The New Republic

Well, as a nuclear scientist with a doctorate in Semiotics (I wrote my third doctoral thesis on the sexual deviation of birds of paradise in the Galapagos Islands and the contribution of these practices to the destruction of the Easter Island civilization), I can attest to the fact that Gingrich is actually not Gingrich. Not in the way we understand what a Newt, or a Gingrich, ought to be. The thing that is called Gingrich and that spews occasional wafts of methane from the upper orifice, is actually a mass of primordial plasma held in an offal-like membrane to ferment and bubble up, once in a while, noises that appear to be words to the unscientifically trained person, but that, to the ears of a scientist, especially one with my esoteric specialisations, are nothing but the gurglings and bubblings of uprising gas mixed with faeces of amoeba and pus-like discharges of bacteria. In fact, Dutch scientists who have examined this unique speciman, were inspired to develop the killer algae that is now destroying north-western Mediterranean, as an antidote. The algae saw the Gingrich and fled to the safety of the Ocean.

- icarusr

April 9, 2010 at 5:41pm

Agreed it's pretty amazing that Gingrich has so far dodged any serious downside from his marital shenanigans. On the other hand he has not run for office since his affair with the woman who is now his third wife became public, and it's not clear if he'd really get a pass if he did. He sought and sort of got a blessing from James Dobson in 2007 when he was considering running for president in 2008 (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html) but I doubt he could keep his personal situation in the background if he were a serious electoral candidate.

- rriley

April 9, 2010 at 6:13pm

As a historian (with a doctoral dissertation on Roman women), I'd like to point out that when, e.g., a Democratic president champions a package of legislation that is strikingly similar to what the Republicans proposed in opposition to the last attempt by a different Democratic president to achieve similar ends, with the Republicans now opposing the current president's plan tooth and nail, the Republican who was in charge of the opposition last time around really needs to reconsider just who are the radicals. In order to display my classical-historian credentials, I have composed the above as a single complex sentence.

- frippo

April 9, 2010 at 6:33pm

as rriley pointed out, if you pretend to love Jeebus, all is forgiven (provided you ain't a homo that is)

- blackton

April 9, 2010 at 6:36pm

As a research psychologist with a specialization in chihuahua training (my dissertation was on the role of small dogs in the 1830 "Decembrist" rebellion against Tsarist rule in Russia) I think studies have pretty much shown that smug pompous nincompoops often turn out -- against all expectation -- to be smug pompous nincompoops when you get to know them better. What is surprising, of course, is that the SPNs can always find a bunch of people to listen to them and cheer them when they spout their smug, pompous drivel, which may say, unfortunately, a lot more about said people that it says about the SNP.

- ironyroad

April 9, 2010 at 7:22pm

Or rather, the SPN.

- ironyroad

April 9, 2010 at 7:23pm

Forget the moral conduct. Go back to his days as a back bencher and look at those bazaar "seminars" he conducted. They will confirm that this man is insane. And then he became Speaker of the House. America's moral decline? No, it's a mental decline.

- rayward

April 9, 2010 at 7:28pm

As a principal design engineer with a masters degree in electrical engineering, 20+ years IC/process/semiconductor reliability experience and two US patents to my name, I am eminently qualified to say that Newt Gingrich is a smart politician. And a liar, philanderer and an all around a**hole to have done what he did to not one but two previous spouses. Not to mention a mean human being to have done what he did. There, I feel better now. Sort of. And I agree with Ray, it's a national mental decline that allows the ilk of Gingrich to flourish and be heard.

- tnmats

April 9, 2010 at 8:31pm

As a railroad hobo with a doctorate in American Civilization (I wrote my dissertation on yellow legal paper, using a blue fountain pen; the subject isn't important) and advanced degrees in improvised structural and vehicular randomization from schools in Peshawar and Montana, I would point out that respect for Newt Gingrich is almost exclusively a media phenomenon, not reflective even of elite opinion among conservatives, much less mass opinion. Among conservatives generally, Gingrich is no more respected as an individual than is any member of one's favorite sports team; all that matters is that he wears the right color pajamas and so is to be cheered when he appears.

- rhubarbs

April 9, 2010 at 9:20pm

There's American culture? Get the f**k out of here! What'll they think of next, those crafty Yanks.

- tnmats

April 9, 2010 at 9:23pm

hard to compete with such stellar academics here, but I thought Republicans get a pass when they manage to have sex with any women.

- K2K

April 9, 2010 at 10:20pm

As an historian (with a doctoral dissertation--now a book--on early Christian papyri from Egypt--no, really, it's true), I hate to come to the defense of the Newt in any way, but . . . I assume that his self-identification as an historian has nothing to do with the particulars of his thesis (although I have always marveled at his choice of subject), but either with the skill set he acquired in pursuing his doctorate or with the incredibly-broad-but-really-shallow knowledge that he, like so many of us in the history ed biz, pick up from teaching endless grinding surveys of world or western civ to hundreds of bored students for years on end--at least until we figure out how to recreate ourselves as congressional enfants terribles and, after that doesn't work out, as intellectuals to the gullible masses. He's still a two-timing jerk, however.

- timteeter

April 9, 2010 at 10:42pm

Shucks, Rhubarbs, you're much too modest. Your thesis "Toe-Tapping and Teabagging: Republican Romance from Cohn to Craig" was a classic.

- krlong014

April 9, 2010 at 11:04pm

K2K has a point. Maybe we're all dissing Newt's dissertation on the Belgian Congo when it actually got him some action. How many of us can say the same? There was a Belgian educational policy in the Congo? That's not what I glean from "Heart of Darkness"!

- ironyroad

April 9, 2010 at 11:05pm

timteeter -- Hmm -- good point. It's true: I can pass myself off as an expert about, say, the Napoleonic era for exactly the length of one lecture, as long as the students don't ask any really hard questions. Fortunately, they don't, since we're doing the entire history of the world in one semester and they don't care anyway. Now if only we could get people not to care what Newt says...

- frippo

April 9, 2010 at 11:10pm

well irony, I suppose the Belgians had to teach the Congolese children how to massage the rubber trees to keep the sap flowing??? timteeter: early Christian papyri from Egypt sounds really interesting. did you focus on papyri from St. Catherine's monastery in the Sinai? I recall their exquisite manuscripts featured at the Met when they did Byzantium, part 2. sorry, I digress. Newt is a placeholder while the GOP decides if ideas are necessary in this election cycle. Democrats really should not underestimate the rage. or the appeal of a GMC pick-up truck. solid metal, no bling (Dodge Rams are bling). Yeah, I am not an academic.

- K2K

April 10, 2010 at 12:31am

"well irony, I suppose the Belgians had to teach the Congolese children how to massage the rubber trees to keep the sap flowing??" K2K you keep showing sides of yourself I never knew existed! He might have phrased it a tiny bit more elegantly, but that was worthy of icarus.

- ironyroad

April 10, 2010 at 12:36am

irony, it really helps to get outside The Spine. I decided to go back to a beyond far right (settler's movement I think) website so I can vent on Israel, my only ideological line in the sand. It is a website I accidentally encountered during the 2008 campaign. Fought my first (and last) battle in cyber-space by getting the owner to stop libelling Obama at the time, assisted by a syndicated reporter covering the story. Actually, I am still recovering from finding out the topic of Newt's dissertation. I assumed it was in American history. Still think the media gives Republicans a break when they cheat with women because it defies the stereotype.

- K2K

April 10, 2010 at 1:27am

My favorite part is how he uses the phrase "as a historian" almost immediately after using a made up quote by Obama. Newt's meaning, obviously, was that it is AS IF Obama was saying those things, but I doubt actual historians are typically this careless. Oh, and I also love how, as a historian, Newt is able to tell us that "elections have consequences". Thank goodness we have him digging deep into the historical record to find this stuff out. I am in a book club with about 100 members. The phrase "As an english major..." is reliably groan-inducing. I think "As a historian..." would get a similar response.

- Fishpeddler

April 10, 2010 at 8:07am

I remember Cokie Roberts interviewing Newt Gingrich on NPR after the Republicans took over in 1994. She annoyed him with a question of now that he might be Speaker of the House, he can't continue to make the sort of comments that previously went unnoticed. He cut her off in mid question and said something to the effect, "People will support you because you're in the right." I read his response as an admission that he had been saying things that were looney.

- Nusholtz

April 10, 2010 at 8:10am

As a proctological surgeon with a specialty in craniectomy (i.e. the removal of the head from the anus), I can say with authority that the case of Newt Gingrich is beyond the capacity of our procedure, beyond even the application of a crowbar or crane.

- JackR

April 10, 2010 at 9:46am

"He might have phrased it a tiny bit more elegantly, but that was worthy of icarus." ironyroad Here is what triggered icarus' scatological imagination: "But I want to remind you as a historian that there are two rules. The first is that elections have consequences, and therefore 2006 and 2008 has a consequence—the consequence is Obama, Pelosi and Reid." Can anyone really appreciate and enjoy this fascination with sewage and bodily secretions as political commentary? "The thing that is called Gingrich and that spews occasional wafts of methane from the upper orifice, is actually a mass of primordial plasma held in an offal-like membrane to ferment and bubble up, once in a while, noises that appear to be words to the unscientifically trained person, but that, to the ears of a scientist, especially one with my esoteric specialisations, are nothing but the gurglings and bubblings of uprising gas mixed with faeces of amoeba and pus-like discharges of bacteria." You enjoy this brilliant discourse, do you, ironyroad? As long as it is squirted in the right direction, it's no problem for you.

- noga1

April 10, 2010 at 11:45am

hi noga. not that I aspire to being "worthy of icarus", but this thread totally fell off the cliff of rational discourse from the start, and became a riff on academic dissertation, with some skewing to the 'body function jokes' that are the defining post-Nixon cultural achievement of American teenage boys. Best not to take any of this seriously, and ironyroad should not be singled out here.

- K2K

April 10, 2010 at 1:16pm

"ironyroad should not be singled out here." Being ironyroad comes with certain privileges and disadvantages one of which is being singled out by noga.

- noga1

April 10, 2010 at 1:19pm

Edwards pretended just as hard as anyone else (and arguably harder than Newt) to love Jeebus. Not sure why Gingrich gets a pass. Part of the reason why Edwards was pretty much over was that his wife had been a big part of his campaign and had become a beloved public figure in her own right? Maybe?

- miceelf

April 10, 2010 at 1:24pm

Reasons for Gingrich--Edwards double standard: Love child. Affair during campaign for President , i.e., not merely cruel but unbelievably stupid and dangerous (see Hart, Gary). Edwards: physical vanity, Gingrich: intellectual vanity.

- timteeter

April 10, 2010 at 2:17pm

ironyroad has been singled out so many times by Noga, it has almost made up for being continually overlooked in his childhood! But the foregoing wasn't the K2K-icarus comparison I was thinking of -- ick has proffered many rapier-like ripostes over the time, few to none of which were scatalogical.

- ironyroad

April 10, 2010 at 2:27pm

I would add to timteeter's totally valid "Reasons for Gingrich--Edwards double standard" that, even afterthe election, Edwards was still a political threat within the Democratic Party to both the Obama and Clinton wings because he had a core of white working-class voters who believed his populist rhetoric. Obama had his excuse to keep Edwards out of the cabinet, and out of any political influence.

- K2K

April 10, 2010 at 2:51pm

Well, as a musicologist with a dissertation on the role of immigration in turn-of-the-century American opera . . . Gingrich is a weenie. OK, silly childish name-calling over. But seriously, how long has it been since Gingrich has flexed his "historian" muscles for something other than political manipulation? I mean, he's philandered prolifically, written some cheesy "historical" novels, threatened to run for president without actually doing so, bloviated a lot publicly...but what is his actual track record as a historian? I'm not being snarky, I'm actually curious.

- cspencef

April 10, 2010 at 3:19pm

"ick has proffered many rapier-like ripostes over the time... " Sarcasm is not humour or wit.

- noga1

April 10, 2010 at 5:53pm

The structure of Newt's statement was this: (1) make an absurd claim (2) state professional credentials (3) say something obvious and banal A rough equivalent would be: "As it is made of green cheese and floats only 20 miles above the Earth, the Moon will provide an excellent source of raw materials for cold fusion. Speaking as an astrophysicist, I can tell you that the sun sets in the west."

- krlong014

April 10, 2010 at 6:17pm

These are some excellent Newton Bombs. krlong014 best describes the technique. I would add the cultural backdrop for those who didn't reside in the south during the political chageover that occurred in the past 35-40 years. Most outside observers understand that no real shift in power occurred, as the players merely changed teams. But most southerners haven't a clue, as one hears the same complaints about unresponsive politicians but how things were much worse when the Democrats were in charge. Oblivious to the fact that the same folks run city hall. It's as though by changing shirts they changed identities. To understand Newt, one has to understand the southern ability to fail to see the obvious, or as Pat Conroy might say, the unique talent to ignore the obvious.

- rayward

April 11, 2010 at 12:55pm

I think Timteeter has it right about the particular double standard (Preening Edwards versus Flatulent Newt). I must confess that at the time of the Cigar-tube, I was far angrier with His Horniness the Bill than I was with Hyde and Whatstheirnames, each one of whom was far nastier than the next. The nature of the transgression demonstrated a lack of judgement that was astonishing even for him. (After Paula Jones, I had long given up on him as having any taste; but ejaculating on a dress in the Oval Office?) For Edwards, his overweening ego, lack of any substance and thinness of resume were bad enough; running on his wife's cancer made me ill; I could even handle him boinking that thing once or twice. But to get her pregnant (safer sex?), get his aide to take responsibility and get a friend to pay for her, EVEN AS he is running for President? Please. Newt, as offal as he is, has nothing on this guy.

- icarusr

April 11, 2010 at 4:01pm

Irony: thanks for the compliment. K2K: "irony, it really helps to get outside The Spine." Truer words have rarely been said on this site.

- icarusr

April 11, 2010 at 4:13pm

"Newt, as offal as he is," I suppose this counts as another one of icarusr's witty and "rapier-like ripostes". Shit and urine and garbage as legitimate, political commentary. Why not? And someone here was calling some others "Obama haters".

- noga1

April 11, 2010 at 5:39pm

K2K: "irony, it really helps to get outside The Spine." Then again, sometimes, even when you take the woman out of the Spine, you can't take the Spine out of the woman.

- icarusr

April 11, 2010 at 6:08pm

Scatological humor, noga, has its place, even in politics. How much is too much is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes saying someone, say a former governor of Alaska, has s**t for brains is the only appropriate response. I, of course, only rarely display my Cowardesque wit, usually to devastating effect. En garde.

- timteeter

April 11, 2010 at 6:23pm

Tim: "En garde"? Be careful, for She Who Must be Feared will start making fun of your, um, Frenchisms.

- icarusr

April 11, 2010 at 6:30pm

Oh dear. All this to defend one foul mouthed poster who cannot differentiate between shit and invective. I believe that scatological invective was the favoured type of discourse in debates among religious fanatics in the Middle Ages. Which is a fine place for icarus to dwell in.

- noga1

April 11, 2010 at 6:39pm

Really, icarus, old darling, YOU are no Rumpole.

- noga1

April 11, 2010 at 7:19pm

ick, I take your point about Edwards, but Edwards isn't appearing on the podium at a Democratic Party conference, bathed in dramatic lighting, and delivering sonorous-sounding drivel about "history" and getting the applause of the bedazzled masses. The question about Clinton is a little different, I think, and suggests once again that someone with good judgment in one sphere of life doesn't always have it in another. That said, if some high standard of private morality (and interestingly it's always only one kind of moral yardstick) is going to be the non-negotiable criterion for political office, then we are going to have a problem finding human beings for the job. Unless of course undiluted hypocrisy is the preferred posture, in which case, ok.

- ironyroad

April 11, 2010 at 8:06pm

noga, I'm afraid it's much older than the middle ages. PVLCRE conuenit improbis cinaedis, Gingricho pathicoque Edwardsique. nec mirum: maculae pares utrisque, urbana altera et illa Formiana, impressae resident nec eluentur: morbosi pariter, gemelli utrique, uno in lecticulo erudituli ambo, non hic quam ille magis uorax adulter, riuales socii puellularum. pulcre conuenit improbis cinaedis. - with apologies to Catullus 57 Of course, Gibbon maintained you could say any filthy thin you like, so long as it was in Greek or Latin.

- timteeter

April 11, 2010 at 11:14pm

irony: Fair enough. But then again, the bedazzled masses already adore the Palin and had that shrivelled charlatan as their Presidential nominee. I think we can agree, at least, on the judgement (or lack thereof) of that crowd (and not just that particular crowd, but all Republicans). I would also note that while they applaud him rant, Newt is so little respected in his own party that in the last cycle, he did not even bother to run. I look upon Liz and Newt and the Palin more like circus performers than real political leaders. Edwards, however, aspired to, and even claimed, leadership of the Democratic Party. He WAS the nominee for VP for God's sake. His public sins are graver for that reason alone. It is also possible that I am harsher on Edwards because of the lost "promise" of Gary Hart in '88. Clinton ... Dick Morris. "Jesse Jackson" in South Carolina. "I did not have sex with that woman." Bosnia. Somalia. Rwanda. Health Care. George W. Bush. I *don't* think that he had good judgement in the public sphere; I think that Monica was just the private manifestation of a deeply flawed man with serious judgement issues in both the public and private affairs. Wilde said that one can never be too careful in the choice of one's enemies. It is Clinton's great good fortune that he had as an enemy Newt and Dole. I will concede that he looked great compared to them; I am not so sure about his public judgement measured as against a more objective standard.

- icarusr

April 11, 2010 at 11:48pm

Noga: "Oh dear. All this to defend one foul mouthed poster who cannot differentiate between shit and invective." Two points. First, quite evidently, others have a different appreciation of what I write than you do; if I were you, instead of protesting and thereby insulting not only me, but the rest, I'd stop right there. You've made your pointless point; now's a good time to stop digging. Second, I have not responded to your uncalled-for personal assault, and I will not indulge your mania for false martyrdom. You're beginning to sound even more unhinged than normal. I strongly suggest you take your whine back to the Spine.

- icarusr

April 11, 2010 at 11:57pm

Noga: "Really, icarus, old darling, YOU are no Rumpole." No, I am not a fictional character; what's more, I am not claiming the mantle of one either; I am not John Mortimer either. It's called a literary allusion, what I wrote. I know this is rather difficult for you to understand, but making such an allusion does not mean that one is, or claims to be, the literary character, or that one in any way compares oneself, favourably or otherwise, with that character. So yes, *I* am not Rumpole. Any other pointless point you wish to make?

- icarusr

April 12, 2010 at 12:04am

Yes ick, but for Clinton I'll see your Health Care, Bosnia etc hand and raise you Kosovo, welfare reform, N. Ireland, the National Park extensions, the Oklahoma City memorial speech, and at least a genuine attempt at the Middle East.

- ironyroad

April 12, 2010 at 12:11am

Irony: OK - Clinton was not ALL bad. :) And those who have met him - men and women, gay and straight - tell me that he is quite charming, charismatic even. (That "I feel your pain" pout does nothing for me.) And he was certainly a lot better than the alternative. I was pointing out that Clinton's judgement issues were not merely private; that private acts sometimes provide evidence of a deeper character flaw; and in Clinton's case, Monica and the rest of his failures were, I think, coming out of the same place. It is possible that on balance, and in good time, he will be considered a good President; he was clearly not a bad one, and Kosovo alone redeemed him in my eyes. But if he is, historians will quite likely assign the blame for the Impeachment fiasco in equal measures to the Republican hypocrites who launched the process, as well as to Clinton's own demons who pushed him to an action - and the consequences - that led to the fiasco in the first place.

- icarusr

April 12, 2010 at 12:29am

icarusr, the standards by which history judges presidents are anything but standard. Andrew Jackson, for example, was generally quite terrible at the job, but his reordering of American politics and his suppression of the nullification crisis has overridden almost all critical memory of the success or failures of his policies. Only the actual evil of his Indian policy is commonly held against him. Whereas Jimmy Carter is remembered poorly for being bad at the job, and yet on policy he was actually one of the most consistently outstanding recent presidents. (Basically everything Reagan gets credit for, Carter started.) So you can never tell what history will say. But I just can't see Clinton being given much lower marks than Eisenhower. For all the underwhelmingness of his policy agenda, and the sexual adventurism, Clinton simply produced good results for the republic. The long economic stagnation that began under Nixon broke, for a time, under Clinton, and it did so mainly due to Clinton's policies. The lost decade of the 2000s will tend to throw the 1990s into very positive relief as time passes. Presidents usually get credit - or blame - for how well the nation fared during their administrations, and by that standard Clinton would rank as a great president. Mark impeachment against him, and he's demoted to what's sometimes called near-great or very good, right there with Eisenhower and Truman.

- rhubarbs

April 12, 2010 at 8:07am

"You're beginning to sound even more unhinged than normal. " I [!] sound more unhinged than normal, icarus? timteeter, I was referring to the link between religious fanatics and scatological imagery; I think icarus fits the bill. BTW, Catullus seems to consider homosexuality to be a perversion in his insults. His problem is bigotry and not the incontinent bile of those who are never wrong.

- noga1

April 12, 2010 at 8:10am

Catullus had a problem? For bigotry, see Juvenal. Anyway, this thread, like many delightful conversations, has gone way off topic by now. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm movin' on.

- timteeter

April 12, 2010 at 8:20am

Too bad. I would have liked to learn more about Roman bigotries. I wonder, though, if they ever criminalized homosexuality the way the British did, by making it legally prohibited.

- noga1

April 12, 2010 at 9:19am

Rhubs: On Presidential historiography, I defer to your judgement and vast knowledge, and for all anyone knows Clinton might well be considered a great President. I am not even sure that we disagree much. To go back to the point of the post (thanks for reminding us of the detours, Timteet), the question was whether and why there was a double standard as to sexual morality between conservative and liberal leaders. My point was that one cannot always distinguish between private and public judgement (and not so much morality); and that context is important in applying whatever standard of judgement (or indeed of morality) one seeks to apply to men (and women) of public standing. Gingrich is, in my view, a clown; he might get an applause here or there, and might well have a Tweeter following, but he is a clown. We pay attention to him, to the extent that we do, because of his outrageousness and not because of his wisdom. Edwards, however, was and until his fall remained a credible (for some, at any rate) leader of the Democratic Party. It is proper that he should be held to a different standard than the Gasbag Gingrich. Similarly for Clinton. Not because he slept around with floozies like Flowers, but because he hung around morons like Morris. I made the point that in either instance, and with someone like Clinton, one cannot - at least, I cannot - make a distinction between his private and public judgements. I will grant you that he is extraordinarily talented, as a man and a politician; I will also grant you that when he was good, he was good, both as a private character (as my friends attest, those of whom who have met him) and a public leader. In the same vein, however, I cannot separate in my mind the stain on the blue dress from his many other domestic and foreign policy mistakes: the wellspring of the awful judgement about the one was the same as that for the others. As for the judgement of history and historians: hard to say. The Baths of Caracalla stand in all their majesty, visited by millions of tourists at €15 a pop; who knows or remembers Gibbon's comments on the illiterate Emperor?

- icarusr

April 12, 2010 at 10:14am

John McCain is a "shrivelled charlatan" Bill Clinton is "His Horniness" without judgment or good taste Newt Gingrish is a flatulent clown (that is, when he is not "a mass of primordial plasma held in an offal-like membrane to ferment and bubble up") Just a few reminders of what passes for Icarus's own good taste, ponderous intellect and refined judgment... I wonder, though, what his real beef is. Why was Clinton singled out for such ridicule, before ironyroad's intervention on his behalf?

- noga1

April 12, 2010 at 11:13am

As a brief sidebar: a curious phenomenon (especially in view of being Obama's predecessors) that links both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which may have been a generational thing, is their lack of white racial unease. Both Clinton and Bush appeared to be able to relate to African Americans in particular without awkwardness or fake bonhomie (Hillary can't do it so well). In contrast to the discomfort that Reagan felt when in a black person's presence, and very much in contrast to Nixon's crude racism, a change came over the racial interaction around the presidency with both WJC and GWB.

- ironyroad

April 12, 2010 at 1:33pm

Noga -- I think the attack on Gingrich (which was a remarkable font of humor and satire) was based upon the blatant discrepancy between his claim to superior moral virtue and the provable reality of his personal life and political career. I think politicians don't get protection -- nobody forced them to run for office. But if they do, they have to expect to be called out in respect of their previous lives. They can defend themselves by truth or lies. What has Obama got to do with this issue? He has been called out many times, in relation to Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and Chicago in general. He doesn't go around saying, "as a professor of law I think this is the way to go . . ." Of course Obama can be attacked -- but it's useful to find out first what areas he's vulnerable in. One of them isn't claiming academic knowledge for a silly purpose.

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 1:55am