Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 12, 2009
Homo Should Slog De-Friend Barack Obama?
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Barack Obama has been listed on "Friends of Slog" for nearly two years. A commenter suggested that after today's bombshell—gay marriage is like incest and child rape!—we vote on whether Obama gets to stay on the list of Slog's friends or joins KUOW on Slog's enemies list.
This poll, like all Slog polls, is scientifically sound and legally binding.
1
And there's really no way to unsay what he said today, is there? At least not without revealing himself to be the slimy manipulative opportunist detractors have always claimed him to be.
I want to puke.
I want to puke.
2
President Obama is a friend of SLOG.
But, on the other hand, you refuse to follow the votes and go after the enemies of SLOG in the House and Senate ...
But, on the other hand, you refuse to follow the votes and go after the enemies of SLOG in the House and Senate ...
3
I think "Neither" should be an option. He's clearly not a friend, particularly with you guys just being named a "Top gay blog!" But, enemy? I don't know. I'd be for it to make a point, but he's no Focus on the Family. Or Garfield, for that matter.
4
A true friend
will tell you the truth,
even if it is
uncomfortable to hear;
you
VILE
DISGUSTING
FILTHY
ANIMALS.
will tell you the truth,
even if it is
uncomfortable to hear;
you
VILE
DISGUSTING
FILTHY
ANIMALS.
9
The Obama administration has stated it will defend federal law no matter what an individual's (Obama's, Holder's, etc.) opinion is on the law. No, do people seriously think this is a bad thing? Have people already forgotten what it was like to have a president and an administration with absolutely no respect for the law? An administration who would take the law and do with it as it pleased, even if clearly going against what the law said?
Fuck, I might have to take SLOG off my friends list.
Fuck, I might have to take SLOG off my friends list.
10
And to be fair, @ Schmader . . . he didn't say this, did he? These horrible things weren't written by him? I'm not saying that excuses him, but unless I missed something (which is entirely possible, given the volume already out there about this), there isn't anything for him to unsay.
12
No. You should keep him as a friend because he is. Not all friends are perfect, some do stupid things that make you hate them, but you have to remember that you were friends once for a reason, And I have a feeling is was for more than just DADT.
I think you should talk it out.
I think you should talk it out.
13
Yeah, fuck Garfield.
Really, all this is talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk. Dan talks, bristles, talks, goes on Rachel Maddow, Rachel talks, bristles, talks, tosses it to Keith Olbermann, Keith talks, bristles, talks.
And nobody does ANYTHING. Not a damned thing.
In the past, to effect change, folks had to organize their communities, have sit-ins, rallies, protests, speeches, marches. Hell, when they were giving interviews, they were almost always in the middle of some protest, rally, speech or sit-in. Or jail.
Now it's all blogging and tweeting and sitting around, and instead of people with any reach building their numbers and starting some kind of movement or organizing protests and rallies, they make 90 posts about how furious they are. Or, "let's defriend him!!!!!!"
No, fuck that. Fuck "fierce advocates". Where's our fierce leaders, Dan?
Really, all this is talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk. Dan talks, bristles, talks, goes on Rachel Maddow, Rachel talks, bristles, talks, tosses it to Keith Olbermann, Keith talks, bristles, talks.
And nobody does ANYTHING. Not a damned thing.
In the past, to effect change, folks had to organize their communities, have sit-ins, rallies, protests, speeches, marches. Hell, when they were giving interviews, they were almost always in the middle of some protest, rally, speech or sit-in. Or jail.
Now it's all blogging and tweeting and sitting around, and instead of people with any reach building their numbers and starting some kind of movement or organizing protests and rallies, they make 90 posts about how furious they are. Or, "let's defriend him!!!!!!"
No, fuck that. Fuck "fierce advocates". Where's our fierce leaders, Dan?
16
Barrack needs to stop being a frienemy and start being a better BFF.
This just seems soooo blatently "in your face" fuck you from the O admin that I can't help but feel somewhere in the corner of my happy place that his final word (whenever the fuck that happens) will be in our favor.
I'm willing to admit that I'm totally dreaming.
This just seems soooo blatently "in your face" fuck you from the O admin that I can't help but feel somewhere in the corner of my happy place that his final word (whenever the fuck that happens) will be in our favor.
I'm willing to admit that I'm totally dreaming.
17
OK, one more:
You guys are all writing to him, right?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
I mean, all this ranting and bitching is cathartic and all, but I don't think our Dear Leader reads Slog.
You guys are all writing to him, right?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
I mean, all this ranting and bitching is cathartic and all, but I don't think our Dear Leader reads Slog.
19
ha ha I told you retarded naive wimpy liberals that The Obama would throw you fags away like a dirty used cum rag - AND I WAS RIGHT
20
Chill people. Obama didn't say any of the things you claim he said. Besides, I don't think you want Obama as your enemy. Just ask McCain.
21
Number of SLOG people posting on supposed gay blog about DOMA - 999,999.
Number of SLOG people actually sending a frickin postcard to the White House and their anti-gay State delegation to the House - 2.
Yeah, go march and have it not covered on any of the local TV networks. That will help.
Number of SLOG people actually sending a frickin postcard to the White House and their anti-gay State delegation to the House - 2.
Yeah, go march and have it not covered on any of the local TV networks. That will help.
22
I say keep him as a friend. In part, I agree with #9 statement that the brief was meant to show that the administration will adhere to federal law.
On the other hand the way it was said is horrible.
I think at some point very soon Obama himself will actually say something about this. Let that be the deciding factor, not the Justice Department. I think he's got a decent chance of spinning this.
He'd have to make a grand gesture, but in the end, it could be better.
Or he could say nothing. I'd give it a couple days. If nothing happens, dump him. But don't make a snap decision. I haven't.
25
@21: This.
I'm surprised my IP isn't blocked at WhiteHouse.gov for sheer volume yet.
No "STFU" letters yet, so I guess I'm still golden here.
I'm surprised my IP isn't blocked at WhiteHouse.gov for sheer volume yet.
No "STFU" letters yet, so I guess I'm still golden here.
26
Isn't it interesting how much time Will in Seattle spends defending this? I wonder how much of a friend HE is to you guys...
27
Jesus! The whole "he compared gay marriage to incest and child marriage" thing is taken way, waaaaaaaaaay out of context. You are no longer in the same *galaxy* as the original context. It's all based on one report by John Aravosis (certified whackadoo), which mischaracterized a legal brief, written by some DOJ flunky, that was making a technical point about states rights!
Everyone take a collective deep breath before you start burning Obama effigies in the streets, okay?
Everyone take a collective deep breath before you start burning Obama effigies in the streets, okay?
28
Aren't folks more likely to be pro gay marriage if they know a gay person? Haven't you written that yourself several times, Dan? So, obviously, we need to keep him as a friend.
29
What percentage of Slog is about gay marriage and what part is about other aspects of life? If it's only about marriage, then definitely defriend him.
33
Cate B - you have just a little bit of knowledge, which makes you a dangerous person.
This wasn't a "small, technical point". The comparisons to incest and things of that nature were to demonstrate what's called the "rational basis test". See, when governments restrict rights, the Courts evaluate those restrictions under three levels of scrutiny. The "rational basis" test means that the government can basically do almost anything it wants.
Comparing gay marriage to incest was a way for the DoJ to demonstrate other ways the State controls sexuality, and for what reasons, and that therefore control of homosexuality has a "rational basis".
So, no, stop marginalizing it.
This wasn't a "small, technical point". The comparisons to incest and things of that nature were to demonstrate what's called the "rational basis test". See, when governments restrict rights, the Courts evaluate those restrictions under three levels of scrutiny. The "rational basis" test means that the government can basically do almost anything it wants.
Comparing gay marriage to incest was a way for the DoJ to demonstrate other ways the State controls sexuality, and for what reasons, and that therefore control of homosexuality has a "rational basis".
So, no, stop marginalizing it.
34
Well all you naive fags ignored the fact that your erstwhile Savior went to a racist black-nationalist church for over 20 years, a CHRISTIAN church that also gave a lifetime achievement award to notorious racist and homo-hater, Louis Farrakhan. If that mountain of evidence did not clue you in to what Obama might be thinking, then you are a FUCKING CLUELESS NAIVE RETARD who deserves everything that The One shoves up your butthole.
35
Still a friend, pissed as I am. There are more issues out there, including my ability to go to Europe without having to pretend I'm Canadian, and the possibility I can see Persepolis as a tourist.
36
A year and a half ago I did my best to make people see about Obama what I saw. That he's an opportunistic, social climbing, lying bigot. He is no friend of our community just a good liar who'd sell his mother for the oval office. If you vote for this tool he'll come back to bite you in the ass inside of a year. Well guys, I hate to say that I told you so but, I TOLD YOU SO! You should have voted for McCain. At least you knew where we stood with him. Me? I voted Libertarian. A wasted vote you said then. Well, now who's vote was a waste?
39
I wish there was a third option as well. Friends don't break their word to you; but, he's proven to be extremely calculating & cagey. Some tiny part of me wants to hope that he has some other long term strategy. BTW: already wrote my local representatives, now doing the obligatory whitehouse.gov form which will doubtless be ignored. I wish there was something bigger that could be done.
...seriously: ugh.
...seriously: ugh.
40
AR- Okay, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but here's how it rolls: the DOJ files this brief, in which they state that homosexuals are not a suspect class, therefore, the court should use the rational basis test instead of heightened scrutiny to decided if gay people are being denied rights by DOMA. They also say that, under the rational basis test, SoAndSo cases (cases of marriage involving family members not being recognized by other states, etc) show that there is a basis for DOMA being legal as a matter of states' rights.
So are you upset that they're making a legal argument that homosexuals are not a suspect class? In what way is that not a technical legal point? I understand it's an important thing, but I don't see how they could have made their argument without it.
My point is, okay the DOJ is doing something majorly shitty here by filing this brief, but the comparisons that everyone is getting so het up about are really a minor point in this brief. The REAL issue is that the Administration shouldn't have filed this at all. And maybe Obama fucked up by not stopping them from doing so. But people are acting like Obama came swooping down off Marine One holding a giant banner saying "GAYZ R PERVERTS AND CHILD MOLESTERS!!!"
So are you upset that they're making a legal argument that homosexuals are not a suspect class? In what way is that not a technical legal point? I understand it's an important thing, but I don't see how they could have made their argument without it.
My point is, okay the DOJ is doing something majorly shitty here by filing this brief, but the comparisons that everyone is getting so het up about are really a minor point in this brief. The REAL issue is that the Administration shouldn't have filed this at all. And maybe Obama fucked up by not stopping them from doing so. But people are acting like Obama came swooping down off Marine One holding a giant banner saying "GAYZ R PERVERTS AND CHILD MOLESTERS!!!"
41
This is all well and good, but there's nothing being written about this that's showing up on the main pages of CNN, Washington Post, Seattle Times, or PI. So you're talking to dead air.
42
Erica C. Barnett: It's impossible for me to imagine this happening if HRC had been the Democratic nominee. As of today, I am willing to say you were right; I was wrong. Shoulda been Hillary.
43
@41 Will in Seattle aka Loveschild:
Are there millions marching in the streets demanding healthcare for all? No. Awww.
Are there millions marching in the streets demanding healthcare for all? No. Awww.
44
And he did this while wishing LGBT a happy pride month? What's next? But I still think we ought to give him more time.
45
I did not know that Slog's influence was so great as to hurt our President politically or otherwise by de-friending him. Needles to say that it wouldn't endear you with that many people. Who do you think would end up loosing a political battle? My bet is not with Slog.
46
Needles to say, your loosing your mind, Loveschild. Why would you think you have a rational world view if you can't fucking spell?
48
yelling at me does nothing to change it.
what are you prepared to DO?
gay rights didn't happen in Canada because people asked for it.
what are you prepared to DO?
gay rights didn't happen in Canada because people asked for it.
49
New poll.
Dick Cheney...SLOG's "New Best Friend"
Former vice president Dick Cheney this week voiced his support for same-sex marriage, as long as it is handled by the states and not the federal government.
Cheney, whose daughter has a longtime female partner, said at the National Press Club that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
50
Keep in mind that Will in Seattle's head is so far up Obama's ass that he's seeing the world through POS, oops, POTUS's eyes.
51
Loveschild sees all those white characters colored black in the Bible and says. That's me!
Was it Audrey Lorde? I'm not exactly sure, but she said that you cannot tear down the Master's house with the Master's tools.
Was it Audrey Lorde? I'm not exactly sure, but she said that you cannot tear down the Master's house with the Master's tools.
52
We know that he gave us a big fat huge fucking backhand when he defended DOMA. He just proved what I didn't want to believe- he's a politician just like the rest of them.
That said- I would defriend him, but I wouldn't put him on the enemy list because I'm still crossing my fingers that he will do some good in healthcare, the middle east, and green energy.
That said- I would defriend him, but I wouldn't put him on the enemy list because I'm still crossing my fingers that he will do some good in healthcare, the middle east, and green energy.
53
We tried to warn you Obamatards, but you bought the Change(tm) rhetoric hook, line, and sinker.
Vote third-party in 2012 for candidates who actually stand up for the civil rights of ALL Americans, like Ralph Nader.
Vote third-party in 2012 for candidates who actually stand up for the civil rights of ALL Americans, like Ralph Nader.
54
Why can't SLOG just be indifferent? What is it about otherwise smart young people that makes them think that some politician is "on their side"? Ah well, life lesson learned. Now get on with your own work and stop identifying with politicians.
55
#49 that has always been his bullshit position. It's already up to the states, so why would this be viewed as him advocating any further positive action on this? He wants states to be able to ban gay marriage more than he wants states to be able to allow it. It's a pathetic last ditch position to stop the gay rights steam engine from forcing his bigoted state of choice to allow gay marriage and recognize the marriages of other states.
56
fuck him. fuck him right in the ear. i'm done with that asshole. so many times (in 4 months!) have i found myself saying "wtf obama?"
58
#40 - You're right about #33's pretty half-assed legal commentary. I'm totally pissed about this brief, primarily because of the horrible politics of the brief and what I think is some pretty shitty legal analysis.
That being said, the incest etc. commentary is being blown out of proportion. There is no "comparison" being made. What the brief attempts to do is identify the relevant principles of "Conflicts of Law" to argue against forcing state A to recognize a marriage just because state B does. And, frankly, they're pretty right on about the general aspects of this area of the law. Traditionally, and this pre-dates the gay marriage debate, states are allowed to not recognize marriages from other states when it violates some aspect of the public policy of that state. The case law on those issues has tended to flow from questions of age or incest, because that's been the typical area of dispute - and the states had clear public policy positions on those questions. The fact that the brief uses this case law doesn't mean that the DOJ is comparing incest to being gay, it just means that these are the cases that have been used previously in the marriage context and that they support the principle being argued in the brief.
Nothing pisses me off more than when the right misconstrues, misstates, doesn't understand, or blatantly misrepresents an argument to suit their interests. There are many, many, many reasons to be pissed about this brief and I feel very strongly on almost all of them, but this isn't one that we should be extending. The DOJ didn't say that gay=incest. It didn't even imply it. It did say that states have public policies against gay marriage, just like they do incest, and that in the Conflict of Laws area related to marriage, that public policy implicates what marriages they have to recognize.
BTW, #33, this isn't actually that related to the rational basis test, it's a statement of what the law is related to state recognition of marriage and what laws control. #40 is correct about why the brief relies on rational basis (that GLBT is not a suspect class). The federal courts have always used rational basis on GLBT issues, including in Lawrence and Roemer. Until the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to GLBT folks, the lower courts won't do it either and we need to win this debate about our rights on the rational basis front for the time being. But, again, those are two fairly unrelated points. Point 1: DOMA goes to state rights questions and Conflict of Law principles control, public policy determines marriage, and states have the public policy right to not recognize marriages they oppose. Point 2: If the law discriminates, it does so only under a rational basis level of review, and under rational basis, there is justification for this law. Levels of review go to what discrimination is acceptable and what discrimination isn't acceptable under our system and GLBT people get rational basis review.
More...
That being said, the incest etc. commentary is being blown out of proportion. There is no "comparison" being made. What the brief attempts to do is identify the relevant principles of "Conflicts of Law" to argue against forcing state A to recognize a marriage just because state B does. And, frankly, they're pretty right on about the general aspects of this area of the law. Traditionally, and this pre-dates the gay marriage debate, states are allowed to not recognize marriages from other states when it violates some aspect of the public policy of that state. The case law on those issues has tended to flow from questions of age or incest, because that's been the typical area of dispute - and the states had clear public policy positions on those questions. The fact that the brief uses this case law doesn't mean that the DOJ is comparing incest to being gay, it just means that these are the cases that have been used previously in the marriage context and that they support the principle being argued in the brief.
Nothing pisses me off more than when the right misconstrues, misstates, doesn't understand, or blatantly misrepresents an argument to suit their interests. There are many, many, many reasons to be pissed about this brief and I feel very strongly on almost all of them, but this isn't one that we should be extending. The DOJ didn't say that gay=incest. It didn't even imply it. It did say that states have public policies against gay marriage, just like they do incest, and that in the Conflict of Laws area related to marriage, that public policy implicates what marriages they have to recognize.
BTW, #33, this isn't actually that related to the rational basis test, it's a statement of what the law is related to state recognition of marriage and what laws control. #40 is correct about why the brief relies on rational basis (that GLBT is not a suspect class). The federal courts have always used rational basis on GLBT issues, including in Lawrence and Roemer. Until the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to GLBT folks, the lower courts won't do it either and we need to win this debate about our rights on the rational basis front for the time being. But, again, those are two fairly unrelated points. Point 1: DOMA goes to state rights questions and Conflict of Law principles control, public policy determines marriage, and states have the public policy right to not recognize marriages they oppose. Point 2: If the law discriminates, it does so only under a rational basis level of review, and under rational basis, there is justification for this law. Levels of review go to what discrimination is acceptable and what discrimination isn't acceptable under our system and GLBT people get rational basis review.
60
@27: "John Aravosis (certified whackadoo)"
Here here. That guy is paranoid, borderline fuckwad. If you call him on his bullshit, he'll delete your comments and call you a homophobe. I'm not a homophobe. I've frenched kissed a drag queen in a bar in the village while hardcore gay porn played on the monitors. I've been to the Eagle more times than most gay guys, where I saw plenty of cocks, had my packaged grabbed/stroked/rubbed/fondled, and best of all got super stoned in the courtyard out back. I've danced at neighbors and the (now closed) brass connection more times than I can count, flirting with drag queens the whole time. I'm there at the gay pride parade every year with my two young kids. My wife and I were married by our gay friend who introduced us.
Homophobe? Fuck you, John Aravosis , and anyone else who calls me a homophobe.
Dan, careful with the company you keep.
Here here. That guy is paranoid, borderline fuckwad. If you call him on his bullshit, he'll delete your comments and call you a homophobe. I'm not a homophobe. I've frenched kissed a drag queen in a bar in the village while hardcore gay porn played on the monitors. I've been to the Eagle more times than most gay guys, where I saw plenty of cocks, had my packaged grabbed/stroked/rubbed/fondled, and best of all got super stoned in the courtyard out back. I've danced at neighbors and the (now closed) brass connection more times than I can count, flirting with drag queens the whole time. I'm there at the gay pride parade every year with my two young kids. My wife and I were married by our gay friend who introduced us.
Homophobe? Fuck you, John Aravosis , and anyone else who calls me a homophobe.
Dan, careful with the company you keep.
61
De-friend him already, you fagotty shit. It's not like he's gonna give a shit. You're such a drama queen, exploit my son, look at me Bastard, Dan Savage. Grow some balls, faggot.
62
@60 seandr
I'm sure your kids will be real proud to talk about good ole dad's experiences with french kissing drag queens. Like that will ever happen.
Why so defensive?
Just keep it in your wife's warm ---t and you'll be good. Why worry about all this stuff that has no effect on your life whatsoever.
I'm sure your kids will be real proud to talk about good ole dad's experiences with french kissing drag queens. Like that will ever happen.
Why so defensive?
Just keep it in your wife's warm ---t and you'll be good. Why worry about all this stuff that has no effect on your life whatsoever.
64
@62: Just saying - John Aravosis is a nut.
I have far worse stories than kissing drag queens to hide from my kids.
And I was a little drunk last night when I posted that.
That is all.
I have far worse stories than kissing drag queens to hide from my kids.
And I was a little drunk last night when I posted that.
That is all.
66
I say that while SLOG isn't specifically a gay rights forum, it has a strong enough association with that issue to justify a fat FUCK YOU to this administration. De-Friend! What does de-friending mean? I'm sure you'll still vote him into a second term as the lesser-of-two-evils candidate, but the de-friend says he just shat the last of his "hope and change" cred into the dumpster of centrist pandering. This administration will do less for your rights than effin LBJ did for blacks, and now you know it top to bottom.
My hope (if that word isn't totally useless by now) is that having an ostensible liberal at the podium, achieving some measurable successes on security and the economy (assuming those don't blow up too), will keep fostering an environment in which more young Americans come around to the progressive light of reason. Maybe if he keeps staying mum on gayness to save political face with NAZIs, while civilian leaders push for gay equality, it will allow future leaders to set things right. Good Luck, y'all.
And in other things, can we put in a SLOG feature that lets us ignore all unregistered users?
My hope (if that word isn't totally useless by now) is that having an ostensible liberal at the podium, achieving some measurable successes on security and the economy (assuming those don't blow up too), will keep fostering an environment in which more young Americans come around to the progressive light of reason. Maybe if he keeps staying mum on gayness to save political face with NAZIs, while civilian leaders push for gay equality, it will allow future leaders to set things right. Good Luck, y'all.
And in other things, can we put in a SLOG feature that lets us ignore all unregistered users?
67
Well, given that the administration *has* to defend DOMA, and there is no rational defense, maybe they're just using the old stuff to show how ridiculous it all is. Otherwise, this just doesn't make sense. You don't want the admin to *really* try to defend it, do you?
69
I think this whole thing is a big troll to get conservatives to support repealing DOMA.
Think about it: every conservative commentator loves to get on Obama's case about anything, especially hypocrisy, so all he has to do is break campaign promises and stand for things conservatives support. Then, they must either take him to task for changing his mind--effectively throwing their lot in with the anti-DOMA crowd--or they have to bite the bullet and say he's doing the right thing. Either way, he's forcing his opponents to waste political capital while advancing his own agendas.
Think about it: every conservative commentator loves to get on Obama's case about anything, especially hypocrisy, so all he has to do is break campaign promises and stand for things conservatives support. Then, they must either take him to task for changing his mind--effectively throwing their lot in with the anti-DOMA crowd--or they have to bite the bullet and say he's doing the right thing. Either way, he's forcing his opponents to waste political capital while advancing his own agendas.
70
I'm with Sullivan. I worked for Obama. I sent my money to Obama.
And I regret it. The wars are still going strong. The anti-gay sentiment is still going strong.
I won't support him again.
And I regret it. The wars are still going strong. The anti-gay sentiment is still going strong.
I won't support him again.
72
68: 95 percents of people on SLOG are one-issue voters. They live in a vacuum where the health of the country as a whole doesn't really matter. Only they matter. It's political narcissism typical of this generation.
73
Go ahead and in 2012, vote for Palin why don't you.
Ever hear of 'useful idiots'? That's what the Far Left is to the Democrats. Just like the Far Right used to be for the Republicans until they let them take over the party.
Ever hear of 'useful idiots'? That's what the Far Left is to the Democrats. Just like the Far Right used to be for the Republicans until they let them take over the party.
74
So... When does he move to the enemy column?... It would seem the people have spoken. (Or is this just more Slog bullshit?)
75
I see you wimpy fags still have Obama in your friends column. What a bunch of fucking weak ass pansy liberal faggots you all are. You make me even sicker than Obama does.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS