Seattle leads the way in idiocy again

Navigation

User login

Online users

Locutus
Guglielmo
Laurian
einmaleins
The Fire Inside

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

itsthewater
tsunamizombie
Brooks
Teresa Marie Staal
Jeff151

Upcoming events

FROdependence Day Pizza Party(1 day)
Kimya Dawson, Ghost Mice, Heathers and June Madrona at Freeschool Fundraiser!(3 days)
Lunchtime Stories in the Park(4 days)
Jerry E. Smith on HAARP and Weather Warfare!(6 days)
OAR - Basic Sculling Class - Offering 5(7 days)
Oly Free Herbal Clinic Cob-Oven Pizza Benefit(8 days)

Poster Calendar

Seattle leads the way in idiocy again

Submitted by Krull on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 8:57am.

homeless

You can read about it here,

Now the homeless are a protected class in Seattle. There are laws on the books currently to deal with the crimes committed against the homeless. Just like if the same crimes are committed against you and me.

Instead of providing a special class for homeless, why not move to solve their baseline plight, their homelessness?

Krull's blog
Login or register to post comments

Why can't the city...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:15am.

...do both?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Because...

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:48am.

Some people are not more equal than others. I think a guy named George wrote about that... C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

I was responding to Krull's

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:58am.

criticism about not working on the "baseline" problem. As for your point, a rational analysis would conclude that these laws do not make some people more equal. They protect them from the unequal treatment of others.

Now I've said the only two things I needed to say on the topic.

Gug said, "As for your point"

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:15am.

"As for your point, a rational analysis would conclude that these laws do not make some people more equal." If these laws are not intended and make a person(s) in the protected class more equal by their very nature, I suppose it is possible it is an unintended consequence, but is that really believeable? No not at all. It was exactly their intention when the laws were passed. It was the intention of the legsitlators and judges, as well as those who would benefit from such legislation. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

A few years ago the anti-gay

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 12:08pm.

A few years ago the anti-gay bigots were at Evergreen for their yearly little "you're all gonna burn in Hell" social. One bit of untruth they fell back on the most was the idea that homosexuality makes a person more likely to be a pedophile. A student brought up the fact that she was repeatedly molested by her Uncle and asked if she should be relieved that at least it was a heterosexual rape.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Are you really feeling threatened...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:58am.

...by extra attention being paid to vulnerable segments of society? Isn't this what gov't is for -- to protect those who can't protect themselves?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Laws are in place which accomplish this...

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:10am.

Murder is hateful. Battery is also hateful or very close to it. We have laws that prohibit both. If you beat and rob a homeless man, how is that different from beating and robbing a man walking home from work? Is the man walking from work some how less important, the crime any less in nature because the man has a job and a home? Of course not! If it had been a woman, say a female college student (a straight, white, Christian upper income female studetnt), instead of Matthew Sheppard who was murdered, in exactly the same circumstances, would it have been a hate crime? No it would not have been a 'hate' crime. The crime itself would have been no less hateful in nature, but she would not have been in the same extra equal protected class.

Hate crimes are simply crimes. They are no more hateful or less so because they are committed against a homosexual, homeless, or a minority. The entire notion of hate crime legislation is liberal pandering to its potential and current constituents. It is pandering liberals approve of, but pandering none the less. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Maybe we should overturn terrorism laws...

Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:54pm.

...after all, attacking civilians is punishable as murder, too.

Does context mean nothing to you?

The Canaanite's Call

The fight against terrorism

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:27am.

Is a war, not a criminal matter. You know that rigth? Yes context means very much to me. Perhaps I should ask you the same question. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Some people are not more

Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:50pm.

Some people are not more equal than others. I think a guy named George wrote about that... C.

Wait... you mean George Orwell? The socialist? The Trotsky-influenced Fabian who wrote 1984 and campaigned for the Labor Party?

Do you really think he would be opposed to additional protections for the poor?

The Canaanite's Call

Yeah I do. Did you read his books?

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:29am.

Who the hell do you think Ingsoc was, in 1984? Do you think Animal Farm was a statement for people being more equal than others? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Animal Farm was a (pretty

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 7:39pm.

Animal Farm was a (pretty blistering) critique of both capitalism and *Stalinism*. Don't forget that Orwell was a fan of Trotsky, and was a self-described Socialist. He absolutely would have supported laws like this, because hate-crime laws serve an egalitarian purpose by protecting the vulnerable.

You don't seem to understand much of the world outside your own myopic perspective.

The Canaanite's Call

HEY GUG!!

Submitted by Krull on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 8:59am.

How come no troll pics for Phil on this last comment??

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

I stopped doling out the little trophies yesterday

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 10:07am.

They only encourage bad behavior. As for Phil, his posts are almost universally civil, thoughtful, and contructive. If he slips now and then, he only proves he's human.

Please forgive me for

Submitted by Phil Owen on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:04pm.

Please forgive me for flaming there. I slipped up.

I've been extraordinarily annoyed with Tschida lately, and I should probably just avoid engaging him.

The Canaanite's Call

Seattle does a lot to

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:39am.

solve the "baseline" plight of the homeless. Things like the 1811 Eastlake project for one. So I'm not sure why this measure is a problem.

Well said

Submitted by Krull on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:29am.

Tschida said, "The entire notion of hate crime legislation is liberal pandering to its potential and current constituents. It is pandering liberals approve of, but pandering none the less."

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

If placing extra focus on hate crimes is pandering...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:49am.

...what do you call placing extra focus on 2nd amendment rights? It seems like a manipulation of terminology to me.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

What are you talking about?

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:00am.

Are there some extra laws that protect the second amendment you are referring to? As far as I know, the focus on the second amendment is the efforts of liberals to restrict and diminish the meaning, the implementation of, and the right to exercise the citizen’s use of the second amendment. Also along with that is the advocates for the second amendment who work to ensure that this right afforded citizens is not restricted, infringed upon, or as is the stated goal of many liberal legislators and judges to rescind the amendment one little step at a time. So again, is the second amendment some how used to create a protected class of extra equal citizens? Of course not! So what is it you are talking about? C. Edit: I think I understand. You think simply defending the second amendment is pandering. Right. So let me ask you this? How does defending a right granted and ensured to EVERY CITIZEN EQUALLY pandering? Who is excluded? Who does not enjoy the freedom of the second amendment? My point would be, that A) the Sencond Amendment does not establish a group who enjoys extra equality and B) It does not create legislation or pervert the justice system to pander to a specific group and C) Liberals do not approve of the second amendment, much less anyone pandering to people who do. Again I said it was pandering liberals approve of.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Exactly as you say:

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:46am.

How does defending a right granted and ensured to EVERY CITIZEN EQUALLY pandering?

Every citizen has the right not to be harassed, right? So how can that be pandering?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

We have laws that deal with...

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:59am.

Harassment. So why do we need new laws with harsher penalties to provide special privilege to a class of people? How is harassment of a homeless guy different from a woman walking down the street? Are they not equal, and deserve the same treatment under the law? It is pandering liberals like and thus acceptable, in contrast to the supporters of the second amendment you pointed out earlier. Liberals don't like the second amendment or the people who support it. That kind of pandering to a group of people who are not seeking special privilege by the way, is not permissible. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

It's interesting to hear you refer...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 12:33pm.

...to homeless people as having a special privilege. They are homeless, after all.

To address your question:

So why do we need new laws with harsher penalties to provide special privilege to a class of people?

When existing laws don't do the job, then we pass more specific laws. For example, there are laws that address violence toward police officers. Does that make them a special class of people? I think the logic is that it will deter that from occurring. Same logic with harassment of the homeless, no?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

No!

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:23pm.

Police are a protected class as long as they are police officers. They are putting their saftey and well being at risk to serve the public. Due to this risk they are afforded special privilages, such as a deterents from people trying to harm them in the course of their duties. Do the homeless, homosexuals, or any other protected class doing the same as law enforcement? Of course they aren't. If existing laws are enforced, they work. Odd how that happens, isn't it? Beat someone and their is a law you are breaking. Kill them, and you break a law possibly at the state level and the federal level. The laws are plenty specific, and will work if the hands of the police and the DA's are free to impliment them. Again, saying a homeless person is more important, more equal, needs more protecting by affording them a special social status of increased equality than a white chritian man or woman ridiculous. Both the homeless man and the man with a job and a home are equal under the law. I think I read that somewhere. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Sounds like some assumptions there.

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:43pm.

Do you have some data on the efficacy of the current laws?

I'm guessing that the reason for the enhanced laws is precisely because the current laws are not being enforced -- and won't be. Thus, the new law. No special treatment, just more focus so that they receive the same protections as everyone else.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

You could be partially correct...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:34am.

The Seattle city council has worked to tie the hands of the police department, and that along with an ineffective District Attorney is most likely the case of the police and DA not enforcing the law.... So the liberals in an effort to pander to the left wing base makes new laws. With nothing to suggest that the new laws will be any more effective than the old ones. It is pandering, like I said before. It is pandering that liberals approve of, but pandering none the less. It serves to make some more equal than others. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Reason: Parsing to destroy context.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:54am.

Common sense legislation

Submitted by Crusty on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:57am.

The purpose of this type of legislation is to address a national epidemic of crimes and violence against citizens who have in common simply their homelessness. For an analysis of why these crimes happen and who commits them, see this fact sheet from the National Coalition for the Homeless: “Hate Crimes and Violence against People Experiencing Homelessness”

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/hatecrimes.html

Christie

Yes it is exactly that in an effort to creat another protected..

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:04am.

extra equal class of citizen. We have laws in effect right now that deal with crimes against homeless people. One apparently uncomfortable difference is that these same laws protect people who have jobs and homes. If legislation on any government level was needed for this issue, why not then legislation for black people who have crimes committed against them by other black people. It is my understanding that most crime experienced by American Africans is perpatrated by other American Africans. Are black people some how less equal than a homeless person? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

There is no need for this enhancement to the

Submitted by Krull on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:38am.

law. I don't believe we need hate crime enhancements at all. But certainly not for the homeless. Perhaps we should have hate crime legislation for body type. You know, if a homeless person is punched in the nose for being homeless, what about the poor fat body that gets punched in the nose for being a fat body. It's ridiculous! If you punch a homeless person, black person, gay person, or obese person, you have committed an assault and need to be punished accordingly.

If you believe that there needs to be hate crime laws to protect on the basis of race, I disagree, but it makes some sense, very little, but some. But now this latest idea from Seattle has brought the homeless issue to the level of the history and dynamics of black and whites in this country.

And how come if I punch a black guy in the nose while calling him a nigger, I have committed a hate crime, but if the black guy punches me in the nose while calling me a cracker or honky, it's not? Don't give me all that B.S. about balance of power, etc. When it happens inside the 4th Ave Tav, its two dudes fighting, and the actual power will be determined between them.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

I agree

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 1:06pm.

Harassment is harassment, assault is assault. Regardless of how it is motivated, there does not need to be special enhancement for certain groups of people. This does not provide equal protection under the law, it provides unequal protection under the law. This is not right.

There are many laws for different groups of people

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 1:14pm.

child labor laws for example. And laws about the maltreatment of the aged or the dissabled. These laws exist because people recognize the vulnerability of certain groups of people. Unequal treatment under the law? Please give an actionable example.

Destroying a homeless

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 1:26pm.

Destroying a homeless person's tent and belongings would be a hate crime, spraypainting a homeowner/renter's business wall would merely be vandalism (some would say "art")

I'm not completely on a separate page than you, however. I recognize that the homeless have a true vulnerability. My problem (and honestly it's not as big a problem as it is for some others) goes towards hate crimes based on culture. How often is the term "hate crime" invoked for Hispanic-Black violence, or Asian-Black, or Asian-Hispanic? And within the groups (for hypothetical example), if the Koreans don't want the Filipinos "encroaching" their businesses into their neighborhoods and take action why would such a clash not be considered a hate crime? And why is it that no white person can be a hate crime victim unless they're gay, Jewish, or a woman attacked by a man?

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Well

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 1:28pm.

A bit off the topic of hate laws, but I believe I sent you some links that are unequal treatment :-)

I didn't think about child labor laws and laws protecting the aged or disabled. I just wonder if hate crimes laws would be enforced if a say a black person assaulted a white person calling him a "honky muthafu---" and similar.... I'll bet if the roles were reversed, hate crime laws would apply. I should say I believe the laws maybe unequally enforced..

Oh crap, I need to rethink my position, other things come to mind, robbery vs strong arm or armed robbery, etc....

Just disregard what I said in my last post. Hasty posting.

Enhancement

Submitted by darrow on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 8:01pm.

For those of you arguing against the need for hate crime enhancements...consider an analogous situation with death penalty cases (in states having the death penalty)--one civilian kills another and in most cases no death penalty, but one civilian kills a police officer and the state will almost always seek the death penalty.

Is this just?

No!

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:25pm.

Either you value human life or not. You don't get it both ways, as far as I'm concerned. I value the unborn and I value the life of the murderous criminal. I would not want either murdered. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Unborn human life

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 3:17am.

isn't that an oxymoron?

Someone grab a dictionary.

Not an oxymoron

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 9:12am.

According to my dictionary.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

No it is not an oxymoron.

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:35am.

No one is going to become pregnant and give birth to a giraffe. It will always be a human both inside and out side the womb. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Could someone fix that typo!!

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:42am.

It's driving me nuts. I know it's just a little thing, but so irritating! Couldn't someone fix it? Docents? Anyone?

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

Do we not have special laws protecting children?

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 1:36pm.

Because they are more vulnerable members of society?

To say there is not "special treament" for segments of our society would be.....intellectually dishonest

Thanks!

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 2:57pm.

I feel much better now... I'd hate to think that Seattle was full of "idots."

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

Well, you're just little Miss Spell and Grammar Check

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 3:36pm.

today aren't you? Now we know your super hero weakness. Dangling from a cliff, Superman's participle becomes your Kryptonite.

Please!

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 5:12pm.

Ugh! Please don't talk about Superman's dangling bits. Yes, that's right -- I'm a Superman hater.

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

I am SO hurt now

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 6:04pm.

It's like my world is turned upside-down. I'm gonna go cry in the shower now.

I don't think it's needed

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 3:10pm.

but I don't make the rules, and I don't normally assault people.

well,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 4:48pm.

I would be more excited if it covered discrimination as well, then it would help them as opposed to just protecting them.

Umm...

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 9:27pm.

Employment would help them much more than any extra equality. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Ummm...

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:03pm.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that homeless people don't have jobs. You're wrong, most of the ones I know work really hard to scrape by. It's actually not cheap to be homeless, they wish they could stock up on food for cheap, but instead they can only keep what they can carry.

Anti-workplace discrimination laws would help them get and keep jobs by the way. That's why I mentioned it. You can currently discriminate against homeless people openly when they're applying for work or for housing. That's holding a LOT of people back right now. You know how many times I've seen people turned away from work they were qualified, even over qualified for, just because they didn't have a steady address at the time? Too many.

Whatever....

Submitted by Krull on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 9:13am.

Rob R. says "You seem to be operating under the assumption that homeless people don't have jobs. You're wrong, most of the ones I know work really hard to scrape by."

Rob, sitting on a corner with a sign begging for money is not a job, nor is it hard work.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

I've never been homeless but

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 9:33am.

I've never been homeless but I've come close a few times. Even a couple months ago; I've had my current job for three years, Tammy's had hers for about four. I work full time, earn benefits, earn lots of other perks, etc.

A couple months ago we moved. We found a place, gave our notice at the old one. The new places management had gotten out their calculators, took our info, and said we qualified. (We couldn't make over a certain amount.)

Two days before we were supposed to move in I got a call; the central offices in some other state used a different calculator, I guess, and determined we made too much to qualify. It was too late to keep our old apartment, and we couldn't afford anything else that was then available in the Oly-Lacey-Tumwater area (not that we'd be able to move in on two days notice.)

After a day of sweating blood I was able to negotiate an agreement with the powers that be and we got to move in after all. And to be honest I can't completely compare myself to some of the true hard-luck cases because we both have family that would've let us crash.

I lived in Seattle a few years ago and worked full-time. After rent and utilities (I rented a room in a house) and bus fare I hardly had anything left. Dinner was often a can of corn or peas because I can usually find them for sixty cents at Safeway.

For three years between that job and my current one I was signed up with the temp agencies. So that I could make some money and eat while trying to find something permanent. Try making rent when you're lucky to have a three-day work week. Supposedly all that time working temp jobs at various places gives you experience and contacts. And then comes the thing where you're offered an assignment, but you also have a job interview. Do you take the assignment and the guaranteed money for the week, or do you risk it for the job possibility and lose a day's pay (or more if it was a longer assignment) and possibly lose your place in the temp queue?

If I hadn't had family I wouldn't have been able to live anywhere in my early years at Express Personel, and then once my clothes stopped getting laundered I wouldn't have had any more job assignments.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Reason: Argumentative and Unconstructive and False

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:07am.

I like the graphic and agree

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:06am.

I like the graphic and agree with its use here, but you might want to consider using it more sparingly. Those of us who were able to reform, or at least partially reform, our ways after discovering OlyBlog might be turned off and refuse to even make an effort if this was what we got.

Now, I realize that there are card-carrying Trolls out there who will never change, but for the rest perhaps a suggestion of how they could've presented their argument in a non-trollish way would help. I remember Norm, Rob and Rick all at different times gave me suggestions for how a point I made could've been reworded to be the same point without being as offensive.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

I'll consider your request

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:23am.

But there are only two reasons I've been using it lately. So you'll never see more than two per thread. But that might still be too much. Perhaps a more subtle approach is a good idea and less nutritious.

If you are interested,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 12:22pm.

Read this. It is a very well written article about the homeless. The people who panhandle are a very tiny minority of the overall population. We're talking maybe 5% at the very most. Their needs are a lot different than the needs of the average homeless person. If you are not interested, please refrain from posting comments on threads about homelessness, it hurts the conversation.

Good example Rob

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 12:24pm.

You are my hero.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Olyblogger of the Month:

decorabilia

Online users

Comment viewing options