I like Cheetohs...and I really loved the old Cheetohs commercials, with the late Phil Hartman as a megalomaniac businessman trying to steal the secret of Cheetohs, and the Cheetoh Cheetah foiling the plan.
But what do we get today, in 2009?
So far I've seen two Cheetohs commercials, repulsive on so many levels.
Each one has two female characters. Both relatively young and attractive.
But one is, ostensibly, somewhat snobby, or more successful than the other one.
In one, they're at two separate tables having breakfast or something. The one who is *not* snobby tosses some cheetos on the ground beside the one who *is* snobby, the implication being she will soon be divebombed by pigeons looking for a free meal, and who will dishevel her perfectly put together appearance. And serve her rigtht for being so snooty, the commercial seems to say.
The next one is of two women at a soccer match, I guess. And one woman, dressed in a white jacket, is bragging on her son. The other woman hugs her and rubs her Cheetoh-covered fingers on the back of the woman's jacket. Then she walks away, smirking.
Class envy, anyone? The "poor" destroying that what the "rich" has? The "rich" deserving it because they're so "snooty." Didn't do anything to deserve their wealth, so they don't deserve to be happy with it?
But also the women are just so spiteful... I hate it. They're not funny, and they give little brats ideas for destruction rather than lifting kids up with good examples!
Now more than ever, we need commercials that lift up America, don't dumb them down or encourage such spiteful behavior.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Honor kills ARE murder!
Just saw a talking head saying "what's on the program next." And one of the spots coming up is, "The Muslim executive who killed his wife. Was it an honor killing, or was it murder."
See, here's the thing. In Muslim communities, if a woman "disgraces" her husband or family in any way, as for example by wanting a divorce, or telling someone he beats her, he gets to kill her to avenge the stain on his honor!
But according to Muslim tradition, honor kills are merely domestic violence.
Indeed, this Muslim executive is only facing second degree murder charges. What does a guy have to do to get first degree murder charage these days, for god's sake?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494785,00.html
But psychologists and some American Muslims said the slaying has all the markings of an honor killing.
"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."
Following multiple episodes of domestic violence, Aasiya Hassan filed for divorce on Feb. 6 and obtained an order of protection that barred her husband from their home, according to attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.
Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.
"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."
Chesler said honor killings typically are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes and largely involve teenage daughters, young women and, to a lesser extent, wives.
But Chesler said the "extremely gruesome nature" of the crime closely matches the characteristics of an honor killing.
"Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife."
Chesler called on U.S. and Canadian immigration authorities to inform potential Muslim immigrants and new Muslim citizens that it's illegal to abuse women in the two countries.
"As long as Islamist advocacy groups continue to obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West, such murder may even accelerate," Chesler wrote. "Unchecked by Western law, their blood will be on society's hands."
In an effort to deflect criticism away from the Muslim religion:
"There will be time for that later," Hirschfield said in a statement obtained by FOXNews.com. "I will only say to those who leap to the conclusion that this kind of thing is intrinsic to Islam, ask yourselves if you think that drunkenness is intrinsic to Irish Catholics, or cheating in business is to Jews?"
In one way he's got a point, in another way... um, honor killings are a bit more serious than getting drunk (especially when you can get so drunk that you fall on the subway tracks, and still get paid millions of dollars by the subway company because "they" were at fault for running over him. Eutanize that guy and give that money back to the state.) and Catholics don't make their wives wear burkhas in public. Orthodox Jews have some weird restrictions - I believe there are places in New York of a Sunday where women can't leave their home.... or can only travel in "their neighborhood" so they put these little symbolic signs on the walls of the streets as far as the nearest store, and that allows them to be able to walk out of the house, because "technically" they're still at home. Now if that ain't stupid...
See, here's the thing. In Muslim communities, if a woman "disgraces" her husband or family in any way, as for example by wanting a divorce, or telling someone he beats her, he gets to kill her to avenge the stain on his honor!
But according to Muslim tradition, honor kills are merely domestic violence.
Indeed, this Muslim executive is only facing second degree murder charges. What does a guy have to do to get first degree murder charage these days, for god's sake?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494785,00.html
But psychologists and some American Muslims said the slaying has all the markings of an honor killing.
"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."
Following multiple episodes of domestic violence, Aasiya Hassan filed for divorce on Feb. 6 and obtained an order of protection that barred her husband from their home, according to attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.
Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.
"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."
Chesler said honor killings typically are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes and largely involve teenage daughters, young women and, to a lesser extent, wives.
But Chesler said the "extremely gruesome nature" of the crime closely matches the characteristics of an honor killing.
"Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife."
Chesler called on U.S. and Canadian immigration authorities to inform potential Muslim immigrants and new Muslim citizens that it's illegal to abuse women in the two countries.
"As long as Islamist advocacy groups continue to obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West, such murder may even accelerate," Chesler wrote. "Unchecked by Western law, their blood will be on society's hands."
In an effort to deflect criticism away from the Muslim religion:
"There will be time for that later," Hirschfield said in a statement obtained by FOXNews.com. "I will only say to those who leap to the conclusion that this kind of thing is intrinsic to Islam, ask yourselves if you think that drunkenness is intrinsic to Irish Catholics, or cheating in business is to Jews?"
In one way he's got a point, in another way... um, honor killings are a bit more serious than getting drunk (especially when you can get so drunk that you fall on the subway tracks, and still get paid millions of dollars by the subway company because "they" were at fault for running over him. Eutanize that guy and give that money back to the state.) and Catholics don't make their wives wear burkhas in public. Orthodox Jews have some weird restrictions - I believe there are places in New York of a Sunday where women can't leave their home.... or can only travel in "their neighborhood" so they put these little symbolic signs on the walls of the streets as far as the nearest store, and that allows them to be able to walk out of the house, because "technically" they're still at home. Now if that ain't stupid...
Evil Media: Wife Swap
This piece of trash has been around for a couple of years, I guess. At least, they had enough episodes to have a marathon for President's Day. Or was it Valentine's Day that the LIfetime Channel showed this piece of crap all day long.
The very premise is reprehensible. Two wives "swap families." And husbands too, let's not forget. I wonder if they give the hubbies some sex while they're in the house? I don't watch it, but the commercials show that typically the kids are snot-nosed punks that need to be euthenized, and the husbands aren't much better, and the women who'd actually particupate in this crap... hell, euthenize 'em all.
All it is is another mass media indoctrination that women are "interchangeable" - they exist only to serve the men.
I mean, why not call it "Husband Swap"? Wife with a dumpy husband gets one who's young, virile and sexy. No...you'd never see that. Guys don't have to participate in that kind of crap. It's only the women who have to participate for the "hottest bachelor" and so on.
Soooo offensive on so many levels,... and the fact that thisshow is popular...very frightening.
The very premise is reprehensible. Two wives "swap families." And husbands too, let's not forget. I wonder if they give the hubbies some sex while they're in the house? I don't watch it, but the commercials show that typically the kids are snot-nosed punks that need to be euthenized, and the husbands aren't much better, and the women who'd actually particupate in this crap... hell, euthenize 'em all.
All it is is another mass media indoctrination that women are "interchangeable" - they exist only to serve the men.
I mean, why not call it "Husband Swap"? Wife with a dumpy husband gets one who's young, virile and sexy. No...you'd never see that. Guys don't have to participate in that kind of crap. It's only the women who have to participate for the "hottest bachelor" and so on.
Soooo offensive on so many levels,... and the fact that thisshow is popular...very frightening.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Do We Really Need People Telling Us How to Save Money?
I don't watch Oprah Winfrey. Well - I don't watch any of those shows - Montel Williams, Jerry Springer...all those that take the dregs of the earth and parade them on TV for everyone to look at...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021709/content/01125112.guest.html
Anyway, apparently Suze Orman, financial advisor, was on the show before Obama's election, and was giving advice on how families could save money.
(Because, of course, people who need to save money are too stupid to figure this out on their own.)
Her viewers were asked to make a financial pledge. (Now, I'm just quoting what the Rush Limbaugh show was told. It doesn't make any sense to me, if its true.)
1. Don't use your credit cards for a week.
2. Don't spend any cash at all for two weeks.
3. Don't eat out in a restaurant
Now, points one and two just don't make sense. If you don't use credit cards, and you don't use cash... how are you getting food? Is this being delivered by Obama's elves? Or perhaps what wasn't given was a preview that they weren't talking about food, but other stuff - don't buy shoes, don't buy new clothes, etc.
And that of course makes sense. If you can barely afford to put food on the table, you don't need to buy a new pair of shoes every week. (Buy a book instead and get an education for god's sake.)
But do people really need to be told this? They can't figure it out for themselves? Obviously not.
The 3rd point about saving money... don't eat out in a restaurant. Well, that makes sense, of course. If you can't afford to put food on the table, you sure can't afford to go out to a restaurant.
But if you're trying to save money... is not eating at a restaurant really a good deal? For one thing, all the waiters and cooks...if they don't get customers, they get fired... then they'll be in the boat of not using their credit cards or spending cash...
I don't know about guys, but as a woman with a modest appetite, I usually get twice as much food as I need in a restaurant. I don't throw out what I don't eat, I take it home and have it for lunch the next day. Saves money - two meals for the cost of one.
It's tough economic times out there. And thanks to Obama, and the politics of entitlement, its only going to get worse.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021709/content/01125112.guest.html
Anyway, apparently Suze Orman, financial advisor, was on the show before Obama's election, and was giving advice on how families could save money.
(Because, of course, people who need to save money are too stupid to figure this out on their own.)
Her viewers were asked to make a financial pledge. (Now, I'm just quoting what the Rush Limbaugh show was told. It doesn't make any sense to me, if its true.)
1. Don't use your credit cards for a week.
2. Don't spend any cash at all for two weeks.
3. Don't eat out in a restaurant
Now, points one and two just don't make sense. If you don't use credit cards, and you don't use cash... how are you getting food? Is this being delivered by Obama's elves? Or perhaps what wasn't given was a preview that they weren't talking about food, but other stuff - don't buy shoes, don't buy new clothes, etc.
And that of course makes sense. If you can barely afford to put food on the table, you don't need to buy a new pair of shoes every week. (Buy a book instead and get an education for god's sake.)
But do people really need to be told this? They can't figure it out for themselves? Obviously not.
The 3rd point about saving money... don't eat out in a restaurant. Well, that makes sense, of course. If you can't afford to put food on the table, you sure can't afford to go out to a restaurant.
But if you're trying to save money... is not eating at a restaurant really a good deal? For one thing, all the waiters and cooks...if they don't get customers, they get fired... then they'll be in the boat of not using their credit cards or spending cash...
I don't know about guys, but as a woman with a modest appetite, I usually get twice as much food as I need in a restaurant. I don't throw out what I don't eat, I take it home and have it for lunch the next day. Saves money - two meals for the cost of one.
It's tough economic times out there. And thanks to Obama, and the politics of entitlement, its only going to get worse.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
When Does A Woman Not Have the Right to Have Children?
It all depends on your ideology.
If you're one of those people who think that people should stand on their own two feet - earn their own money and pay their own way, then a great portion of the population - those people on welfare - have absolutely no right to have children. Get an education, get a job, get off welfare, then you have have the right to have kids, as many kids as you want and can afford.
If a woman is on welfare, and already has six children, she has absolutely no right to have any more, especially not if she has to get them through in vitro fertilization! Who the hell paid for this woman's operation, that's what I want to know!
Eight children - you know they're all in the hospital, each one probably costing $1,000 a day in care. This woman doesn't have that money, her family doesnt have that money.... so the tax rolls are being sucked dry to pay for this woman's children.
And once they go home... who's going to supply the money to buy their food? Their clothing? And so on.
One cannot let helpless and innocent children starve, of course. That's the kicker, that's how these religious types around the world get their hooks into everything. "The poor you shall always have with you, they were put here in order to keep us charitable."
You got that right. It's called the welfare business. People make a great deal of money running charities to take care of people who can't - and won't - take care of themselves. Average people like you and me, and certainly some wealthy people also, donate money to these charities, so that the administration can live high off the upper most part of the hog while they dole out 60% of donations to the people who need it.
The only way to end poverty is for poor people to stop having children --- until they get an education, until they get good jobs. It's a lot easier to stop being poor if you only have two mouths to feed - you and your spouse, rather than two adult mouths and four kids (or as is more likely, one adult mouth and four kids, each by a father whose names the mother does not even know). (And since we're in the midst of an overpopulation explosion, I'm all for people not having kids at all. I'd rather see a mile long strip of veldt with a lion in it, casually ripping a gazelle apart, than a mile long strip of cheap apartments, or even well-to-do apartments, full of drugged out individuals who will never accomplish anything in their lives except consume food, alcohol, and valuable oxygen, and who have to go out and rob and steal to feed their habits.)
Here's the article that set off this rant:
http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/octomom-loses-p.html
If you're one of those people who think that people should stand on their own two feet - earn their own money and pay their own way, then a great portion of the population - those people on welfare - have absolutely no right to have children. Get an education, get a job, get off welfare, then you have have the right to have kids, as many kids as you want and can afford.
If a woman is on welfare, and already has six children, she has absolutely no right to have any more, especially not if she has to get them through in vitro fertilization! Who the hell paid for this woman's operation, that's what I want to know!
Eight children - you know they're all in the hospital, each one probably costing $1,000 a day in care. This woman doesn't have that money, her family doesnt have that money.... so the tax rolls are being sucked dry to pay for this woman's children.
And once they go home... who's going to supply the money to buy their food? Their clothing? And so on.
One cannot let helpless and innocent children starve, of course. That's the kicker, that's how these religious types around the world get their hooks into everything. "The poor you shall always have with you, they were put here in order to keep us charitable."
You got that right. It's called the welfare business. People make a great deal of money running charities to take care of people who can't - and won't - take care of themselves. Average people like you and me, and certainly some wealthy people also, donate money to these charities, so that the administration can live high off the upper most part of the hog while they dole out 60% of donations to the people who need it.
The only way to end poverty is for poor people to stop having children --- until they get an education, until they get good jobs. It's a lot easier to stop being poor if you only have two mouths to feed - you and your spouse, rather than two adult mouths and four kids (or as is more likely, one adult mouth and four kids, each by a father whose names the mother does not even know). (And since we're in the midst of an overpopulation explosion, I'm all for people not having kids at all. I'd rather see a mile long strip of veldt with a lion in it, casually ripping a gazelle apart, than a mile long strip of cheap apartments, or even well-to-do apartments, full of drugged out individuals who will never accomplish anything in their lives except consume food, alcohol, and valuable oxygen, and who have to go out and rob and steal to feed their habits.)
Here's the article that set off this rant:
http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/octomom-loses-p.html
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Evil Media: Golf Now Dot Com Commercial
I'm watching the last 6 holes of the SBS Open at Turtle Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. It's an LPGA event, Michelle Wie has a one stroke lead.
I'm torn. I don't like Michelle Wie, and I really hope she loses. On the other hand... if she's actually matured... should a dislike of her former behavior prevent one from accepting that teenagers can mature?
But that's not the real point of this post.
Just saw a commerical for GolfNow.com.
I don't even give them the courtesy of making their link into a hotlink.
Middle-aged Man on a computer in the background.
Middle-aged womaan in the foreground, pruning bushes. I paraphrase. "That's my husband back there, pretending to pay bills online. Really, he's booking a Tee-time. He's going to come up in a minute and tell me he's going to play golf tonight, and I'm going to pretend to be annoyed. It's just one more step to getting those new chairs I've always wanted. So everybody wins. Thanks, golfnow.com."
And I'm like... "What the hell is this?" It's the 21st century, women still feel like they have to guilt their husband into buying them things? Worse, do women still feel like that in real life???
You want new furniture? Buy 'em with your own money - assuming you have a job - or play golf with your husband and beat him with a wager on the furniture!
Considering that this commercial takes place during a LPGA event, you'd think any women in the commercials would at least be golfers!
I'm torn. I don't like Michelle Wie, and I really hope she loses. On the other hand... if she's actually matured... should a dislike of her former behavior prevent one from accepting that teenagers can mature?
But that's not the real point of this post.
Just saw a commerical for GolfNow.com.
I don't even give them the courtesy of making their link into a hotlink.
Middle-aged Man on a computer in the background.
Middle-aged womaan in the foreground, pruning bushes. I paraphrase. "That's my husband back there, pretending to pay bills online. Really, he's booking a Tee-time. He's going to come up in a minute and tell me he's going to play golf tonight, and I'm going to pretend to be annoyed. It's just one more step to getting those new chairs I've always wanted. So everybody wins. Thanks, golfnow.com."
And I'm like... "What the hell is this?" It's the 21st century, women still feel like they have to guilt their husband into buying them things? Worse, do women still feel like that in real life???
You want new furniture? Buy 'em with your own money - assuming you have a job - or play golf with your husband and beat him with a wager on the furniture!
Considering that this commercial takes place during a LPGA event, you'd think any women in the commercials would at least be golfers!
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Emperor's New Groove
I like this movie in spite of myself.
Eartha Kitt plays Ysma, the villainess, and she does a great job. She's got quite a few hilarious lines.
And, at least she's out to kill the Emperor so that she can take over his kingdom, not because he's more beautiful than she is - as is typically the female villain's raison d'etre in these Disney films. (Where of course, typically she's going after a female victim - Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc.)
Here's a clip showing Eartha Kitt's voice artistry.
Her elaborate plan to kill the Emperor, starting by turning him into a flea:
Eartha Kitt plays Ysma, the villainess, and she does a great job. She's got quite a few hilarious lines.
And, at least she's out to kill the Emperor so that she can take over his kingdom, not because he's more beautiful than she is - as is typically the female villain's raison d'etre in these Disney films. (Where of course, typically she's going after a female victim - Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc.)
Here's a clip showing Eartha Kitt's voice artistry.
Her elaborate plan to kill the Emperor, starting by turning him into a flea:
BK Burger Shots
Just saw this commerical. TNT, just at the end of the Rookies-Sophmores game during this NBA ALlstar weekend.
Nerdy guy comes out with three "Burger Shots" - Burger King's answer to White Castle, I guess.
And this nerdy guy is surrounded by beautiful blonds - who don't look too skeletal, at least, crooning over these hamburgers like they were little babies.
I just cringed with embarrassment for these women.
But, of course, you can't have guys crooning over hamburgers like they were babies. No - the guys eat 'em.
The women don't eat... they just look at the forbidden fruit and croon.
Yet another example of the infantilism of women by the media.
Nerdy guy comes out with three "Burger Shots" - Burger King's answer to White Castle, I guess.
And this nerdy guy is surrounded by beautiful blonds - who don't look too skeletal, at least, crooning over these hamburgers like they were little babies.
I just cringed with embarrassment for these women.
But, of course, you can't have guys crooning over hamburgers like they were babies. No - the guys eat 'em.
The women don't eat... they just look at the forbidden fruit and croon.
Yet another example of the infantilism of women by the media.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Avenging Emma Peel Manifesto
Women (in the Western world) have never had more opportunities to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. They can wear the clothes they want, they can go to schools formerly reserved for men, they can enter fields formerly reserved for men - they can do anything they want.
And yet statistics show that a lot of women don't take advantage of their opportunities. They are oontent to spend their days obsessing over their looks, and over boys, and over finding someone to take care of them (rather than they looking after themselves - as adults).
Is this just because it's "the way women are," or is it because, for all our newfound freedoms, all our role models showing us it is possible to be the best we can be, there are insidious forces at work keeping us in the same old rut?
And what are those forces? Mass media advertisements. From the day a boy and a girl first learn how to recognize objects, what do they see? Boys and men ogling the opposite sex, as eye candy. Girls obsessing over their looks - six year olds who can't go to school without getting up an hour early to put their makeup on so they can appeal to those little boys!
Boys get the fun toys in the toy commercials, girls get the dolls, the makeup, the crap.
Girls and boys are still indoctrinated with a certain mindset - that girls are put on the planet to serve boys's needs. That it's perfectly okay for a boy to watch a total stranger walk by, and feel perfectly fine to comment on her bodily shape. Girls are expected to walk around in really short, short shorts (they've done so for decades.) Funny...put a boy or man in those short, short shorts and you know there's only one thing he's looking for.
In any event, this blog, therefore, will, for the most part, cover the way women are depicted in media. The good, the bad and the ugly of today's world and the place of women in it... I share it all here.
At the beginning of my post, I said this:
Women (in the Western world) have never had more opportunities to do whatever they want to do,
I deliberately emphasized "the Western world" because, sadly, our sisters in the "Eastern world" or more accurately, Muslim countries - at least those under Sharia law rather than secular law - are being beaten down every day. We can help Muslim women...we must help them. (I say this from the standpoint of an atheist who can't understand why people follow any religion, but for women the Muslim religion is particularly insidious... men can't help looking at women so instead of the guy's wearing blinders all the time, it's the women who have to wear burkhas and crap? Bah.)
And yet statistics show that a lot of women don't take advantage of their opportunities. They are oontent to spend their days obsessing over their looks, and over boys, and over finding someone to take care of them (rather than they looking after themselves - as adults).
Is this just because it's "the way women are," or is it because, for all our newfound freedoms, all our role models showing us it is possible to be the best we can be, there are insidious forces at work keeping us in the same old rut?
And what are those forces? Mass media advertisements. From the day a boy and a girl first learn how to recognize objects, what do they see? Boys and men ogling the opposite sex, as eye candy. Girls obsessing over their looks - six year olds who can't go to school without getting up an hour early to put their makeup on so they can appeal to those little boys!
Boys get the fun toys in the toy commercials, girls get the dolls, the makeup, the crap.
Girls and boys are still indoctrinated with a certain mindset - that girls are put on the planet to serve boys's needs. That it's perfectly okay for a boy to watch a total stranger walk by, and feel perfectly fine to comment on her bodily shape. Girls are expected to walk around in really short, short shorts (they've done so for decades.) Funny...put a boy or man in those short, short shorts and you know there's only one thing he's looking for.
In any event, this blog, therefore, will, for the most part, cover the way women are depicted in media. The good, the bad and the ugly of today's world and the place of women in it... I share it all here.
At the beginning of my post, I said this:
Women (in the Western world) have never had more opportunities to do whatever they want to do,
I deliberately emphasized "the Western world" because, sadly, our sisters in the "Eastern world" or more accurately, Muslim countries - at least those under Sharia law rather than secular law - are being beaten down every day. We can help Muslim women...we must help them. (I say this from the standpoint of an atheist who can't understand why people follow any religion, but for women the Muslim religion is particularly insidious... men can't help looking at women so instead of the guy's wearing blinders all the time, it's the women who have to wear burkhas and crap? Bah.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
