Wednesday, November 04, 2020

Truest statement of the week


Democratic Party propagandists and “frightened” leftists are desperate. They tell their supporters and the public that the republic will not survive another term of Donald Trump. They point to his despicable, racist descriptions of undocumented migrant workers from Mexico; his characterization of some global South nations; his misogyny; his crude and obvious white supremacy; his authoritarian proclivities; and his pathological dishonesty—among his many character flaws—as reasons why he must be stopped. 

However, for those of us who have been historically subjected to the colonial fascism that is the U.S. settler project, the liberal-left argument that the Trump regime represents some fundamental departure from previous administrations that were equally committed to white power and that he is an existential threat (to whom, we are not clear) remains unpersuasive.

 -- Ajuma Baraka, "Confronting Bipartisan Repression and the US-led Axis of Domination Beyond Election Day" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).







Truest statement of the week II

A week before Christmas in 1972 Joe Biden’s first wife Neilia and their 13-month old daughter were killed by a tractor trailer that crashed into her car as she pulled away from a stop sign. The couple’s two sons were also injured in the accident. Recently elected to the Senate from Delaware, Biden wasn’t one to wallow in grief, preferring to get started on a long Washington career of inappropriate touching, making what the late Alexander Cockburn reported as “loutish sexual advances” to a female staffer of one of his fellow senators in the well of the Senate just weeks after Biden’s wife was killed.

Half a century later, shoulder-rubbing, nose-touching, hair-sniffing Joe can be observed in many internet videos pawing little girls and boys, this from the sworn enemy of unwanted advances, especially against those who cannot give consent, like children.

In the face of multiple women complaining of his unsolicited sniffs, kisses, and shoulder massages, Biden hilariously describes himself as a “tactile politician,” one who has won great applause from women for supporting the Violence Against Women Act (part of the disastrous 1994 crime bill), which, though it did not reduce the incidence of domestic violence, did substantially erode due process of law, as intended.

Biden has long championed stripping due process rights from college students accused of sexual misconduct. He instituted policy all around the United States based on the assumption that young men accused of sexual assault or rape are automatically guilty. Called before Star Chamber campus proceedings presided over mostly by gender ideologues, these men have often not been allowed lawyers, to know the specific charges against them, or to cross-examine their accusers. They have been judged not by the customary legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence,” but rather, by a “preponderance of evidence,” the lowest permissible standard, and one that asserts merely that something is more likely true than untrue, a delightfully vague guideline in the eyes of unscrupulous prosecutors, hanging judges, and now, unaccountable college deans.

Supposedly in the name of gender equality, Biden supports the men-are-rapists-by-nature thesis beneath all this, and automatically accepts the word of a woman as definitive in any case where a man not named Joe Biden stands accused of sexual harassment, assault, or rape. When he himself stands accused, he says Tara Reade has a right to have her claim taken seriously, at the same time as he refuses to open his own Senatorial papers or allow public access to them, a curious stand for a man ostensibly committed to being judged on the basis of the evidence.

-- Michael K. Smith, "Tactile Masculinity vs. Toxic Masculinity: The Case of Joe Biden" (DISSIDENT VOICE).   

A note to our readers

 Hey -- 

Wednesday morning.  And votes are still being counted. 

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,

Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, 
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?


Ajuma Baraka gets another truest.

Michael K. Smith gets a truest.

It's really time that THE NATION was held accountable for their actions.

Ava and C.I. wrote their piece on Sunday.  We did a quick stripped down edition to get this up tonight because Ava and C.I. informed me (Jim) Tuesday morning that their piece was being posted regardless of whether we had anything else to go with it.  This is a great piece, by the way.  They note that CONNECTING has been canceled (yesterday) and that they may not ever note it (they had planned this week's piece to be about it, as they note in the opening of this piece).

 Ann and Jess worked on this one and we really thank them for it.

If you can't stand up for what you believe in, you're begging to be treated like a doormat.

John Stauber.  He got the Tweet of the week.  He was supposed to get a truest.  Why didn't he?  We were going to highlight him from this article that C.I. noted in Tuesday's snapshot.  But?  The page won't display.  We can't get the title of the article.  We can't get anything except "Error 522."  


What we listened to while working on this.


I had wanted a roundtable.  Ava and C.I. said "NO!"  They didn't want to take part (or take notes on) what they were sure would turn into a lot of gas baggery about who would win what in tonight's election.  



-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.



Editorial: Iraq and THE NATION

We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still.


We will not support -- until, of course, we do.


Well, not us.  We will never vote for the War Criminals who destroyed Iraq. 

But some will.  The paragraph at the top, the one in bold, we didn't write that.  The editors of THE NATION wrote it, they published it November 10, 2005, "Democrats and the War."

In that same editorial, they wrote:

The war–an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation–is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation.

The war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. It has driven America’s reputation in the world to a historic low point. In the meantime, real threats suffer terrible neglect. These include more terrorist attacks, jeopardized oil supplies, rising tension with China, the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. All are pushed aside as this Administration pours the country’s blood, treasure and political energy into a futile war. In short, ending the Iraq War is the most pressing issue facing America today. Until it is ended, a constructive national security policy cannot be forged. 


What changed?  The war and the "colonial-style occupation" continue.  And THE NATION's supporting Joe Biden who not only voted for the war, not only attacked those who opposed it, he also overturned the votes of the Iraqi people in 2010 when they voted Nouri al-Maliki out as prime minister but Joe, via The Erbil Agreement, tossed aside the votes and gave Nouri a second term -- a term that led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq.

THE NATION's an old, dirty joke now.  It made such dramatic statements and it never followed through.  Back in 2007, Bill Van Auken (WSWS) observed:

The transfer of congressional leadership to the Democrats may have failed to stop the war or produce any significant changes for the masses of working people in America, but it has yielded definite benefits for the privileged layer of upper-middle-class “left” liberals for whom the Nation speaks. Many of them have filled coveted staff positions on Capitol Hill or seen the fortunes of the liberal think tanks with which they are associated rise. The Nation’s editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, has with increasing frequency been admitted to the ranks of pundits appearing on television talk shows.

This left wing of the US political establishment is being promoted for definite political purposes. America’s ruling elite fears the eruption of mass movements of social protest and, above all, the emergence of a genuinely independent political movement of the working class in opposition to the two-party system and the profit interests it defends.

The job of these “left” PR agents for the Democratic Party is to politically suffocate any such movement and to contain social protest, diverting it back into the harmless confines of the Democratic Party.

Bill was right in 2007.  He's right today.  

THE NATION tosses out a lot of words and a lot of pretense.  It has no follow through.


Media: The scream in our soul

This weekend, we just wanted an easy weekend and planned to take on something easy -- like NBC's CONNECTING . . .  Watching on-demand on SHOWTIME, we thought we'd relax with a movie while we outlined some main points regarding the sitcom while discussing some topics we wanted to introduce in next week's speaking gigs.  Somehow, we ended up with POMS.  


Not somehow.  We had selected Diane Keaton's HAMPSTEAD.  We'd missed the film and Diane Keaton's an incredibly talented actress.  We spoke of ways, in next weeks talks, to introduce the new attacks in Iraq, efforts made by players including the international community to do away with camps for the displaced -- not to find new housing -- permanent or otherwise -- for the displaced, just to close down the camps.  And we talked about had been so rich over the last ten years in terms of roles and how moments in 5 FLIGHTS UP and BOOKCLUB attest to the fact that Diane remains one of the best actresses of her generation.  




Just walking along, shopping for food
Stepping out of the line of fire when people are rude
Cheap stuff made in China, someone calls it a sale
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail

Beat down in the market, stoned to death in the plaza
Raped on the hillside under the gun from LA to Gaza
A house made of cardboard living close to the rail
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail

And I feel the witch in my veins
I feel the mother in my shoe
I feel the scream in my soul
The blood as I sing the ancient blue
They burned in the millions
I still smell the fire in my grandma's hair
The war against women rages on
Beware of the fairytale
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail

The noise of elections, the promise of change
A grabbing of power at the top, a day at the rifle range
Somebody's in danger, somebody's for sale
Somebody's mama, somebody's daughter
Somebody's jail

-- "Somebody's Jail," written by Holly Near, first appears on her album SHOW UP.

We wondered about Diane.  Would she make another comedy with Woody Allen?  We wondered about that and felt a romantic comedy -- a triangle -- might be best.  She'd be Woody's wife and maybe an old love, maybe a first wife returns.  A 60s radical?  Played by Elaine May or Louise Lasser?  She's been underground -- maybe assumed dead?  And now she resurfaces and adds complications to Woody and Diane's life together.  We talked about how Diane had been attacked for being a good friend to Woody Allen.  We don't believe Woody molested Dylan.  And a mob seems to think they can bully and intimidate anyone into silence.  Diane's refusal to do the recant-walk so many have done in recent years has led to a lot of nonsense and hate aimed at her.  


When did standing by a loved one become a bad thing?  For example, we do believe Whitney Houston's siblings when they say Dee Dee Warwick molested Whitney.  But, even believing that, we don't blame Dionne Warwick for defending her late sister.  Dionne doesn't believe the claim and that's her right and it's her right to defend anyone she loves.  And, of course, as with everything we aren't personal witness to, we could be wrong about Dee Dee.

Discussing all of those topics and much more, we noticed that HAMPSTEAD had gone off and POMS was starting.  Neither of us had caught that one either (which makes us both poor cinefiles and bad friends since we know Diane).


We figured we'd catch a few moments before tidying up the glasses and snack tray and our note pads.  A few moments?  We watched all the way through.  It's product, yes.  It's also really good product.  Hollywood has made some very solid films over the years, some of which have gone on to become film classics.  POMS is supposed to be entertainment and is succeeds on that level.  Diane Keaton offers a rich performance as Martha, a woman with cancer who decides against further treatments.  She's preparing for the end.

And POMS might have done better at the box office if the studio had up-fronted that.  Instead, they hid that detail -- a detail established in the film's opening scenes.  A lot of people who didn't see the film mocked it as lightweight because it was about women who wanted to be cheerleaders late in life.  

Now it's actually a film about a dying woman banding together with other women to achieve.  But even without that, even if it was just a film about a group of senior women wanting to have a go at being cheerleaders, so what?

How is that worthy of disdain and mocking?  Because it's a film about women?  Because it's a film about women's dreams?

The very low value that our society places on women allows any film dealing with elderly men's flights of fancy to be treated as revolutionary and groundbreaking.  And films about elderly women -- Wait.  Let's be honest, there aren't a lot of American films with a cast of elderly women.  So it's really any film dealing with women's flights of fancy that get branded garbage and worse.  

When does this change?

There have been so many 'answers' offered over the years.  One of the most common has been when women assume offices of power, things will change.  It's sort of a Marxist answer a la 'when the workers seize the means of production.'  That answer is obviously not true in terms of women.  

Let's talk about magazines, for example.  There's been no real improvement for women in the last ten years.  Katrina vanden Heuvel took over THE NATION years ago and things aren't any better for women at that magazine -- not in terms of subject matter, not in terms of bylines.  As we noted in 2010's "On whores and karma (Ava and C.I.):"

Not only did she [Katrina] lament "policies that will hurt women" and a lack of "pay equity" she went on to whine, ". . . there's much more attention in our mainstream media to the right wing women. Just as in the same way we've seen the tea party inflated and there's too little attention to the women who are running on peace and justice."


Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation which published 491 men and only 149 women in 2007. And she wants to talk about pay equity? (She certainly doesn't want to talk about how she pays men more for their writing than she does women -- doesn't want to talk about it, but it is true.) And she wants to talk about "policies that will hurt women"? We happen to believe that publishing 491 men in one year but only 149 women is hurting women.

She's upset that the mainstream media is focusing (in her mind) on right wing women and she's whining that it's just like with the tea party. She's editor and publisher of The Nation. Does she want to explain why her publication obsessed over the Tea Party? Does she not understand that those weeks and weeks of five and six pieces at The Nation on the Tea Party didn't go unnoticed by the MSM? Does she not get that the frenzy and moaning and whining by her ilk built the Tea Party?

During all that time, The Nation wasn't covering Donna Edwards or any of the "peace and justice women" Katrina could be barely be bothered with actually naming when she was castigating the MSM for . . . not talking about these women.

"There are so many women who don't get attention," whined Katrina. "Where is the narrative about those women and what they've accomplished?"

Gee, Katrina, where is the attention? You know it's too bad that you don't run a weekly magazine where you could assign stories and bring attention to these women . . .

Oh, wait, she does. She is editor and publisher of The Nation.


And a woman being in charge of THE NATION didn't make a bit of difference.  Elsewhere?  MOTHER JONES has not one woman in charge but two -- Clara Jeffrey (editor) and Monika Bauerlein (CEO) -- and all that's meant is that they've worked overtime trying to turn two blowhard males into media stars -- it's not happening.  Well, Clara and Monika did do one more thing . . . they hired a woman . . . to do a hit job on a woman who states she was raped.  What a proud moment for the sisterhood.  We can't forget Ruth Conniff who failed so spectacularly when she was in charge of THE PROGRESSIVE that everyone wants to pretend like her leadership never happened.  In that brief time, she ran the magazine nearly into the ground and did nothing for -- you guessed it -- women.


That's print and online text.  What about video?  There are a few prominent women who host programs online -- some of which are podcasts.  Briahna Joy Gray just leapt into the pool with the podcast BAD FAITH POD.  But there are many women who are prominent in this world and, domestically, they include Krystal Ball, Katie Halper, Margaret Kimberley, Rania Khalek, Abby Martin, Fiorella Isabel, Ana Kasparian . . .*  Look at the work most of them are producing.  Where are the women?  They are hosts and co-hosts but, certainly with regards to Katie Halper and Ana Kasparian, they're not interested in women.  Yes, Katie's improving, we will give her credit for that.  We were part of a group that started calling her out after it was one male guest after another and a man was allowed to make jokes about how he might have a "rape baby" and no one pointed out the obivous: (a) you're not funny and (b) the only way you'd have a "rape baby" is if you were the rapist -- which makes you even less funny.

But, yes we do see in the last two weeks an effort being made by Katie.  It's not enough.  She may get to the point where it's enough but she doesn't want us doing a count right now.  It wouldn't be pretty.

In fact, it never is.  Want to talk Diane Rehm?  Hmm.

This is a woman who used her gender to get a job with public radio but who didn't feel the need to give back.

It's an important point, especially as Diane spent the last months giving empty lip service to the idea of diversity.

It's empty lip service and we know because we did a study of her show in 2010 and found 232 guests booked of which only 30.17% were women.

Two years later, we looked again:

As we've pointed out before, in the United States women are said to make up 50.1% of the population. So half the country is women. This should mean that half of Diane's guests were women.
But that's not the case. Over ten months, only 34% (33.9%) of Diane's guests have been women.
So although women make up half the country's population, they make up only 34% of Diane's guests.

Everything above after "Hmm"?  It's from the 2016 piece we did "Media: One of her guests was never you" when Diane retired from her daily program THE DIANE REHM SHOW.  How about Terry Gross?  From our 2011 "Terry Gross' new low (Ann, Ava and C.I.):"

Shephard's the reason we monitored Fresh Air. In the spring, examing the guest balance on Morning Edition and All Things Considered, Alicia Shepard wrote, "Those figures are equally discouraging. NPR listeners heard 2,502 male sources and 877 female sources on the shows we sampled. In other words, only 26 percent of the 3,379 voices were female, while 74 percent were male." As we noted many times, if you wanted to look at imbalance, why would you go by soundbytes on news programs as opposed to looking at the shows that book guests?

Alicia Shepard was dismayed (maybe outraged -- we were outraged) by the fact that the two shows she examined featured women (non-NPR staff) only 26% of the time. Well it's a good thing she didn't chart Fresh Air.

We tracked the show for 2010. We ignored the critics (except in April) and don't include them in our count of guests unless they were, for an example, the guest for the hour or filing a report (not doing a review). Had we counted the 10 regular critics as guests every time they filed one of their reviews, the gender imbalance would have been even greater for two reasons: (1) there are nine men and only one woman and (2) the woman covers books -- and nothing gets less airtime than book reviews.

Terry relied on many canned interviews throughout the year -- including the last week of December when she aired repeats she passed off as best-ofs. In all, her show featured 399 guests (fresh and canned). How many were women?


Can we get a percentage?

That would be 18.546% of her guests were women. 18% were female. And the NPR ombudsperson's worried about 26% on Morning Edition and All Things Considered?

If you've ignored this issue previously, are you starting now to get how bad it is?


Women are shut out of the conversation.  Print, online text, video, podcast, what have you, we are shut out.  Even when the people in charge are other women, we are shut out.

Women controlling the means of production did not mean that women's role in media improved.  Their voices did not increase.  Issues effecting women did not move to the forefront.  Nothing happened.  

And that is how we get the attacks on POMS, let's be honest.  We get those attacks because women aren't valued.  So if you're a woman reviewing a film?  You know that the pack mentality is to attack and ridicule.  You know the safe thing to do is to not champion it.  


This is internalized in response to the fact that women are not valued.  Daily it's made clear in the offices and on the chats and zooms and phone calls that men are the norm and a token woman or two is the exception.  Those exceptions usually learn very quickly to adapt the male norms and customs.  It silences, in fact, not only the women not invited in but also the women who do get invited in but know that they're only along for the ride on a pass and that pass can be revoked at any time.  As this discrepancy takes place, it reinforces the notion that only men can talk, only men can analyze and weigh in -- which is how you get the problem that is NPR's ALL SONGS CONSIDERED (see ""Media: The hatred of women runs deep -- even at NPR").


When women like Katie Halper have the power to choose who they speak with and repeatedly ignore women, it sends a message.  The message is that the other women are not worth talking to, not smart enough or whatever.  At any point, these women could have their passes revoked.  You'd think if only to protect themselves, they'd be working on increasing the number of women invited on their shows.  But maybe when you work around so much hatred of women on a daily basis, you not only internalize the customs and mores (the hatred of women) of the dominant group, you also deny the reality that you're part of the despised group.  You're in on a pass and for the moment, even though you're a woman, you can pass for something else -- for a little while, anyway.  Women like Katie can change the world.  Having an equal number of men and women as guests on her show can change the world.  It can change attitudes, it can change expectations, it can change what is the norm.  When your actions could do so much and could mean so much, why are you failing other women?








We voted Green (Ann and Jess)

So the election will come and go.  You may or may not be happy with who becomes president.  

We probably won't be.  We're Greens.  We were raised Greens.  Both sets of parents are Greens and raised us to be Greens.  We're adults now and could switch to another party but we have no interest in doing so.  We were raised to believe that a better world is possible and that we have needs that the government has to meet -- needs like Medicare For All and a world that can host the people because it's not been so badly damaged that it's become uninhabitable.

Another reason we won't switch?  

The hatred every four years from Democrats.  Republicans don't seem to care too much about us.  One of us (Jess) did have a taxi driver last week who was a Trump supporter.  He went on and on about how he had voted early and then asked who we voted for?  Upon learning it was Howie Hawkins, he asked who that was and then what is the Green Party?  

Enlightenment on that matter did not make him a better person.  He began raging about how the vote for Howie was hurting America, was doing damage in so many ways, was --

He only shut his trap when it was pointed out that every insult was going to lower his tip.

He fumed quietly after that.

But he's the exception.  On the right, they don't care.  They think that we're stealing votes from the Democrats by voting Green.

Democrats think the same thing -- that their votes got stolen by a Green candidate.

No, not with us.  Not with the Greens we know.

We'd never vote for Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton.

Because of the positions and beliefs candidate Bernie Sanders expressed (in 2016 and 2020) we could have voted for a Democrat.  He was reaching out beyond the Democratic Party and we noticed that and we were willing to consider him as a result.

But the Democratic Party worked to ensure he didn't get the nomination and candidate Bernie became post-candidate Bernie.  That Bernie was disgusting and a bit of whore.  He stabbed all his followers in the back.

And that's how we see Democrats.  And they're so hostile to us.  We spoiled their election!  We didn't spoil a damn thing.  We are members of the Green Party and we voted for our nominee.  You're an idiot if you can't get that.  You're a fool if you don't grasp that this third party has been around long enough that their are members who are parents who have raised grown children who are Greens.

Yes, some people become Greens later in their life.  But there are people like us, Ann and Jess, who are cradle Greens.  We were born into this party and we will stay in this party.  Your selling out and whoring and your constant attacks on us and attempts to bully us and shame us only increase the gulf between you and us.


We voted Green.  We voted Green because Howie Hawkins was a great candidate.  We voted Green because we believe in a Green New Deal, ending the wars, Medicare for All and much more.  We voted Green because we wanted to do our part to maintain ballot access for our party.  We voted Green to say this is what we believe in.

We didn't waste our vote and our vote was never yours.

Doormat Still Seeks Abusive Partner

That is what the personal ad should read -- "Doormat Still Seeks Abusive Partner."  And you may be that doormat if you voted for Joe Biden.

We said "may be."  You may think Joe Biden is the greatest thing to come along since the new yogurt covered Skittles.  You may believe he would be the best leader in the world.  If that describes you, we're proud of you and you should be thrilled that you voted for someone you believed in.  

You're not a doormat.

But there are the others who voted for Biden.  You know he raped Tara Reade.  You know he destroyed Iraq and never made any effort to atone for that.  You know he's said and did many, many racists things.  You know he will keep his word to Wall Street and, if elected, ensure that there is no real change.

You know that and you voted for him.

You're a f**king doormat. 

And you've made life more difficult for everyone.

How so?

By giving your vote to a corporatist war monger who assaults women, you've made clear to the officials in the Democratic Party that you will vote for anything.  They stole the nomination from Bernie this year and they can do it to the next Bernie, they can do it and they can get away with it because enough whores, stooges and doormats like you will never stand up.


With your vote, you made that clear.  There is no line that can't be crossed when it comes to you.  Sure, you'll rally around some candidate in the primary but the Democratic Party knows they can ignore you and they can destroy your candidate because you've demonstrated with your vote that you will do whatever they tell you to do, that you will buckle, that you will cave.

You have no core values and you have no ethics.

You're a doormat.  We hope they all -- men and women -- wear pointy stilettos when they walk over you so that it really hurts.  Maybe a few can even wear football cleats. 

Tweet of the week

John Stauber Tweets:

Just remember, no matter who is eventually sworn in by Roberts, we are still screwed. #ItsTheOligarchyStupid, it always wins, always rules the land of the free...

Video of the week



'Year of terror' for journalists in Iraq

Nov 2, 2020
Today is the United Nations International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists. Over the past 14 years, close to 1200 journalists have been killed in the line of work. FRANCE 24 reporters Jack Hewson and Lucile Wasserman report from Iraq, where four journalists have been murdered this year. Subscribe to France 24 now: FRANCE 24 live news stream: all the latest news 24/7 Visit our website: Subscribe to our YouTube channel: Like us on Facebook: Follow us on Twitter:


This edition's playlist



1)  Holly Near's SHOW UP.

2) Janis Ian's  FOLK IS THE NEW BLACK.

3) Neil Young's LIVING WITH WAR

4) Ben Harper's BOTH SIDES OF THE GUN.

5) Alicia Keys' ALICIA.


6) Harry Style's FINE LINE.  




8) Dionne Warwick's SHE'S BACK.  




10) The Mamas and the Papas' THE PAPAS AND THE MAMAS.





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }