Friday, July 07, 2006
Monday, July 03, 2006
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
[The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated]
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
[The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated]
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Friday, June 30, 2006
I came across
an interesting theory regarding homosexuality, and how people truly opposed to homosexuality should actually be in favor of gay marriage. The argument goes something like this: It is generally argued, at least by thoes who are themselves gay, that being gay is not a "choice;" I certainly have never heard someone say, "Well, I could have been straight, but I just prefer to be gay." This implies that homosexuality is genetic, that certain people are predisposed to homosexuality the same way I am predisposed to being left-handed. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then it is an inheritable trait that can be passed from from parents to children. If being homosexual is demonized, and thoes who harbor these impulses are critcized and ostracized for their behavior, then many of these people will seek to hide or suppress their natural inclinations in a heterosexual partnership or marriage. If this occurs, children will almost certainly result, therefore passing a predisposition to homosexuality on to a new generation. If homosexuality was not considered a problem, and gays and lesbians were allowed to live their lives as they chose, the result would be fewer births among thoes who consider themselves homosexual, and in a few generations, the problem would "breed itself out."
While I appretiate this line of thinking for encouraging rights and tolerance for homosexuals, it does so for the wrong reasons, and intent is as important as results. This line of reasoning is nothing more than eugenics, and a truly horrible thing to encourage under the guise of helping other attain an equal standing in society.
While I appretiate this line of thinking for encouraging rights and tolerance for homosexuals, it does so for the wrong reasons, and intent is as important as results. This line of reasoning is nothing more than eugenics, and a truly horrible thing to encourage under the guise of helping other attain an equal standing in society.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
This
makes me happy.
Guantanamo Bay has never reallly sat well with me, and has sort of become a symbol of the ever-expanding power of the executive branch. Of course, this does not mean that "Gitmo" (in military parlance) will be shut down; merely that the president's preferred method of bringing the suspects held there to trial is illegal, and he will either have to persue conventional means of administering justice, or ask congress for permission to do it another way (which is what he should have done in the first place; I don't buy this idea that a state of war, as quasi-exists now, gives the President a blank check to do as he pleases in defense of the counrty.)
For me, the ethical/moral quandry here is more important than the legal one. Just because these people are alleged to have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not necessarily members of a standing army (in the modern sense) does not give us the right to toss out the rule book when dealing with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a vigorous defense of our sovereignty and long to see thoes who have worked to cause us harm brought to justice, but if we do so in a way that violates very deeply held beliefs about the rights of an individual or limits on the powers of the government, what good are we? We cannot, in good faith, state that our offenses against this or that individual are excused because they are lesser than the individuals' offenses against us. President Bush denounces these prisoners as enemies of freedom and democracy; are we not much the same if we deny democratic processes to those that need it most? Certainly, anyone who is convinced of U.S. treachery in and disdain of Arabs and the Middle East need look no further than how readily we abandon our much vaunted principles of being equal before the law and having acess to due process.
If nothing else, this will help ensure that the detainees (ever notice that the Bush aministration never says 'prisoners?') will have better access to an impartial court to hear their case, and hopefully show President Bush that he cannot act with impunity.
Guantanamo Bay has never reallly sat well with me, and has sort of become a symbol of the ever-expanding power of the executive branch. Of course, this does not mean that "Gitmo" (in military parlance) will be shut down; merely that the president's preferred method of bringing the suspects held there to trial is illegal, and he will either have to persue conventional means of administering justice, or ask congress for permission to do it another way (which is what he should have done in the first place; I don't buy this idea that a state of war, as quasi-exists now, gives the President a blank check to do as he pleases in defense of the counrty.)
For me, the ethical/moral quandry here is more important than the legal one. Just because these people are alleged to have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not necessarily members of a standing army (in the modern sense) does not give us the right to toss out the rule book when dealing with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a vigorous defense of our sovereignty and long to see thoes who have worked to cause us harm brought to justice, but if we do so in a way that violates very deeply held beliefs about the rights of an individual or limits on the powers of the government, what good are we? We cannot, in good faith, state that our offenses against this or that individual are excused because they are lesser than the individuals' offenses against us. President Bush denounces these prisoners as enemies of freedom and democracy; are we not much the same if we deny democratic processes to those that need it most? Certainly, anyone who is convinced of U.S. treachery in and disdain of Arabs and the Middle East need look no further than how readily we abandon our much vaunted principles of being equal before the law and having acess to due process.
If nothing else, this will help ensure that the detainees (ever notice that the Bush aministration never says 'prisoners?') will have better access to an impartial court to hear their case, and hopefully show President Bush that he cannot act with impunity.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
I'm having trouble
understanding how self-described conservatives can still support the Republican party. From what I'm told being conservative (broadly) means you support smaller, less intrusive government and a conservative social agenda. As near as I can tell, this is not was the GOP is about anymore. During the past six years, Republicans have contolled the white house, enjoyed a majority in the House and at least a near-majority in the Senate (it's gone back and forth a little). In essence, Congress and the President have repeatedly been faced with two questions: "Do we expand federal power or reign it in? Do we increase spending or limit it?" They have repeatedly chosen to increase authority and spending, and I fail to see how that falls in line with a conservative political agenda.
As far as the social side of conservativism, I see little action on that front either. Where are the debates on abortion, or prayer in schools? How about some concern for the divorce rate, or displaying the 10 Commandments in court houses? Any discussion of teen pregnancy/promiscuity/abstinence or family issues? None that I can see. Drug abuse & alcoholism? Not on the national agenda. About all that has happened is President Bush has appointed some right-leaning judges and had that faith-based initiatives thing early in his tenure. Congress has broached the subject of banning gay marriage twice, but that issue is so incredibly divisive that it has almost no chance of passing (it lost two votes in the senate the second time around despite the GOP gaining some seats) and, more recently, has been trying to ban flag burning and desecration, a move calculated, I think, to pander to their conservative base. There has been lots discussion about immigration reform, but thus far no action, and given the complexity of the issue it will be while before anything happens. But at least their talking about it.
So what am I missing? Can anyone reading this explain why a conservative would continue to vote republican, (at least on the federal level; I'm sure there are State and local officials who are Republican and still conservative)? Is it merely that some people can't bring themselves to vote Democrat, or is perhaps the recent expansion of federal powers acceptable because of the war on terror? I really would like to know; this isn't me just dumping on the GOP. For the record, I don't understand why people still vote Democrat either; they have almost utterly failed to offer an actual alternative to Republicans. It seems their national platform is "Hey, at least we're not the GOP!"
As far as the social side of conservativism, I see little action on that front either. Where are the debates on abortion, or prayer in schools? How about some concern for the divorce rate, or displaying the 10 Commandments in court houses? Any discussion of teen pregnancy/promiscuity/abstinence or family issues? None that I can see. Drug abuse & alcoholism? Not on the national agenda. About all that has happened is President Bush has appointed some right-leaning judges and had that faith-based initiatives thing early in his tenure. Congress has broached the subject of banning gay marriage twice, but that issue is so incredibly divisive that it has almost no chance of passing (it lost two votes in the senate the second time around despite the GOP gaining some seats) and, more recently, has been trying to ban flag burning and desecration, a move calculated, I think, to pander to their conservative base. There has been lots discussion about immigration reform, but thus far no action, and given the complexity of the issue it will be while before anything happens. But at least their talking about it.
So what am I missing? Can anyone reading this explain why a conservative would continue to vote republican, (at least on the federal level; I'm sure there are State and local officials who are Republican and still conservative)? Is it merely that some people can't bring themselves to vote Democrat, or is perhaps the recent expansion of federal powers acceptable because of the war on terror? I really would like to know; this isn't me just dumping on the GOP. For the record, I don't understand why people still vote Democrat either; they have almost utterly failed to offer an actual alternative to Republicans. It seems their national platform is "Hey, at least we're not the GOP!"
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
We sold our TV
and it was the greatest $15 we ever made, and now ranks 3rd on my personal list Greatest Things Ever (#1 is marrying Nomi, #2 is Sydney). If I had known that not having a TV is the great, I would have given it away. If there were no takers, I would shot the damn thing. It's really hard to see how much time was wasted on that stupid thing until you get rid of it. I propose a challenge to (all) my reader(s): Get rid of the TV for week. Don't just turn it off; you'll forget and turn it back on. Don't just unplug it; you'll be reminded constantly of what you're not watching. Get it out of the house. Put it in the shed, put in the garage, stuff it in a closet, loan it to your cousin.
You won't miss it, I promise, after the first day or so.
You may ask, ok, I got rid of the TV, now what?
Whatever you want. Have dinner, at an actual dinner table with your family. Read a book (may I reccommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? I just started it and it's blowing my mind). Go for a walk. Attend a city council meeting. Take a nap. Almost any activity conceivable is better than watching TV, and anything you might have done before while watching TV will be done better without the damned thing in the house. I had no idea what could be accomplished in the space of a single "Friends" rerun.
Trust me. Try it. You might not want it back.
You won't miss it, I promise, after the first day or so.
You may ask, ok, I got rid of the TV, now what?
Whatever you want. Have dinner, at an actual dinner table with your family. Read a book (may I reccommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? I just started it and it's blowing my mind). Go for a walk. Attend a city council meeting. Take a nap. Almost any activity conceivable is better than watching TV, and anything you might have done before while watching TV will be done better without the damned thing in the house. I had no idea what could be accomplished in the space of a single "Friends" rerun.
Trust me. Try it. You might not want it back.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
A fad I can't wait to see end:
The melding of famous couples first names. First we had "Bennifer," now witness, "Brangelina."
Ugh.
Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)