October 29, 2015
In spite of all the enforced physical and mental primitiveness of the life in a concentration camp, it was possible for spiritual life to deepen. Sensitive people who were used to a rich intellectual life may have suffered much pain (they were often of a delicate constitution), but the damage to their inner selves was less. They were able to retreat from their terrible surroundings to a life of inner riches and spiritual freedom. Only in this way can one explain the apparent paradox that some prisoners of a less hardy makeup often seemed to survive camp life better than did those of a robust nature. In order to make myself clear, I am forced to fall back on personal experience. Let me tell what happened on those early mornings when we had to march to our work site.
There were shouted commands: "Detachment, forward march! Left-2-3-4! Left-2-3-4! Left-2-3-4! Left-2-3-4! First man about, left and left and left and left! Caps off!" These words sound in my ears even now. At the order "Caps off!" we passed the gate of the camp, and searchlights were trained upon us. Whoever did not march smartly got a kick. And worse off was the man who, because of the cold, had pulled his cap back over his ears before permission was given.
We stumbled on in the darkness, over big stones and through large puddles, along the one road leading from the camp. The accompanying guards kept shouting at us and driving us with the butts of their rifles. Anyone with very sore feet supported himself on his neighbor's arm. Hardly a word was spoken; the icy wind did not encourage talk. Hiding his mouth behind his upturned collar, the man marching next to me whispered suddenly: "If our wives could see us now! I do hope they are better off in their camps and don't know what is happening to us."
That brought thoughts of my own wife to mind. And as we stumbled on for miles, slipping on icy spots, supporting each other time and again, dragging one another up and onward, nothing was said, but we both knew: each of us was thinking of his wife. Occasionally I looked at the sky, where the stars were fading and the pink light of the morning was beginning to spread behind a dark bank of clouds. But my mind clung to my wife's image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness. I heard her answering me, saw her smile, her frank and encouraging look. Real or not, her look was then more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise.
A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth - that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way - an honorable way - in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment. For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, "The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory."
In front of me a man stumbled and those following him fell on top of him. The guard rushed over and used his whip on them all. Thus my thoughts were interrupted for a few minutes. But soon my soul found its way back from the prisoner's existence to another world, and I resumed talk with my loved one: I asked her questions, and she answered; she questioned me in return, and I answered.
...I did not know whether my wife was alive, and I had no means of finding out (during all my prison life there was no outgoing or incoming mail); but at that moment it ceased to matter. There was no need for me to know; nothing could touch the strength of my love, my thoughts, and the image of my beloved. Had I known then that my wife was dead, I think that I would still have given myself, undisturbed by that knowledge, to the contemplation of her image, and that my mental conversation with her would have been just as vivid and just as satisfying. "Set me like a seal upon thy heart, love is as strong as death."-- Viktor Frankl describing his experiences and insights while a prisoner in Dachau and Auschwitz in Man's Search For Meaning
As one drives through the bushveldt of East Africa it is easy to spot herds of baboons grazing on the ground. But not by looking at the ground. Instead you look up and spot the lookout, an adult male posted on a limb of a tree where he has a clear view all around him - which is why you can spot him; he has to be where he can see a leopard in time to give the alarm. On the ground a leopard can catch a baboon. but if a baboon is warned in time to reach the trees, he can out-climb a leopard. The lookout is a young male assigned to that duty and there he will stay, until the bull of the herd sends up another male to relieve him. Keep your eye on that baboon; we'll be back to him.more...
Today, in the United States, it is popular among self-styled 'intellectuals' to sneer at patriotism. They seem to think that it is axiomatic that any civilized man is a pacifist, and they treat the military profession with contempt. 'Warmongers' - 'Imperialists' - 'Hired killers in uniform' - you have all heard such sneers and you will hear them again. One of their favorite quotations is: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' What they never mention is that the man who made that sneering remark was a fat, gluttonous slob who was pursued all his life by a pathological fear of death.
I propose to prove that that baboon on watch is morally superior to that fat poltroon who made that wisecrack. Patriotism is the most practical of all human characteristics. But in the present decadent atmosphere patriots are often too shy to talk about it - as if it were something shameful or an irrational weakness. But patriotism is NOT sentimental nonsense. Nor is it something dreamed up by demagogues.
Patriotism is as necessary a part of man's evolutionary equipment as are his eyes, as useful to the race as eyes are to the individual. A man who is NOT patriotic is an evolutionary dead end. This is not sentiment but the hardest of logic.
...We are now ready to observe the hierarchy of moral behavior from its lowest level to its highest. The simplest form of moral behavior occurs when a man or other animal fights for his own survival. Do not belittle such behavior as being merely selfish. Of course it is selfish... but selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.
The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she'll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college - and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child... and it is still moral behavior even when it fails.
The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for a group larger than the unit family - an extended family, a herd, a tribe - and take another look at that baboon on watch; he's at that moral level. I don't think baboon language is complex enough to permit them to discuss such abstract notions as 'morality' or 'duty' or 'loyalty' - but it is evident that baboons DO operate morally and DO exhibit the traits of duty and loyalty; we see them in action. Call it 'instinct' if you like - but remember that assigning a name to a phenomenon does not explain it.
But that baboon behavior can be explained in evolutionary terms. Evolution is a process that never stops. Baboons who fail to exhibit moral behavior do not survive; they wind up as meat for leopards. Every baboon generation has to pass this examination in moral behavior; those who bilge it don't have progeny. Perhaps the old bull of the tribe gives lessons... but the leopard decides who graduates - and there is no appeal from his decision. We don't have to understand the details to observe the outcome; baboons behave morally - for baboons.
The next level in moral behavior higher than that exhibited by the baboon is that in which duty and loyalty are shown toward a group of your kind too large for an individual to know all of them. We have a name for that. It is called 'patriotism.'-- Robert Heinlein in a 1973 address to midshipmen at Annapolis
— Dave in Texas Khloe Kardashian's "Lazarus Puthy" done raised him from the daid.
If you're not sure what a "Lazarus Puthy" is, you have to think of Mike Tyson and thay it like he would.
There you go. There. You got it.
Why Mike Tyson knows the story of Lazarus from the bible I have no idea. Why he associated it with Khloe's "medicinal man-awakening from the throes of a 4-day bender of drugs, hookers and booze 'talents'", ok I have some idea.
We live in an age of miracles, or as Ekdahl likes to say "what a stupid time to be alive."
There'th idiotic video and audio at the link.
— Ace Well, Rubio dissembled. Trump seemed like he hadn't read "his" own immigration plan.
Mark Krikorian -- who no one can claim is an immigration dove -- finds that Rubio was simply lying when he claimed that he wanted to "reform" the H1-B process, and guarantee that companies had to recruit Americans first, and pay H1-B workers at least as much as previous (American) workers.
If that's what he wants, why isn't that in his bill? All his bill does is triple the number of H1-B visas, without "reforming" anything, unless you consider giving corporate patrons handjobs "reform."
This is why Trump's website calls Rubio "Zuckerberg's personal Senator," though Trump, apparently, is unaware his website says this. Mark Zuckerberg loves him some low-cost foreign replacements (and American workers on welfare); Rubio loves that too, because Zuckerberg told him to love it.
[Rubio repeated] three times his demand that employers using H-1B visas to replace Americans should be barred from the program -- except that "abuses" aren't the problem. When Disney laid off hundreds of highly skilled Americans in Rubios own state and forced them to train their cheaper foreign replacements imported on H1-B visas, that wasnt an abuse of the program -- that's the way it's supposed to work. In the past couple of years, Toys 'R' Us has done the same thing, and SunTrust and Fossil and Southern California Edison and Northeast Utilities and others.
The law was written precisely to allow this. Rubio was clearly suggesting that these actions should not be permitted. So one would assume that the H1-B bill that he introduced in the Senate earlier this year -- the "I-Squared" bill, that would triple the number of H1-B foreign workers admitted -- addresses those "abuses," right? After all, he said in the debate:
We need to add reforms, not just increase the numbers, but add reforms. For example, before you hire anyone from abroad, you should have to advertise that job for 180 days. You also have to prove that youre going to pay these people more than you would pay someone else, so that you're not undercutting it by bringing in cheap labor.
But Rubio's bill on this very topic does none of these things. It does not require recruitment of American workers. It does not require employers to "pay more than you would pay someone else." In fact, Ron Hira, one of the leading researchers in this area, says Rubios bill would provide Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and his comrades "a huge increase in the supply of lower-cost foreign guest workers so they can undercut and replace American workers."
As for Trump: Trump's own plan does in fact call for such reforms -- the one on his website. But this is precisely the plan he disowned at the debate, claiming Becky Quick was just making this up. "I don't know where you people get this," he said, or words to that effect.
Although this seemed at the moment to be Trump demolishing Becky Quick for her shoddy research, in fact, she was correct: She read this on Trump's website.
It's part of the immigration plan Jeff Sessions wrote for him -- which Donald Trump apparently did not even read. He slapped it up on the website, said "Here's my plan," but apparently hasn't been f***ed enough to read it.
Because this is not the first time Trump has talked up making sure we get all these wonderful highly-skilled foreign workers here on H1-B workers.
I've noted this on the blog before: the immigration policy that Trump puts on his website -- written by Jeff Sessions -- promises reforms and restrictions on the H1-B program.
But every single time Trump actually talks about it, he talks about letting in as many highly-skilled workers as possible. We can't lose such people, he says. We can't have them go to school at Harvard, then go work in another country.
So we need them... to displace existing American workers.
It's not just that this is a contradiction. It's a contradiction he doesn't even attempt to reconcile, because I don't think he's even aware of what "his" immigration plan on his website actually says.
Michele Malkin, who introduced me to this issue when she came on the podcast, isn't having it:
Which is why I urged caution/skepticism of double-talking Trump all along. https://t.co/YDRuLb69YS— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 29, 2015
Either Trump wants H1B's reformed and restricted or he does not. His website says one thing; his mouth says another. When asked about the reform/restriction plan, he goes so far to actually disown the idea, and to claim it has nothing to do with him.
Well, which is it?
Many people -- including me-- are giving Trump a chance specifically because of his pro-American-worker positioning on illegal -- and legal -- immigration. Supposedly, because he didn't need corporate money to fuel his campaign, he had the ability to actually say "no" to corporate demands to replace American workers with cheaper foreign imports and stick up for actual Americans for a change.
But if he doesn't believe his own plan -- indeed, if he doesn't even know what the hell his plan even says -- then what is the point of him?
Note: Krikorian also makes the case against Trump, though I haven't quoted his language on that (I already quoted enough of him for Rubio).
See the link for Krikorian's take.
— Ace Well, that's not a surprise. But check out this part.
Chrissy Keenan, a UCLA senior, is the president of Bruin Consent Coalition, a campus group that works to raise awareness regarding sexual assault on campus. "When people know of me but they dont really know the work, they hear the term 'feminist' or 'sexual-violence prevention,' they think, 'super-extreme, bra-burning feminism,'" she explains, which often puts people on the defensive.
Keenan herself, though, sometimes finds it hard not to go on the offensive. She's so used to laying down the nitty-gritty details of consent that she's been known to open romantic interactions with a spiel that feels straight out of a student handbook.
That sounds fun. Let's see how that works out for her.
She animatedly tells a story about a recent Tinder rendezvous:
"One time, I agreed to meet with this guy at 8 or 9 at night. Before we met, I said to him, 'This is the work I do, I know the chief of police ... so, don't try and get creepy; I know all my rights.' And five minutes later, he was like, 'Actually, I'm really not OK with how you just assume I'm a bad guy. And I get very bad vibes from that, so we shouldn't hang out anymore.'"
"I was in a rage. He was a total fuckboy about consent," she said.
Rage? I guess his consent is not a concern at all. He did not consent to pursuing things, and she went, by her own account, into a "rage."
If I had to guess where this Love Connection went wrong, I would guess it was at the point where she met a guy for the first time and strongly implied he was a rapist, and she was ready -- even eager -- to call the police on him.
But that's just me.
— Ace Look, I don't know if this is real, and... I'm sharing either way.
Give it a few seconds there, friends. Just a few seconds.
Here is my impression of You when you're watching it:
First two seconds: Meh, why is he wasting my time
Next second: Oh. Ohhhhh. Oh my.
This gotta be the wildest GIF on Twitter... pic.twitter.com/bMmJpyLvG8— Lester Bangs (@mattwhitlockPM) May 19, 2015
— Ace She hasn't done anything, she hasn't accomplished anything, and she has nothing to her credit, except for four dead Americans and a thick passel of lies.
So all she has is the But I'm a Girrrrrl card.
And she'll play it forever. And ever. And ever.
The quote her PAC takes out of context was an anodyne statement from Rubio, explaining his finances to Becky Quick, who interrogated him about them, that he'd had to "explain" to his wife why Sally Mae was taking $1000 out of his account every month.
For Hillary's PAC, that becomes "mansplaining" to the little woman.
The attack from Priorities USA--a step short of calling the surging Republican sexist--stemmed from his comments in which Rubio said he struggled to explain his student loan debt to his wife after they were married.
The 15-second video takes the longer quote out of context, as Rubio was under pressure to explain his familys financial choices during the debate.
The video, which is already drawing criticism on Twitter from Republicans, appears targeted to rile up Clintons democratic base, rather than appealing to independent voters.
It reveals the extent of the Clinton allies' worry about the potential matchup between the charismatic and youthful Rubio--whom Jeb Bushs campaign has termed the "GOP Obama" --- against the former [old, ugly, fat and drunk] Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, they don't talk about the real patriarchy. In Egypt, for example, a woman was seen on video being assaulted by a man; on Egyptian TV, a presenter asked her if she was "dressed appropriately" and if that might have prompted her beating.
The woman was just wearing jeans and a sleeveless shirt, without any cleavage.
The TV presenter also appears to be a woman.
But she knows who writes her checks.
I've found it: The Best Tweet pic.twitter.com/Wab9aAgDD5— Political Math (@politicalmath) October 29, 2015
— Ace The government, man.
Via Jesse Walker of Reason.
Hypocrisy ? I fired John Kasich from the 1976 Reagan Campaign ... For selling pot to other field men— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 29, 2015
Maybe Saint Peter told him it was good to spread a little herbal bliss.
By the way, I say that Stone is a former Trump adviser, with the question mark, because there are wide suspicions that he's really still working for Trump. I have no idea if that's true or not, I just hear it all the time.
I don't know much about Stone except he's a character and one of those guys who really is behind political conspiracies, so I guess the idea that he would pretend to be fired, so he could continue helping Trump without tying Trump to the dirty work, is semi-plausible.
So, is it true? No idea. But it's fun to think about.
One should be mindful, I guess, of LBJ's planting of a story that a political opponent had been caught sodomizing a pig. "No one will ever believe that," someone counseled him, but LBJ said, "No, but I just want to hear the f***er deny it."
— Ace You go, Doctor Carson.
After a performance by CNBC moderators that Republicans characterized as both biased and inept, a manager for a top GOP campaign says he will try to organize other campaigns to force the Republican National Committee to make "wholesale change" in the debate process.
In an interview shortly after the debate, Barry Bennett, manager of the Ben Carson campaign, called the session here in Colorado "unfair to everyone" and said the current debate structure should not remain in place. "I think the families need to get together here, because these debates as structured by the RNC are not helping the party," Bennett said. "There's not enough time to talk about your plans, there's no presentation. It's just a slugfest. All we do is change moderators. And the trendline is horrific. So I think there needs to be wholesale change here."
Bennett said he will call Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski Thursday to propose a unified call for change. "Corey and I talk regularly, so I will talk to him," Bennett said. "I will call Frank Sadler (Carly Fiorina's campaign manager), I will call those guys and say listen, we can choose our own network and our own format. We don't need to be led around like prize steers."
"I think at this point, if five or six of us get together, who generate the largest portion of the audience, we can force change," Bennett said.
Bennett noted that the Carson and Trump campaigns forced CNBC to shorten the debate and allow opening and closing statements. If campaigns can compel that kind of change, the reasoning goes, perhaps they can push for a more fundamental reworking of the debate structure.
And I've been screaming about not just bias in the question, but bias in who the questions are directed to.
John Kasich is barely registering in the polls, down at Rand Paul levels. And yet he got the lion's share of speaking time:
Speaking time: Rubio 11:27 Cruz 10:50 Fiorina 10:23 Kasich 9:30 Bush 9:18 Trump 8:30 Christie 8:04 Huckabee 7:34 Carson 6:53 Paul 6:10— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 29, 2015
Why the hell is he getting more time than #1 Trump and #2 Carson? For all the obvious reasons: Because he's the most liberal candidate, and he is willing to trash not just the other Republican candidates but conservatism as a general matter, so the liberal moderators view him as "one of us" and the The Only Sane Man in the Room.
Plus, he's there to do part of their dirty work for them.
I could also note that Rubio is kinda liked by liberals, and is, get this, getting more time than anyone, and Chris Christie believes in global warming, and lookee here, he gets much more time than his polling would warrant.
Kasich is the most egregious and obvious example, but the liberal media really isn't interested in hearing from anyone but sort of liberal people.
— Ace Once again I felt sorry for Jeb.
A winning candidate should not make his detractors feel sorry for him.
He just doesn't have it. Any of it.
Chuck Todd and his partisan liberal harpies declare that the mood of the Jeb camp feels like a wake, and I don't think they're wrong.
[T]he most significant story from last night is that Jeb Bush's campaign now finds itself on life support, especially after Bush swung and missed when trying to hit Rubio over his Senate voting record. As one Republican operative told NBC's Peter Alexander, Bush had to demonstrate to his supporters and donors -- after a rough last few weeks -- that the former Florida governor could land a punch, particularly after telegraphing to the political world that it was coming. But Bush missed. Badly.
It was the equivalent of a teenager who, after telling the whole school that he was going to fight a classmate at lunchtime, ended up being the one taking the licking.
Video and commentary from Ed Morrissey at the first link.
He also agrees with Jonathan V. Last that it's time to exclude Jeb, Huckabee, Paul, and Kaisch from the debates, and only permit Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, and Fiorina in the next one.
I'd say that two should be added -- Jindal and Lindsey Graham, the only two of the undercard people doing anything at all. Now, I know you hate Lindsey Graham, and I do too, but I'm including him as cover for my Jindal boosterism. And it cannot be denied he gets the biggest audience reactions, and has the best jokes, at the undercard debates.
It's time for relegation, as they do in the European soccer leagues. Poor performers are dropped to the lower league, and those winning in the lower league are elevated to the premier league.
Jeb's Still At It: He's keeping up his "French work week" attack, because, I don't know. I guess he can't admit what a colossal failure this was.
— DrewM We didn't do a podcast last night because...meh.
Still, there are a few takeaways.
Cruz crushed it. The big theme of the post-debate spin has been how awful CNBC moderators were. And while everyone (except I believe Kaisch and Bush) took their shots at them, Cruz landed the first big blow.
The other big moment was Jeb's awful attempt (predicted by me the day prior to the debate) to hit Rubio over his attendance in the Senate.
Holy Ghost Panel, Great Gallery, Canyonlands National Park
(c. 2000 B.C.)
— andy Harwood debate prediction status: CONFIRMED
I still can't believe how incredibly awful that was.
October 28, 2015
George Orwell, who railed against his fellow socialists' obsession with vegetarianism in 1937's The Road to Wigan Pier, noting with anger that "One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England," wouldn't be much surprised by their hypocrisy after knocking back a few. Plus ça change.
-- Ed Driscoll on a study showing that a third of vegetarians cheat with meat after a few drinks
She had no accomplishments, no State Department computer, and left no paper or email trails. She was our first ghost-American SecState.
Too rural and quiet they said.
More than 30 asylum seekers refused to get off a bus that took them to temporary accommodation at a holiday park on Sunday night because they didn't want to stay in such a rural location, Sweden's Migration Board has told The Local.
Because it spoke positively about a candidate. Further evidence that campaign contributions are ultimately a form of political free speech. And that proponents of campaign finance restriction know this.more...
— Ace Lot of anger about this.
Who could have seen this coming, except everyone with any degree of competency or brain function?
— Ace Every liberal is a star, you see. This is John J. Harwood's moment to shine, and he is going to light up the sky.
Well done, Reince. You really shouldn't permit a moderator who's sleeping with the enemy. Allegedly.
Cruz had one too, I know, but it hasn't been posted yet, so don't yell at me, please. I'll put that one up too.
John J. Harwood, Journalist.
— Ace Get in their faces.
Punish your enemies.
If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.
Obama's pollster tries to explain the growing, and worsening, racial animus in America on historic forces; I guess he forgets that Obama likes to think of himself as the ultimate "historic" president.
Despite President Obama's two election victories, the nation has become increasingly racially divided in its politics and "tribal" in its voting patterns, according to the president's election pollster.
"We've come a long way in a lot of different ways around race in this country, but if you look at our voting patterns, we're as segregated in how we vote today as we were 40-some years ago," said Cornell Belcher, president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies and a Harvard University fellow.
In a video for the school's Institute of Politics to tout his study group, "Tribal America --Racial Polarization in the American," the respected and influential pollster said that Obama's election inspired minorities, but also pushed whites away.
"Inspired" minorities is one way to put it; another way is to say he encouraged an angry, prideful racial consciousness among minorities which is generally called "racism" when expressed by white people.
— Ace The only one that matters, and the one who shouldn't be there.
It's on CNBC.
— Ace Fairly amusing speech by Trump in which he tells Iowa to "get its ass in gear" and put him back at the top, instead of second place, which is says is "terrible," at least for him.
Joe Scarborough made a point I was making a couple of weeks ago: Trump looked fine when he was winning, but what happens when he starts losing? Does he get all pissy?
Well, based on this one speech (and it's just the one; we don't know what he'll be like if Carson holds his Iowa lead), he's handling it pretty well. It plainly bothers him, and he's kind of obsessing over it (as he always obsesses over poll numbers, or the ratings --- poll numbers are just the ratings for politicians, right?), but he's kind of funny about it.
Thanks to... I want to say Vic but I know that's wrong.
Meanwhile, a YouGov poll has Trump well ahead of Carson, by 14 points, nationally.
— Ace If you guys don't know to be panicked and screamey, a missile-sensor balloon with a long trailing antenna got free, and Shep "Sensationalist" Smith is trying to make it sound like aerial Armageddon.
He insisted "It doesn't work!" despite having never heard of this missile-detection system before. All we know is that the anchor failed. But Shep is in screaming and hysteria mode.
This is a real quote. He noted that the long cable trailing the balloon had hit a transmission tower, and knocked out local power. Then he said, and remember, I'm not joking about this, "It's all fun and games to talk about power outages, but what happens when it crosses a baby carriage?!"
Or words to that effect. "Baby carriage" was in the mix, there.
Always eager for a Car Chase or a Superdome Slaughter Cannibal-a-rama, Shep Smith is beclowning himself about the #DEATHBALLOON that has come to kill us all.
Hopefully a car chase will come along and she can shrill about that.
With this and the swirling chaos of blood and fire we're going through because we HAVE NO LEADER, hell, I don't know what I'm going to do. All I can think to do is throw a rope over a beam and hope I can gather the courage to hang myself before #DEATHBALLOON eats my soul.
Pictures of the rampaging MURDER-BLIMP at Twitchy.
It looks like the skull of a mighty serpent.
Update: The ancient prophecies says that #DEATHBALLOONS come in swarms, like locusts, but really big, and filled with helium.
Wolf Blitzer Checks In: A commenter said he really said this.
43 queries taking 2.974 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.