sisu

Road salt is "running critically low"

The view from the front porch this morning, freezing our arse off to get the perfect shot of the bulk carrier Alam Mesra out of Singapore, disemboweling a hold full of salt to feed the hungry maw of the Northeast highway system in this "global warming" winter of our discontent.

Did you know that road salt is "running critically low" in these parts? "Local governments in New England and in the Midwest are running critically low on road salt, the result of a stream of winter weather that has hit the regions in recent months," reports the NYT:

“We are, for all practical purposes, out of salt,” said Bruce Hoar, director of public works in South Burlington, Vt., adding that other towns in the area face the same problem.

With so many municipalities in need of salt, suppliers cannot ship it out quickly enough. Public works departments are left waiting for days or weeks to receive their orders.

“It’s supply and demand,” said Richard L. Hanneman, president of the Salt Institute, a nonprofit trade association. “We’re scrambling. We haven’t heard of any agency that hasn’t been able to keep the roads open or safe, but there’s a lot of anxiety.”

We know it's Bush's fault. If only those chads hadn't hung wrong, Al Gore would be making the world safe for global warming cooling.

Turf wars

We were surfing the blogs and the cables when a real-world caterwauling broke through the psychological haze of a Betty White PetMeds ad [We love 'em and at first thought the caterwauling was part of the commercial]. Dashing outside, we found Baby and Tiny, at the full extensions of their tethers, in high dudgeon over the intrusion of a fluffy gray-and-white street cat on their turf.

Our appearance on the scene sent the street cat heading for the hills, not before breaking our heart not only with his resemblance to the Chelsea Grays, but specifically with a crooked ear that suggested either mites or -- a problem Babe has that we are able to relieve by periodic Q-tip Therapy --  excessive ear wax. Then there was the intruder's scantilly-furred tail end that reminded us of Tiny and Baby's mother, the stunning feral Sweet Pea's attenuated tail tip that told a tale of kittenhood trauma we could only imagine in our worst nightmares.

Update: More sad times at Modulator's Friday Ark #178, where Meryl Yourish and friends are mourning the loss of the late, great Tigger.

My romance doesn't need a thing but food

"You never take pictures of my good side." Chelsea-by-the-Sea February 14, 1973.

Our hearts were young and gay thirty-five years ago to the day when Sissy (above left, ain't she sweet?) poured her heart into heart-shaped mini sandwiches for the guests who would stand witness at City Hall -- Mummy, Daddy, Norman and Catherine -- while Tuck (right) asked himself, even as he spit and polished, "Is it really appropriate to be cleaning your car on your wedding day?" Answer: You can never clean your car too often, 'specially if it's a 280 SL.

"It's absolutely perfect. You don't have to get dressed up, get into the car, face traffic . . ." Chelsea-by-the-Sea February 14, 2008.

St. Barts? Hong Kong? La Belle France? Singapore? Nairobi? Bangkok? Machu Picchu? Rio? Vatican City? We did it all in our salad days with style. Now'days homeside by the 'lectronic hearth with candles, JuJu's heirloom silver and Waterford crystal is where it's at.

Clue for 27 across: "They're full of dates." We love that red-herring kind of clue. In this case it sent us wild-goose chasing after tortes and palm trees before we realized the "era" of our ways.

It may have been Valentine's Day and our 35th anniversary, but the Wall Street Journal's weekly online crossword puzzle was still 24 hours away. The solution: Delve back into the archives to those weeks surrounding 9/11/01, when the puzzle was the last thing on our minds. Above, our solution this evening to the September 7, 2001 puzzle.

"I'll have some of that, please."

Baby Cakes loves our cooking . . .

Tuck: "Thanks for a nice time . . . Perfect guest list . . . Everything is absolutely perfect!" Baby: "Must have meat!"

So does Tuck, who was treated to a gourmet delight of filet mignon wrapped with bacon and grilled on the Jenn-Air, together with noodles mixed with a totally awesome new sauce (see below), pureed yams with coconut (similar to sweet potatoes but a bit earthier in taste), boiled asparagus with lemon juice and Pillsbury's bake-it-yourself "Crusty French Loaf."

Our totally adorable new Le Creuset Garlic Roaster from Williams-Sonoma poses with the inspiration for its design, garlic bulbs ready to roll. You remove loose parchment, cut off clove tops, pour a little olive oil over all and bake in the covered dish 40 minutes at 400°. Let 'em cool and then -- the best part! -- squeeze out the roasted goodness.

Our sauce for the noodles started with poaching a breast of chicken 20 minutes to be used for sandwiches later on. We reserved the poaching sauce -- white vermouth, low-fat chicken broth, water, sliced leeks and roasted garlic with chopped fresh rosemary and thyme and freshly ground pepper -- and added it to a roux of butter and flour, mixing in some half & half and grated parmesan before tossing with noodles. Mighty tasty.

A Harvard man's professed disloyalty to his own ideas in the name of winning access to power

"This is by far the best drawn and most thought-provoking of the cartoons depicting Mohammed published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten" we captioned this image in "We are all Danes now" back in February of 2006 in the heat of Cartoon Wars battle.

"With the arrests this week of five jihadists accused of plotting to murder one of the Danish cartoonists, it's time to demonstrate sammenhold [Danish for solidarity] again," writes Michelle Malkin:

As a show of solidarity and a reminder of how cowardly American media outlets refused to stand up when it counted, take a minute to reprint your favorite Mo cartoon or link back to the blogging you did on the cartoon rage two years ago.

We delved back into our 31-strong category "Cartoon Wars" and found some of our favorite posts of the last two years -- beginning with "We are all Danes now" -- and herewith republish "Crazy Sissy talks with the Harvard man," originally published February 20, 2006, a first-hand revelation of the dynamics of self-censorship in a fear society -- in this case what we call the fear society "lite" of academia:

Raphael's "Saint George Slaying the Dragon," a parable of good destroying evil (first published here two years ago in a post where we quoted a Syrian filmmaker who said after the fall of Saddam, "The myth of having to live under despots for eternity collapsed.")

"On the right wing [crazies like Sissy Willis are] easy to pick out, writes Markus Kolic of Dem Apples -- 'Love the name! -- the official blog of the Harvard College Democrats, standing up for fellow DA blogger Josh Patashnik, who was the object of spirited criticism here the other day for his pre-emptive dhimmitudinous surrender in the Cartoon Wars. While we admire Mr. Kolic's loyalty to his friend, we are disappointed -- if not surprised --  at his professed disloyalty to his own ideas in the name of winning access to power:

And after spending some time arguing with radicals [Kolic's term for "crazies" like us. --ed], I’m beginning to realize why: unlike them, my goal is not to enforce my principles on everyone else. My goal is to do good for my country, by getting my party elected. Thus, no matter how fervently I might believe some of my radical ideas, I don’t want my party to recognize them if they would alienate large portions of the American people. I might have an extreme or unusual view on 9/11, or drug policy, or taxes, or religion. But I will keep those ideas to myself, because I know that the vast majority of Americans do not and probably never will think that way. This is what differentiates us from authoritarian ideologues on both wings, who have no qualms about condemning the masses. (”Sinners!” “Consumers!” etc.)

'Reminds us of Hillary Clinton's modus operandi, pandering at will. We always wonder if such persons realize how condescending their approach is to "the masses" -- what we would call "fellow citizens" -- whose votes they seek. Unlike Hillary, however, Markus Kolic wins our heart if not our mind with the civility and humor of his comments on our blog:

As a friend and fellow blogger of Josh Patashnik, naturally I'm irked at your characterization of him, but I respect your right to that opinion. (Thanks for the link back, by the way -- no such thing as bad publicity and all that.)

We especially like that parenthetical comment, a sentiment we've often blogged here. But so much for hearts. What about minds? Markus -- may we call you Markus? -- continues:

What gets me, both with your reasoning in particular and so much of the right's reasoning in general, is how you so easily throw out words like "enemy" and "adversary." Now, there is no doubt that we are in a war and there is an enemy (OK, a few of my radical-lefty friends doubt that, but that's beside the point). But you seem to have forgotten: Islam is not our enemy . . . I fail to see how these Danish cartoons are even remotely productive in the war on terror.

"Even as he gives a pass to our Blueberry Light 'n Fit Dannon yogurt, Baby shows sammenhold -- the Danish word for solidarity, reports Michelle Malkin -- by going for the jugular of our grilled Havarti and Majestic Danish ham sandwich. Mmmmm. What a delicious way to show support for our freedom-loving Scandinavian friends," we captioned this image illustrating "The taste of freedom" February 24, 2006.

Did we ever say or even imply that Islam is our enemy? Never. Some of our best blogfriends are believers, fergossake. It's the dragon of Islamist terrorism and its fellow travelers that we battle with our words here. And what about those cartoons? If our new blogfriend fails to see how they "are even remotely productive in the war on terror," perhaps it is because those presumably utopian ideas he says he keeps to himself have blinded him to the lessons of history and the imperatives of human nature. We'll let longtime blogfriend Teresa, who responds to Mr. Kolic in the comments, have the last word:

There is a reason for talks about slippery slopes. Appeasing violence rather than confronting it -- has never ever worked. It always ends with the appeaser having to give more and more -- until they are useless -- then they end up despised and dead. It's a losing proposition with extremely dire consequences for our country and our way of life.

As we've said before, we love it when our commenters, disagreeing with each other's ideas, engage in civilized debate. It gives us hope that freedom of speech will prevail.

"Liberalism began not as an outgrowth of progressivism but as a reaction to it"

 

Washing yourself is all about Fur, Fur, Fur! Babe, above, covers all the angles.

Democrat operative Donna Brazile -- a real charmer despite our total disagreement with everything we've ever heard come out of her mouth -- on CNN last night commenting on the Potomac primary results:

McCain is all about Fear, Fear, Fear! Obama is all about Hope, Hope, Hope!

John McCain, Potomac primary victory speech:

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

Johnny, we hardly knew ye. Sounding better and better every day. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, Potomac primary speech:

And where better to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the progressive movement was born. It was rooted in the principle that the voices of the people can speak louder than special interests; that citizens can be connected to their government and to one another; and that all of us share a common destiny, an American Dream.

But to which brand of progressivism is Senator Obama referring, we wonder, the vox populi strain his rhetoric suggests or the one rooted in the principle that experts know best what's good for the little people. [Yes, you, Hillary] Austin Bramwell in "Defining Conservatism Down" -- quoted in our post "Preferring truth to wishful thinking" a couple of years back -- recalling the rise and fall of the liberal project by way of a warning to conservatives:

The story of liberalism’s decline is often rehearsed these days, by rueful liberals and gleeful conservatives alike. Few, however, tell the more interesting story of liberalism’s ascendance. The vague sense still prevails that liberalism grew naturally out of 19th-century progressivism before culminating in the New Deal and reaching apogee in the Kennedy administration. This view owes less to history, however, than to liberals’ conceit that theirs is the crowning American ideology.

Liberalism began not as an outgrowth of progressivism but as a reaction to it. The progressive movement, born out of fear of the centralizing tendencies of the Industrial Revolution, lacked intellectual foundations. Its leaders favored a farrago of policies that pitted the farmer against the urban sophisticate, the common man against the plutocrat, the native American versus the immigrant, and traditional religion against modern corruption. Progressives spoke the language of evangelical revival, famously exemplified by William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech. Often literally, they called on their fellow citizens to repent and return to the Lord. As the Progressive Era waned, liberals viewed these populist enthusiasms with dismay.

The people, in [the liberal elites'] view, remained stubbornly benighted, saw political problems in naïve moralistic terms, and could not carry out the project of reform. Accordingly, liberalism’s leading intellects began to fashion a new ideology that called for elite social scientists, rather than a virtuous populace, to address the problems of the modern world . . .

It's liberals' contempt for us little people out here that's always stuck in our craw. You remember Hillary's inedible "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," not to mention her hubbie's equally indigestible "What if you spend your money wrong?"

Liberalism came of age in the New Deal, which finally succeeded in replacing representative government with a European-style administrative state, staffed by the nation’s ablest, most idealistic men. After World War II, when the national mood no longer favored reform, liberals turned to an even more elite institution -- the Supreme Court -- to continue remaking American society. For a generation, liberalism so dominated American life that, while conservatives saw conservatism as the taste of a saving remnant, liberals became convinced that their ideology expressed the natural sentiments of the American people.

Intellectual sclerosis, however, soon set in . . . As Nixon put it, the Democrats became the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion. They have been losing power ever since.

Earlier that same year back in the age of enlightenment (2005) when Bramwell wrote about the ascension and subsequent fall of liberalism, we confidently blogged in "Bloggers are 'cracking, popping, drilling and peeling their victimes open'":

The leftist utopian dream was doomed from the start because it denied the economic logic of nature and human nature.

With Barack "Most Liberal Senator" Obama's Pied Piper Tour, we're not so sure any more about the demise of the leftist utopian dream. "The Phenom" in WSJ Review and Outlook this morning: 

What Democrats have needed is an excuse to liberate themselves from the fear that only the Clintons are tough enough to defeat Republicans, and they are now finding that liberation in Mr. Obama.

As Thomas Sowell -- quoted in our post "The improbable is now possible" -- wrote a month back:

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Demagogue. [Greek dēmagōgos, popular leader : dēmos, people + agōgos, leading (from agein, to lead).] Egad. Ann Coulter is just now telling Neil Cavuto on Fox News that George Soros is funding BOTH Obama and John Boy. We already knew that Soros was behind the astroturf-roots clamoring for McCain-Feingold "finance reform."

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

We're talking Beltway politicians here. Whatever it takes to win.

Update: Despite our reservations, we find ourselves warming to McCain's candidacy now that he seems headed for the nomination, looking for good omens in the entrails of the writings of our favorite thinkers. Daniel Henniger's "Obama at the Top" in Thursday's WSJ didn't disappoint:

Right after [Obama's] Wisconsin speech, TV broadcast another -- by victorious John McCain. The contrast with Sen. Obama's is stark. The arc of the McCain speech is upward, positive. Pointedly, he says we are not history's "victims." Barack relentlessly pushes victimology.

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan's signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections.

Whatever else, Barack Obama isn't talking sunshine in America. He's talking fast and furious. People not yet baptized into Obamamania may start to look past the dazzling theatrics to see a vision of the United States that is quite grim and could wear thin in the general election.

Onward and upward. Yes we can.

Update: More onward and upward movement at Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities.

How I learned to stop worrying and love John McCain

"There’s been plenty of speculation since self-described Democratic-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman started stumping for Sen. John McCain in December that Al Gore’s 2000 runningmate might reprise that role for his Republican friend," the WSJ reported three weeks back. In the wake of McCain's "monster lead" following Super-Duper Tuesday, Scott Ott of ScrappleFace is suggesting Fred Thompson's the one. Above, former Senate colleagues John McCain and Fred Thompson (AP photo)

"Nothing in America is inevitable. We are the captains of our fate. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage and stand by our principles," Super-Duper Tuesday's Republican man of the hour John McCain told supporters and the immediate universe in his Victory Party speech last night [via A Second Hand Conjecture]. The words were what we disaffected freedom-loving, small-government-embracing, invisible-hand-holding types thought we'd never hear from the free-speech-restricting, anthropogenic-global-warming-proseletyzing, economics-challenged frontrunner who is enjoying what Shepard Smith is calling a "monster lead" over rivals Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Who knew the proprietor of the Fast-Talking Straight Talk Express had principles? According to Reason Magazine's Michael W. Lynch [via Transterrestrial Musings] in a 1999 profile of McCain, "The Good Soldier," it depends upon what your definition of principles is:

"I'm fundamentally a deregulator, a free-trader, a free-enterpriser," says McCain, as he begins to rattle off a list of libertarian bona fides. "Most of my efforts have been to reduce the size of government. I spend weeks every year trying to turn back pork-barrel projects. I fought 10 years for the line-item veto. I believe in smaller government, the best government is local government . . ."

Yah, except when it isn't:

"The tobacco deal, and perhaps for some, campaign finance, is not in keeping with my [conservative and libertarian voting record]," McCain admits, in a bit of an understatement. The question is what this high-profile apostasy says about a man who clearly wants to be president . . .

Asked what he wants people to think when they hear his name, he says "principled" without hesitation. Press accounts are salted with quotes from McCain and his admirers about how he "does what's right."

As with principles, it depends upon what your definition of what's right is, as Lynch explains:

For John McCain, principle is fundamentally about honor -- personal honor: about keeping his word, about doing what is right and doing it well. "Principle" combines honesty, stubbornness, and loyalty. This notion of principle is very different from adhering to a consistent political philosophy. It explains McCain's popular appeal, especially in contrast to the exceptionally dishonorable Clinton administration, but also accounts for the distrust, even contempt, he inspires among the ideologically committed.

"In the end," concludes Lynch [this was 1999, remember] "it looks likely that McCain's maverick sense of virtue will keep him from any serious run for the presidency":

Although his bravery and charisma might serve him well in a general election, GOP primary voters care about political consistency. The party's traditionalist and libertarian wings may bitterly oppose each other, but they both profess a definition of principle that is bourgeois, impersonal, and quite foreign to McCain. It is not enough to be honest, stubborn, and loyal.

Our principles are bourgeois and impersonal? We beg to differ. They are heartfelt and based upon a lifelong study of human nature. As for McCain himself, we're sure he's stubborn and loyal. Honest? Once again, we guess it depends upon what your definition of honest is. Then there's what George Bush Pere called "the vision thing":

When the [Weekly] Standard's [Andrew] Ferguson tried to nail him down on his vision, McCain replied: "The first thing I'd do is convene the best minds I know of in the field of foreign policy . . . I'd say, `Look, let's figure out where we are, where we need to go, and what our conceptual framework is. Let's work out a cohesive foreign policy.' I'm sure that those people, with their collective brilliance and a lot of experience, could come up with a very cohesive foreign policy."

Relying on experts "goes well with a military background," says Rahe. "The Navy and Air Force see the world as engineers, a series of technical problems that need to be fixed." McCain, who repeatedly calls on the authority of experts to justify his positions on issues ranging from foreign policy to tobacco, fits this pattern well.

In that context, Scott Ott's "Team America Strategy" on how McCain can beat the Democratic nominee begins to make sense:

A Democrat-nominated inflatable porpoise would pull at least 49 percent of the popular vote in a general election. So, what chance does maverick McCain have against a ruthless machine like Hillary '08, or a well-organized, well-funded messianic movement like Obamamania?

Short story: Sen. McCain can't do it alone . . . but Team America could. The Team America strategy calls for the war hero to run as Commander-in-Chief, and to surround himself with Lt. Generals who compensate for his weaknesses in almost every other area.

Fred Thompson on as vice president to serve as the Constitutional conscience of the administration -- an ideological gravitas behemoth -- who can do for President McCain what Dick Cheney has done for President Bush on foreign policy . . .

Mitt Romney reminds voters of "the guy who laid them off." This is, of course, precisely the kind of guy we need to tame our bloated bureaucracy . . . as director of the Office of Management and Budget . . .

Rep. Tom Tancredo, the stalwart champion of secure borders and respect for the rule of law, would naturally serve as director of U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (formerly the INS). Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani could head up the Department of Homeland Security.

Now that's an administration we could get on board with. One final note -- as we ourselves suggested here the other day for the self-professed economics-challenged Senator McCain -- from Betsy Newmark: "I think a lot of politicians would benefit from getting a tutorial from Thomas Sowell."

Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers! If McCain's nomination doesn't kill us, it will make us stronger.

Update II: Welcome, Maggie's Farm readers!

Update III: Welcome, fellow asylum inmates. Dr. Sanity is in.

Sugar and spice

Master of all he surveys, the Babe poses for paparazzi in the afternoon kitchen.

Following a script known only to him, he suddenly switched gears, dropped to the floor and dashed loudly up and then back down the stairs at a high gallop. Applying his brakes at the foot of the stairs, wheels spinning, he pulled a 180 into the bathroom, where he scrambled up to the top of the shower, eyes blazing.

Back down at ground level, he performed a two-step before switching gears from "Crazy Hour" to "Who, Me?" washing his paw and then exiting casually, stage right.

Back in the Experimental Kitchen, we prepared a batch of Bon Appetit's Brownie Cupcakes with Peanut Butter Frosting garnished with crushed walnuts, halving the recipe and using our 12-cup mini-muffin pan to make a plateful of bite-sized treats that satisfy without piling on too many calories. Small and delicious. That's the secret to all things Cold Turkey Cookbook.

Assisting in the taste-test phase, Tiny pronounced our buttercream peanut butter frosting the cat's meow.

Gotta go now. Karl Rove is about to debut as a regular contributor on Fox News to "explain how you cover a presidential primary campaign," says Brit Hume, as Super-Duper Tuesday polls are starting to close. We love this all-caps header at Drudge:

OBAMA LARGE IN SOME EXITS; ROMNEY SHOWS PULSE

Go, Mitt!

Update: Miya and Felix host a Super-Duper 203rd Carnival of the Cats at When Cats Attack!

Update II: Many more things bright and beautiful at Modulator's Friday Ark #177.

"Timing is everything for the quarterback"

Tiny keeps her eye on the ball from the "bench" among the shoes beneath a chair during Superball Bowl practice in the Dining Room Arena this morning.

Playing receiver to our quarterback, she reacts to a short yardage pass across the dining room table.

"Many short yardage plays happen so fast that the defense cannot react fast enough," says the "Football Handbook" at football.com. In our case, many short yardage plays happen so fast that our camera cannot react in time to capture the Cartier-Bresson "decisive moment." We got a lot of great shots of the floor after both cat and ball had moved out of the frame during that exasperating delay between clicking the shutter and exposure.

"Timing is everything for the quarterback when short yardage plays are executed. The quarterback should know where the receiver will be every time. It is common for the quarterback to throw the ball BEFORE the receiver makes [her] break," continues the "Football Handbook." With superballs, throwing the ball before Tiny makes her break is a given. First and ten, do it again!

Between plays she huddles in the kitchen contemplating her next move. Back to the superball bowl for more action or towards the cabinet where the kitty treats are stored?

Update: For more fast-pawed action, check out Friday Ark #176 at Modulator.

Hillary in love

"Deep in my heart, dear, I have a dream of you, fashioned of starlight, perfume of roses and dew." With microphones turned off following their touchy-feely CNN "debate" last night, Obama and Hillary share the love, evoking the big-screen romance of Prince Karl Franz and Cathie in "The Student Prince."

Obama and Hillary, two for the price of one? Love will find a way. "The longest and loudest applause line of the night came when CNN's Wolf Blitzer noted that many Democrats have said they'd like to see a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket in November," reports CNN re the May-December lovefest that was Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's "last debate before next week's Super Tuesday contests. Neither ruled out the possibility of selecting the other as a running mate." Can you say bloodless reportage? The body language between the two during "post-debate pleasantries" (above photo) crackled with sexual tension (with apologies to Bette Davis and Paul Henreid in "Now, Voyager"):

Barack: (As he speaks, he caresses her hand. Tears come to Hillary's eyes) Having fun together, getting a kick out of simple little debates, out of beauty like this. Sharing confidences we wouldn't share with anybody else in all the world. Hillary, won't you be honest and tell me if you are happy too? (She turns toward him and buries her head in his chest.) Why darling, you are crying.

Hillary: I'm such a fool, such an old fool. These are only tears of gratitude -- an oft betrayed wifes's gratitude for the crumbs offered.

Barack: Don't talk like that. (He takes her chin in his hand.)

Hillary: You see, no one ever called me darling before.

Hillary, we hardly knew ye.

Update: Maggie's Farm rocks: "Hillary caught again. Apparently utterly incapable of playing by rules."