoric has been commonplace for years the story’s barely even newsworthy and I, in fact, didn’t even think to post on the matter until things like this came up: This 32-year-old clown who lives in his mother’s townhouse in an expensive part of Washington, DC, bought a Hummer too big to fit in his mother’s garage. He then paid extra to have it jacked up and fitted with super-sized tires. It gets 14mpg and he justifies it by saying he needs it to create the right “image” for the “sports marketing” company he wants to start. He parked the 7-foot-tall penis substitute on the street, and within a week somebody vandalized it, slashing all the tires, breaking all the windows, and keying “FOR THE ENVIRON” [sic] into the paint. […]
Pingback 7/19/2007
[…] At first glance the story is simple. A man bought a hummer, it was quickly vandalized, and the motive was apparently “FOR THE ENVIRON.” Given the fact that this type of anti-hummer rhetoric has been commonplace for years the story’s barely even newsworthy and I, in fact, didn’t even think to post on the matter until things like this came up: This 32-year-old clown who lives in his mother’s townhouse in an expensive part of Washington, DC, bought a Hummer too big to fit in his mother’s garage. He then paid extra to have it jacked up and fitted with super-sized tires. It gets 14mpg and he justifies it by saying he needs it to create the right “image” for the “sports marketing” company he wants to start. He parked the 7-foot-tall penis substitute on the street, and within a week somebody vandalized it, slashing all the tires, breaking all the windows, and keying “FOR THE ENVIRON” [sic] into the paint. […]
Pingback 7/19/2007
“It’s the complicity in this jerkoff’s insular sense of entitlement that bugs me about this.”
Whoa, KTK, hold up! He’s only getting his property destroyed. It’s not like anybody is playing loud rap music in the neighboring residence in the middle of the afternoon on a weekend…
(I couldn’t resist)
Comment 7/19/2007
So simply buying a car you don’t happen to like and parking it in the driveway makes someone obnoxious?
Comment 7/19/2007
So simply buying a car you don’t happen to like and parking it in the driveway makes someone obnoxious?
(1) Buying a car so idiotically large you can’t park it on your own (mother’s) property;
(2) Buying one that gets offensively low gas mileage, wastes vast amounts of other resources, and is designed with such gross disregard that its major safety feature is that it kills everyone in the other car in cases of accident;
(3) Not caring about any of that;
(4) Behaving with such anti-social indifference because you think it helps your “image”;
(5) Having an image that consists of a shaved head and sports jersey, while promoting yourself as a “sports marketing entrepreneur”, while spending over $38,000 on your ridiculous car, while living with your mother; and
(6) Crying to the Washington Post over a pretty pedestrian incident of vandalism, as if your tiny personal problem was of national significance and you were not only entitled to sympathy for it but simultaneously immune to answering for your own precipitating jerkitude . . .
. . . makes you far more than obnoxious.
Comment 7/19/2007
>simultaneously immune to answering for your
>own precipitating jerkitude
So do I get to make sure all the people who I find offensive are not ‘immune to answering for their precipitating jerkitude’? Or just you?
Comment 7/19/2007
[…] Lean Left’s KTK thinks Groves got what he deserved and is angry at the Post for treating it like a big deal. This 32-year-old clown who lives in his mother’s townhouse in an expensive part of Washington, DC, bought a Hummer too big to fit in his mother’s garage. He then paid extra to have it jacked up and fitted with super-sized tires. It gets 14mpg and he justifies it by saying he needs it to create the right “image” for the “sports marketing” company he wants to start. He parked the 7-foot-tall penis substitute on the street, and within a week somebody vandalized it, slashing all the tires, breaking all the windows, and keying “FOR THE ENVIRON” [sic] into the paint. […]
Pingback 7/19/2007
[…] KTK writes about the DC Hummer incident, and almost immediately takes crap* for it. The problem, as I see it, as that KTK’s, umm, invective, gets in the way of the point, which is actually a good point, in my opinion. In this case, people focused in on KTK’s anti-hummer remarks and ignore the larger point, that this is getting way-undeserved attention. So what follows below the fold is my revised version of KTK’s post, with the anti-Hummer stuff and most of the name-calling deleted. I’m curious to see how (or if) it changes the overall tone, and if it changes anyone’s opinion of the message. […]
Pingback 7/19/2007
Stormy:
Would pouring one’s used motor oil down a storm sewer safely qualify one as a “jerk,” in your estimation?
Comment 7/19/2007
I see KTK is now judging someone based on how they cut their hair and the clothes they choose. Boy does that bring back memories of growing up in the 60s.
Also interesting that on the one hand the guy is “a yuppie/rich/wealthy”, but on the other hand he lives with his mother. Both of which of course are justification for ridiculing someone.
Comment 7/19/2007
Well I’m glad to hear that the left thinks this type of behavior is acceptable. I’ll have a party tonight trashing the cars of the lefty, tree-hugging, yuppie, organic crowd. Why, you might ask? Because if they pulled their heads out of their asses and actually knew something about agriculture they would know that organic agriculture is environmentally unsound and could not feed the world. And now they have given me carte blanche to wreck cars of people whose behaviors I regard as environmentally unsound. I bet there are plenty of them in this same neighborhood (probably driving this piece of shit Priuses). Cool….this is really cool. Man, I would have turned left long ago had I know it allows you to wreck property of someone you don’t agree with. Heil!!
Comment 7/19/2007
[…] The team over at Lean Left (an extremely good liberal blog I’m proud to have on the Blue Collar Heresy blogroll) recently learned that lesson the hard way. A good message was fouled up by an extremely spiteful and ill-tempered delivery and they were taken to task for it. Even though I’m largely sympathetic to the message KTK was trying to give I’ve got no qualms in saying their delivery, quite frankly, sucked. Whether intentionally or not their choice of words and their need to insult the victim in the story got in the way and made it look like they supported what happened. […]
Pingback 7/19/2007
Well, Todd.
The difference is that the property destroyer here is wrecking the type of machinery that is directly in opposition to his cause.
My car doesn’t have anything to do with your issues about organic farming. If you wanted to wreck an organic farm, then that’s a better parallel.
Comment 7/20/2007
Well, this kind of attitude is why the Second Amendment is so important, Mr. Keith. What better use could a SKS be put to than splattering some leftist vandal’s brains all over the sidewalk?
On the other hand, since you all are conveniently unarmed, setting fire to your pricy Priuses would be easy and fun.
Sucks to be you, doesn’t it?
Comment 7/20/2007
Well digglahhh,
My thinking was that without their piece-of-shit Priuses people like you wouldn’t be able to drive to their local whole foods to buy their overpriced shit-covered organic food (whose growing requires the exploitation of low payed workers to do back-breaking labor like hand hoeing). But you may be on to something, just not what you think. By your analogy the original vandals should have attacked a Hummer factory - thus, my first analogy was closer to the original act since it targets the consumer/abuser (perhaps you should apologize for your attempt to correct me). But the closest analogy would be every time I see someone like you buying or eating organic food at a store or restaurant, I think I’ll knock it out of their hand or smoosh it into their smug, self-righteous, “my shit dont stink” face. How is that? I take it that you will have no problem with me ripping your overpriced bag of groceries out of your hand and stomping them into the ground, right? Zieg Heil!
Comment 7/20/2007
Well, I don’t shop at Whole Foods or any of those other Yuppie traps. And, I also think that is fair to say that you would do no such thing.
I’m not some peacenik hippie living within the psychedelic love-fest of my own mind. And, most of my friends who are actively involved in practicing politics do so in neighborhoods that people like you are scared to enter in the first place, rendering whatever internet-tough-guy threats you render moot.
But thanks anyway, I’ll forward your gangsta application up there to 50 Cent. Now, go work on your “ice grill” in the mirror.
Comment 7/20/2007
So, did I miss my apology or was it buried in there somewhere? The only threat, if there were one, was to engage in behavior that you seem to find acceptable - maybe this was all a little to far over your head. I’m sure you and your friends are very scary and live in real tough neighborhoods. Funny though, having spent time in such neighborhoods I’ve noticied they typically lack organic food since ONLY YUPPIE WELL-TO-DO WHITE AROGANT PRICKS BUY ORGANIC FOOD YOU DUMB-ASS.
Comment 7/20/2007
So, did I miss my apology or was it buried in there somewhere? The only threat, if there were one, was to engage in behavior that you seem to find acceptable - maybe this was all a little to far over your head. I’ll try and slow things down for you so you can keep up - I’m all for helping those with special needs. And I’m sure you and your friends are very scary and live in real tough neighborhoods. Funny though, having spent time in such neighborhoods I’ve noticied they typically lack organic food since ONLY YUPPIE WELL-TO-DO WHITE AROGANT PRICKS LIKE YOURSELF BUY ORGANIC FOOD YOU DUMB-ASS. I guess you and your homies gang-bang your way to the suburbs to buy your shit-covered food before going back to your “tough” neighborhoods right?
Comment 7/20/2007
What part of “I DON’T SHOP AT WHOLE FOODS” don’t you understand?
Also, you call me a “well-to-do white arrogrant prick” but then concede that I don’t live a yuppie lifestyle, because my “homies” and I “gangbang our way to the suburbs” to buy our “shit covered food.”
You are borderline incoherent and your posts are enough to make any English teacher cry. You just make yourself look like a trolling ass.
Why you think coming here and acting like a jerk for the sake of it is entertaining, or a worthy investment of your time is beyond me. I will not be responding further.
Comment 7/20/2007
You really are dim-witted, aren’t you. Sorry for making a joke of it before.
Comment 7/20/2007
Congratulations Todd. You’ve got runner up (after Fred) for the mode odious person on this board.
Comment 7/21/2007
“Congratulations Todd. You’ve got runner up (after Fred) for the mode odious person on this board.”
Ease up Todd. I don’t want to lose my spot as the “mode” odious person on this liberal board. I’m not exactly sure what Dan M. means by “mode” odious, but I’m sure I should feel complimented. I would worry if Dan didn’t say nasty things about me. A person is known by his enemies as well as by his friends. I certainly don’t want to be well thought of by liberal crazies.
Comment 7/21/2007
He means you’re fascist forward, Fred.
Comment 7/21/2007
“He means you’re fascist forward, Fred.”
That clears it up. LOL Of course, I have no idea what a fascist forward is. Perhaps you could explain what I advocate that makes me a “fascist forward.”
You libs are strange people.
Comment 7/21/2007
I admit I don’t know what Brooklynite is on about there.
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure you can tell a simple typo when you see one, Fred. At this point, you’ve resorted the being a dick, and an infantile one at that. Known by your enemies, ha. Like maturity.
Comment 7/21/2007
will someone please explain what the big deal is. Let this person buy all the expensive crap he wants. Its really not going to hurt anything not to mention theres thousands and thousand of hummers and other similar vehicles all over the world so is vanalizing one really going to save the world. NO it wont. Second if you think there could be a better story for the newspaper then go write one. Let these people do there jobs. Its not a crime to be rich. Let the guy spend his money how he wishes and stop hatin playa.
Comment 7/22/2007
“I’m pretty sure you can tell a simple typo when you see one, Fred.”
With some of the nonsensical words you libs use, it is not always easy to spot a typo. You have your own language and make up words as you go along. If it had been “modst” or “mist” or some other word close to “most” it would have been obvious that it was a typo. I certainly make my share of them.
Liberals have no sense of humor.
Comment 7/22/2007
“Its not a crime to be rich.”
It depends on whether or not you are a Kennedy, Kerry, Michael Moore, Al Gore, or some other hypocritical liberal. It’s okay for them to drive their big cars, live in their energy hog mansions, and fly around in private jets. After all, they are doing the work of helping the little people.
Comment 7/22/2007
It’s a French joke, Fred. Just further evidence of my traitorousness.
Comment 7/22/2007
The life of a parasite is oh so hard, ain’t it.
I’ll leave you folks with the words of Saintre-Beuve:
Dans les soufrances des autres nous voyons souvent quelque chose qui ne nos deplait pas.
Comment 7/22/2007
Pardon, c’est Sainte-Beuve.
Comment 7/22/2007
And if whoever did it gets caught, they should be made to pay restitution fully equal to the cost of a set of windows and tires . . . for a Prius.
Kevin, again you make the case for differential rights. The criminal should not have to make complete restitution, just the cost of what the victim should have been driving according to the Universal Law of Kevin T. Keith.
You can be such an elitist simpleton boob.
Please note a few things. There are laws. Differential rights may work in a feudal society but not in a Representative Republic.
If your view were possible, who would make the decisions? People like you?
One of your more asinine posts. Your history teachers really did fail you.
By the way, if your post was satire I missed it.
Comment 7/22/2007
Classic Fred. First you are baffled by the typo “mode”, then you write: ‘If it had been “modst” or “mist” or some other word close to “most”…’ Reminds me of the TV cop shows where the detective foils the dumb perp by getting him to divulge details about a situation he previously claimed to have no knowledge of. I always thought those scenes were unrealistic because nobody is so dull as to be tripped up in such an obvious fashion, but then Fred does it to himself without any prodding. I guess I need to recalibrate my stupid scale.
Comment 7/22/2007
You can be such an elitist simpleton boob.
Irony check on aisle 12…
Comment 7/22/2007
tgirsch, you are not going to defend differential rights are you?
Comment 7/22/2007
Well Fred its still not a crime to be rich.
First of all if those “hypocritical liberals” as you call them are that rich they would’nt be driving their own cars or jets.
Second those type of people your speaking of are all supposed to be hypocritcal and everyone knows that will never change.
So that means your calling them a hypocritical hypocrites and that means there not hypocrites at all.
Basically it boils down to this. Yes those people are hypocrites. Yes they can do what they want but there has to be a limit somewhere. However buying the car you want and driving it around is not a crime. Vandalizing it is a crime. If anyone wants to improve the environment then they should definately not just damage people’s property. Instead they should get up and do something good about it. Then again what does it matter. Guess us little people have to depend on hypocritical liberals.
Comment 7/22/2007
Number9:
Actually, “irony” was the wrong word, but I couldn’t think of a better one. The thought of you criticizing anyone else for being “an elitist simpleton boob” ought to be hysterical to anyone who’s read your AGW diatribes.
Comment 7/23/2007
The thought of you criticizing anyone else for being “an elitist simpleton boob” ought to be hysterical to anyone who’s read your AGW diatribes.
I expect simpleton from you tgirsch, because I know you, but you clearly do not know what the word elitist means.
Comment 7/23/2007
No, TG, ‘irony’ is the right word.
Comment 7/23/2007
I assume that describing a snob with a superiority complex is an acceptable use of the term “elitist,” but I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery to judge. Upon reflection, though, you’re right: “pretentious” is probably a better word to describe your attitude.
Comment 7/24/2007
tgirsch, Kevin’s post was about differential rights. I asked you if you would defend differential rights. You mumbled some diversion and stumbled off.
Again, tgirsch, you are not going to defend differential rights are you?
Cowboy up and answer the question.
Comment 7/25/2007
No9, what differential rights do you suspect KTK of advocating? He says that the sympathy given by the media to the victim of a crime should be no greater for those victims for whom the onus of crime is smaller.
You’ve managed to latch onto the one part of this post that actually does suggest the victim isn’t entitled to the usual legal remedies. The reason you don’t see anyone defending this is that the rest of us didn’t take it literally. Anyone familiar with KTK’s posts knows full well that he’s snide and sarcastic, having nothing but contempt for those who claim structural victimization when they are the benefactors of structural inequalities.
To our amusement, you did take it literally, and chastised KTK as a simpleton for your flawed reading of his invective. It’s impressive for you to simultaneously complain about KTK putting this incident in the category that he shows contempt for, and failing to see when he’s being contemptuous.
I suspect that you won’t get a defense of the positions you’ve mistaken TG to have, for much the same reason KTK didn’t bother making explicit that the guy is entitled to full restitution. Once one earns contempt, one usually doesn’t get generous answers to further mistakes.
Comment 7/25/2007
Number9:
I dispute your claim that KTK’s post is even about differential rights.
Otherwise, what Dan M. said.
Comment 7/26/2007
Oh good grief Dan, you giving Kevin cover under the pretense of satire? You are useful. I will give you that. Kevin loves this writing technique. Having an enabler makes it even better.
Liberals love Utopian fantasies and differential rights. Kevin most especially so.
Comment 7/26/2007
Number9:
Perhaps it’s because I’m a “simpleton,” or maybe I just haven’t read up on my Liberal playbook, but I still haven’t the foggiest clue what the hell you’re on about.
Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by “differential rights,” and then continue by pointing out where in this post or comment thread anyone seriously argued for any such thing.
Once you’ve established that, then and only then will it be time for anyone other than you to “cowboy up” about anything. (And what exactly does it mean to “cowboy up?” Beat my wife, drink PBR, and live in a trailer?)
Liberals love Utopian fantasies …
This, from a Libertarian? Dude, your pot-meet-kettle-o-meter must go to 11…
Comment 7/26/2007
No9,
[…] the pretense of satire?
Sarcasm, is not satire.
Comment 7/26/2007
Oh Dan, seriously. Kevin lives in a different world. It is satire. You would argue with a stump wouldn’t you?
tgirsch, even though I have told you more than once I am not even a small L libertarian you must persist. So I will call you a donut. And continue to call you a donut. Because I can. Donut.
How you read libertarian in what I write is humorous. I know you know what differential rights are. All donuts do.
Comment 7/27/2007
helping save the earth by vandalizing a hummer is like trying to find a cure for aids by purposely infecting as many people as possible — just plain stupid, not thought out well, and brings bad attention to your cause.
Comment 7/30/2007
I am astonished at this post. An H1 with a twin turbo on the Duramax engine gets 30+ MPG on diesel and is capable of running on biodesiel. Plus, due to the twin turbo add-on, the exhaust must be cleaner than straight diesel exhaust. Therefore the pollution system is beefed up. Now, granted, this configuration is not standard on ALL Hummers, since you left wingers have shot down nearly all diesel research and legislation. So, those of us who want to get a Hummer are forced to get the Gasoline burning innefficient H2. Good going. Way to save your planet, morons.
Remember, when you’re threatened, call the guys with the guns. When you’re stuck, call the guys with the trucks. But, don’t be upset when we don’t want to help you.
Just go to your Prius Dealer and pay that Porkbarrelled Union Wage & Benefit Sucking schmuck to fix it for you.
Comment 8/17/2007
I grow so tired of reading listening to hifalutin banter … You’re obviously a bright group of people. While most of you are on this website conservative consumer culture is out there making off with all your children’s resources, calling it; ‘legal’. I applaud the trouble makers who made this thoughtless selfish person think twice and I might be inclined to repeat the deed. Arrogant conservative Americans are a breed of human beings akin to Nero and Caligula. In short … if you have a mind to consider and act on the idea that the world is larger than you and will be here long after your expiration date, you are the newest neo-con whipping boy. They think you are pathetic, they call you a pussy, a hippie, liberal, queer and will label you and beat you to submission. You could tell them truth all day long, strong points of reason, scientific fact, recite wisdom from books of their own scripture … they wouldn’t flinch. It’s not in the neo-con mind to ‘not fight’, or to ‘end the fight’, they want to fight more than anything, probably the Kentucky blue ridge blue collar blood boiling inside of them. Their ancestors wrestled with too many wild pigs and now they’ll wrestle or die. Point being, American Neo-cons are pure blooded cocksuckers who want to bring the house down merely for the thrill of watching a big fire. They aren’t going to make peace, and eventually democracy becomes a street battle. Kick the cocksuckers in their aching blue balls, enough with this pussified peace making. Fighting for the earth and fighting for the future of your family is right. Neo-cons are cocksuckers … and they probably know it, quit tip toeing. Alright, those of you who read it may now begin your weaselly semantic de-construction. You should be out breaking windshields
Comment 9/4/2007
(1) Buying a car so idiotically large you can’t park it on your own (mother’s) property;
->Its their property. They can do what they want with it.
(2) Buying one that gets offensively low gas mileage, wastes vast amounts of other resources, and is designed with such gross disregard that its major safety feature is that it kills everyone in the other car in cases of accident;
->So we should buy a car thats safety feature is to get us killed. Yeah, that makes sense. low gas mileage is bad.. but mostly for the driver as he has to shell out more money for gas.
(4) Behaving with such anti-social indifference because you think it helps your “image”;
->Anti-social indifference? He cares about a piece of property he invested in. While we may not think the investment was wise..but its not our loss.
(6) Crying to the Washington Post over a pretty pedestrian incident of vandalism, as if your tiny personal problem was of national significance and you were not only entitled to sympathy for it but simultaneously immune to answering for your own precipitating jerkitude.
->The post was not forced to write about it. The dude didn’t force them to cover it. The post chose to.
Your comments. . . makes you far more of an idiot than him.
Comment 2/14/2008
Very nice article.
Comment 4/8/2008