McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
Number of posts: 15,529
Number of posts: 15,529
Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/
- 2015 (52)
- 2014 (79)
- 2013 (4)
- 2012 (69)
- 2011 (13)
- December (13)
- Older Archives
I see a lot of folks rewriting history. "Everybody hated the idea of invading Iraq back in 2003." "Anyone with a brain was against the Invasion." Etc. However, I remember 2002-3. Back in July 2002, when Sy Hersch reported that the Bush administration intended to invade Iraq, there were a total of four letters to the NYTs raising objection. Four. I wrote a letter to my own home town paper objecting. As best I could tell at the time, those five letters were it. No one else bothered to loudly object. I know. I was interested in the issue and I followed the protests (or rather the lack of protests). A few folks, like Phil Donahue who tried to object, got shot down. And no one seemed to care. There was no massive, vocal opposition before the war, just a huge media march to war. The left had some muted criticism, but it did NOT get out there front and center to object to the war. The first really BIG anti-war protest was the one in DC in the fall of 2005, after Katrina and the stolen 2004 election, when Bush' popularity was in the toilet. And no, that was not all of us finally coming to our senses. The MSM pushed Americans into that protest the same way it pushed us into the war.
For those who have forgotten the MSM's stormy relationship with Bush, here is a summary. The majority of MSM (minus Fox) split from Bush in early 2005. Several factors were involved. First, outgoing FCC chairman Michael Powell got even for his dad by revealing that Bush had never intended to honor promises made to the MSM to relax media ownership rules. It was all a big scam. The networks covered up the Ohio election exit polls for nothing. CBS crucified Dan Rather for less than nothing---they lost their star reporter and still didn't get the media ownership changes they needed to get into compliance with the law. Second, Bush attempted to declare was on Iran in early 2005. The Pentagon said "no" to war on three fronts. The Pentagon's mouthpiece, GE's MSNBC, NBC and Newsweek took up the Pentagon's cause. In early 2005, MSNBC had the first (of many) round tables about how wars for oil were a bad idea. This after NBC led the March to War in 2002-3. Finally, the Bush administration decided to pander to the right by attempting to create A La Carte cable for the purpose of getting rid of such unGodly shows as "Sponge Bob Square Pants." Disney relies upon bundled cable to keep its merchandising empire afloat. The Mouse was not amused. It pretended to go along---agreeing to produce "Path to 9-11" which was supposed to be the GOP's ace in the hole for the 2006 election. However, the creative minds behind Disney made sure that the show was an unwatchable bomb. And then, ABC outed Mark Foley in 9-2006.
The MSM's change in positions on Bush/Cheney exactly mirror the American public's opinion of Bush--and of his war of choice for oil.
How many people hated the Iraq Invasion back in 2003? According to Gallup a whopping 23%. That is the same 23% who can always be trusted to take a contrarion position. As in "Hell yes, the earth is flat!" and "Yeah, the moon is made of cream cheese!" and "I love me some Dick Cheney!" 75% of Americans polled loved the invasion in 2003.
Two years passed before the "It was a huge mistake" crowd began to consistently outnumber the "Great war!" crowd.
How I wish that all you folks who claim to have been such vocal critics of the war back in 2002-3 had been a bit more...vocal. Maybe we would not have lost thousands of US lives, millions of Iraqi lives and trillions of US dollars. However, only a very small number of us were willing to go against the grain at the time. Easier to sit back and say nothing and not have to risk being fired (Phil Donahue) or shamed (Dixie Chicks, Bill Maher). I am sure that after seeing how Bill and the Chicks have profited from their vocal, early anti-Bush stance, many people who want to promote their own careers would love to have us believe that they were at the very forefront of the massive, anti-war movement in 2003. But dudes, if you were out there, I didn't see you. And I was watching. I was writing. I was protesting.
That isn't to say that there were not protests. Hundreds of thousands of people got out in the streets--in other countries. The world was absolutely horrified. But at home, in the US, the protests were much smaller---100s to 1000s at most. Because face it, who wants to be called "UnAmerican" when our troops are marching off to war?
So, yeah, the Iraq war was always a massively bad idea. But don't try to rewrite history and say that everyone with a brain knew it. Because if you do, that means that 75% of Americans should be on life support.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Apr 30, 2015, 01:18 PM (8 replies)
I am sorry that some real liberals who can not stand Clinton feel that they are being discriminated against at DU. I am sorry that you feel as if you are the victim of a witch hunt or vendetta or a smoke-filled back room coordinated offensive to deprive you of your free speech and your vote. But remember, nothing occurs in a vacuum, and context counts.
The anti-anti-Hillary crowd is not being masterminded by anyone in a corporate office. The anti-anti-Hillarys are speaking up on their own. Because they remember 1972. They remember when Dick Nixon and Pat Buchanan manipulated the press---and Democratic voters---into ignoring their most general election viable candidates and throwing all their eggs into a basket which the GOP had already filled with holes in preparation for the general. Tactics which have been recycled again and again. They remember 1968, when a lack of Democratic solidarity cost this country six more years in Vietnam, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Kent State and a whole lot of other pain.
So, no, none of you personally is on the payroll of CREEP II or CREEP IX or whatever the GOP smoke filled back room is calling itself this time. None of you have personally gotten the memo with the GOP talking point du jour---Hillary is Insincere.--in your inbox. None of you is anything other than you seem---
But, from the perspective of someone who does not know you, someone who can not see your face, when you start trying to tear down the most popular Democratic candidate we have---well, warning bells go off. Because we have been burned before and many of us have vowed never to get burned again.
Here's my advice. Read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72." Then read his essays about Watergate. Then, when you sit down to spell out your issues with Clinton, you will know exactly how to phrase your ideas without giving anyone the wrong idea. Note--that means no character attacks. Anytime anyone starts indulging in character attacks, be very, very afraid. The GOP does not slime on issues. They attack character. Phrases like "war hawk" and "corporate" sound an awful lot like a GOP Big Lie, like Gore is a Liar or Kerry is a Waffler. ALL politicians will support some war, sometime---think WWII. All politicians take some money from some rich people---think Soros.
Yes, it is a pity that we can not all write exactly what we think and be believed. But if we believed everything that was written, the entire US Gross National Product would not be the property of some guy in Nigeria.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Apr 19, 2015, 03:53 PM (43 replies)
You can slice and dice the US electorate in many ways. Rural versus urban. Old versus young. Black versus white. Immigrant versus native born. However, there is one demographic that transcends age, race, birth status, economic status. That is gender. If you are a woman in the United States, you are a second class citizen.
We have all been there. We are denied promotions. We are forced to train the newly hired men who will become our bosses. We are paid a fraction of what men make for doing the same work. Our ideas are ignored in meetings. Our ambition is treated as shameful--unfeminine.
Our bodies are kicked around like footballs by men trying to score ideological points---why protect the already born when you can protect the unborn to show your "family values"? We are denied birth control then condemned for trying to raise children we "cannot afford." We are condemned if we ask the fathers of our children to help in their care---"That whore probably got pregnant to collect child support," say the woman haters.
If we speak up to question our lot in life we are called "bitch", "witch", "castrating." We are told that issues which affect us are less important than issues which affect men---our concerns are just "women's and children's issues." We are told that we can have our equality after our men have their equality. We are supposed to be happy with "trickle down" equality---if our men get ahead, then we will get ahead. In this last respect, we are treated like children, who derive their social status from that of their parents---
Fifty years into the new feminist movement that started in the later 1960s, women are still treated as infants. Well, this "dumb blond" stopped being a child many decades ago. She is a grown up, and she expects to be treated as a grown up.
It is not my job to make men feel better about themselves by hiding my intelligence, agreeing with them when they are wrong or apologizing before I (reluctantly) have to set them straight in order to keep them from making fools of themselves and steering our organizations into disaster. I expect to take part in a dialogue about the policies which will guide my company, my country, my world. I expect to have my voice heard. And I don't think it's right that in order to do this, I have to assume a gender neutral name, so that trolls will not flame me for being female.
I am not smart in spite of being a woman. I am smart, in large part, because of the shit I have been forced to endure because I am a woman. The oppression which I have suffered (and yes, even a physician in this country suffers oppression, if the doc is a woman) has taught me a lot. I have learned to value my own opinions, to distrust social dictum. I am willing to cast off the old and look for a new, better way, if the new, better way will make life better for all of us, especially the children, who---as the dependents of adult women who have been turned into children themselves----are doubly disenfranchised and doubly oppressed.
How did sexism affect my life? Let me count the ways. It started before I was born. My mother, an Emory grad, could not go to medical school because she got married and had a child. Having a spouse and child would not have been a barrier to a young male pre-med back in the 1950s, but it was an absolute barrier for a woman. And guess what? Twenty years later, when I applied to medical school, I was told by several interviewers to reconsider my career choice. My sin? I had married an engineer. I was told that if I wanted to keep my husband, I would have to rethink being a doctor, because he would never be able to stand the shame of having a wife who made more money than him. By the way, we recently celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary.
As a child, we moved from apartment to apartment. Even though my mother was a computer scientist for NASA contractors and later NASA, she could never get a home loan, because she was divorced. In the 1960s, banks would not write a mortgage unless there was a man's signature attached. Oh, and speaking of computer science jobs, my mother was interviewed and hired by one firm in the 1960s. Then the real boss got back to town. He summoned his secretary into his office. He had her sit on his lap. He told my mother that his firm only hired women to be secretaries---
We have come a long way, baby, but we still have far to go. And one of the hurdles we need to overcome is the myth that a woman president is unnatural. That a woman who wants to be president must be some kind of freak. That a woman as president can not keep us safe. That she will be too easily swayed by the men around her. That she will not be able to accept campaign contributions without repaying that money in quid pro quo, because women are weak, puppets, devoid of ideas, fueled only by a single desire---the desire to please the men around them, meaning that we do not judge women on their own worth, we judge them by the worth of their men.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:54 PM (86 replies)
Here they are, our two pals Ren and Stimpy, demonstrating the two very different reactions at DU to Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's upcoming announcement that she will run for the office of POTUS. Oh boy! We are in for a fun primary! We all want a fun primary, don't we? It would not be a Democratic primary if it was not a food fight at a monster truck rally!
"I'll teach you to be happy. I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs."
Look, Sally, look! See Hillary run! Run, Hillary, Run!
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Apr 11, 2015, 04:42 PM (1 replies)
Why do we choke up when we see a stranger empathize with a gay couple denied service in a restaurant? Being kicked out of a Mexican eatery in Mississippi seems like such a first world problem. There are folks all over the world who are being murdered for their sexual orientation and the color of their skin and their religious beliefs. Why does this little--in the relative scheme of things---bit of discrimination evoke such a massive amount of emotion?
For all our rhetoric about the right to freedom and happiness, if you are born in the USA, you are expected to toe the line. This is true for men, who are told from an early age that big boys do not cry. And for girls, who are told that little ladies do not fight. Since sorrow and anger are two essential human emotions, we resist the social boundaries. We try to express our true feelings--our emotions of anger, sadness and love. And time after time, we get knocked down, slapped back, ostracized, criticized---until it seems that the only way we can survive is by wearing a mask.
And so, we enter adulthood hating the selves that we truly want to be. We enlist in the military and allow ourselves to be used as fodder for the latest war for oil, because being a soldier means that we are real men. We accept 78 cents on the dollar of what our male coworkers make and do not say a word or make a wave, we allow our children to grow up in poverty, because being a doormat means that we are ladies.
But secretly, we long to be ourselves---the true selves which society condemns. And so, when we see someone else, say a person of color or a gay couple or someone who is disabled or a member of a minority religion treated unfairly, cruelly, we react. We can not cry for our lost selves---we have absorbed society's criticism so completely that it now defines who were are. We have been incorporated into the machine, perfect little cogs and wheels which do not question their function. But in our hearts, we remember and know This is not who I am. I was forced to be this way. And so, when we see someone else who has the courage to stand up against those all too powerful social forces in the defense of someone else, a stranger, we say our quiet Thank yous. Because that person stood up for all of us.
All of us are Black. All of us are Gay. All of us are Women. All of us are Children. All of us are Disabled. All of us are Muslim. All of us are Different, squares pegs forced into round holes, our rough edge smoothed down, the wounds of our social indoctrination still raw no matter how old or successful we are.
Put your paws up, baby. You were born this way.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Mar 30, 2015, 02:20 PM (0 replies)
Sexism is alive and well in the U.S. today. Take my own profession, medicine. A male doctor who is not a complete dick is treated as something special. A female doctor who is not 100% Mary Poppins is a "bitch." Another way to say the same thing: patients will not tolerate a female physician who does not act motherly, but they often respect--and continue to consult--- a male physician who is curt, abrupt or even downright rude---like the one who started a visit by saying to me "I will ask the questions and you will answer the questions and you will not say anything else." Yeah, he was an asshole, everyone knew it. But a man like that can maintain a practice. His god-complex is a sign that he is good at his job.
On a related note, if the corporation is run by "good old boys" who thank the Lord each day that they were born men and not women, because being a man makes them "better", lower level staff will be tempted to scapegoat females, even females in positions of power--i.e. their bosses--- because they know that the Good Old Guy(s) at the top are so eager to discredit the female competition that they will readily believe that the woman executive caused the latest disaster--even if she had nothing to do with it. The female executives will be required to "prove" that they are loyal and up to the job---but the harder they try, the more threatened the men will become, and the more eager they will be to accept any criticism of their female colleagues. Hillary Clinton is a victim of this. We have all seen how often she is "accused" of doing the same things that male politicians do. She can only get a break when she is practically doing a Mother Theresa routine. Those who write and read the mainstream news know that their Good Old Boy bosses are scared to death of not being better than even a single woman, and so they level vicious attacks on her as a cheap, fast way to earn favor. Everyone wants to get ahead. If they can get ahead by blaming their mistakes on a woman---then "cherchez la femme".
Of course, anyone who has to label him or herself "better" than someone else in order to sleep at night is a bundle of neurosis and self doubt, and really should not be in a position of power. But it is these same scared little boys and girls who crave power--or rather the illusion of control---so that they can stop being frightened. And so they claw their way to the top of the dog pile. But no matter high they get, they never stop being afraid. And their fear paralyzes the organizations which they control, preventing them from enacting meaningful change in order to 1) increase profits 2) improve services and 3) build a lasting enterprise. They create a house of cards which looks flush on paper but really has no more substance than a soap bubble, and if they are lucky they cash out. And if they are unlucky, they go bankrupt--and find a woman to blame. All because 10,000 years ago, before the advent of agriculture, those who did not have wombs had to have a different mindset and different hormones in order to track and kill mammoths in order to feed those who did have wombs.
Of course, the third world has it twice or maybe even a hundred times as bad. There, women are treated as chattel, property. There, the poorest man knows that at least he isn't a woman. It helps him bear the indignity of his life. And if it all gets to be too much, he can use his woman as a punching bag and know that his culture will say "She had it coming. She gave him lip. She showed her ankles." You have to wonder, if all that rage against social injustice wasn't being channeled against women, maybe the victims of oppression would notice who the real enemy is. Maybe they would create a well organized, effective resistance, rather than houses of cards, like ISIS and Al Qaeda which temporarily boost their machismo, but in the end are just "sound and fury signifying nothing."
All this effort spent keeping women suppressed---excuse me, I meant to say safe--is a drain on our time and resources. Dwindling resources. Our overpopulated world can no longer afford sexism. There are no more mammoths. When we want to eat, we no longer have to hunt. We no longer have the option of hunting. We have to work together to create a social and economic structure capable of feeding and providing shelter for the billions who now live on our planet.
Isn't it time for the human race to grow up?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 28, 2015, 06:48 PM (35 replies)
1. Men ganging up to attack her. Her star began to rise in New Hampshire when Edwards and Obama did a dog pile on her during the debate. My mother, an Edwards supporter up until then, switched immediately to being a Clinton supporter after watching how well Clinton handled herself in the face of what she considered male bullying. Sorry to all the guys out there. I know you did not create our sexist, woman bashing world and I am sure that you are not personally guilty of sexism. However, you live in a world where women get paid 78 cents on the dollar, are accused of "asking for it" if they get raped at the age of 11 and where reproductive politics take a back seat to economic politics, even though lack of choice is why so many children (as in over half of them) live in poverty. Men---especially heterosexual men---have benefited from sexism all their lives whether they realize it or not. They attack women from a position of power--at least that is how it looks to women.
2. Her tears. Forget Muskie. That was a whole other gender. A woman's tears are her weapon. Society does not allow women to get angry--they label angry women "shrill", "hysterical". Society prefers that women cry to show their sorrow and their anger. Those were not "crocodile tears" in New Hampshire. Those were a woman's feelings. Those were all women's feelings. When Hillary cries over the plight of third world children forced into sex slavery or folks here at home who can not get necessary health care, she completely negates all the "war hawk" rhetoric. She does not have to actually mess up her makeup. It is enough for her to get a little choked up and misty eyed. Yes, I know the guys think that it is unfair that women use their tears. But remember, we make 78 cents on the dollar, do not have access to birth control, have fewer opportunities to become professional athletes, are tossed on the Hollywood rubbish heap when we turn 30, get passed over for promotion---- and are called psychotic if we get mad about it.
3. Denigrating motherhood. Every time someone says that being a mother is not an important job experience or that "women's and children's issues" are optional (and yes, it really was posted here at DU), they buy into the old myth that raising a family is not a vocation, it is a vacation. Those who claims that motherhood does not teach important life skills which can be useful in the White House--can you cite an example of a mother who was a bad president? No, you can't. Because we haven't had a woman president. Not yet.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:26 PM (3 replies)
...and that is why I love---and support---Mother Hillary.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:49 AM (8 replies)
Finally figured it out. This is America, the land of the rugged individual. When so many self styled liberal pundits join each other in lock-step to declare that they would rather poke out their eyeballs with flaming hot skewers than allow former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be our Democratic nominee, it can mean only thing---they love the woman. They are trying to bolster her middle of the road creds for the general. They know that she will be the nominee, and therefore they are playing Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch.
"Oh please, Mr. Democratic primary voter. Don't make me vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. I'd rather do anything than that. Yes, I would."
Brilliant strategy! Declare that she is a "war hawk"! That will reassure the independents who are worried about terrorists and who fear that a woman does not have the balls to keep them safe. Remind us that she attended Christian prayer breakfasts in Congress---last I heard, only about 80% of the American electorate consider themselves Christians. What else? Oh, yes. The Patriot Act. Because voting to give the telecoms immunity was such a thorn in the side of Obama during the 2008 general election. Yes, indeed, I can not remember how many soccer moms and NASCAR dads I heard questioning Obama's judgment on that one. While you are at it, blame her for the Iraq War. Since even the most historically challenged American recalls that Bush/Cheney and Powell are the ones who tricked us into war, this will make you look like a bunch of idiots with a grudge, negating the effect of any other barbs you may lob her way.
So, all you playful progressives, keep it up! Tell mainstream America over and over again how absolutely, disgustingly moderate you think Senator Clinton is. And while you are at it, repeatedly mumble "She's ok on women's and children's issues. I guess. For what that's worth." That way you won't have to worry that the nation's women---who tend to be a little left of middle---might take your ranting at face value. In fact, alienate as many women as you can. It will only solidify her base, which will rally around her as they perceive her being the target of yet another witch hunt. Yes, it means that many of you will suffer, condemned as sexist pigs for your increasingly shrill attacks on the woman. But hey, your personal reputation is a small price to pay in order to pave the way for Eight More Years!
Oh, and consider this. What if Clinton has decided to take a page from her husband's playbook? Bill Clinton chose to run with Al Gore rather than a VP from the North or West, because picking a running mate like himself made him seem more self assured in the eyes of voters. More comfortable in his own skin. So, if I were Bill Clinton, I would suggest that Hillary pick a strong woman to run with her. A woman like Elizabeth Warren. But I'd keep it quiet. That way when Clinton and Warren do their surprise team up at the convention, it will be one of those "Let's all come together" moments that Democrats love--like the one in 2008 when Obama chose Clinton to be on his team. I saw that one coming from a mile away, though many at the time called me crazy. "What? Obama embrace Clinton? That woman is the evil-anti Obama! It will never ever happen!"
Isn't politics fun! And don't you wish you were a fly on the wall when Clinton and Warren had their little talk? Who here really believes that if Clinton offered Warren the VP slot--and a shot as the highest office herself in eight years---Warren would "Just say no"? How does it feel knowing that Hillary Clinton has the power to do what you only wish that you could do---put Elizabeth Warren in the White House?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:25 AM (3 replies)
I'm gonna make this fast and easy, because folks don't have the attention span they used to. This will not be a twenty paragraph OP with links and pics. This will be a 20 item list.
1. Gas Is Going to be $2 a gallon this summer
2. Exxon's profits are dropping
3. If we invade Iran, oil prices will go back through the roof
4. Jeb Bush is in the pocket of Big Oil
5. Jeb Bush helped write the "Project for a New American Century" in the 1990s, which called for invading Iraq and Iran, "liberating" their oil.
6. Jeb Bush's Brother, W. used 9-11---which happened on his watch due to his ineptitude---as an excuse to invade Iraq.
7. Oil prices were through the roof under W.'s watch.
8. In 2005, W. wanted to invade Iran, too, but the Pentagon would not let him. Did not want war on three fronts.
9. Did I mention that oil prices are going to drop to $2 a gallon this summer? Yeah, I did. Twice. This is the third time. That is because cheap gas is what this is all about. Or rather, the oil industry's plan to raise the price of gas back to $4 a gallon.
10. The NeoCons and their puppets---NYT, WaPo, certain factions in Israel, the GOP---are now demanding that we invade Iran. They are currently trying to soften up the American public to accept the idea of another war for oil in the Middle East.
11. Jeb Bush's number one problem if he runs for president will be his brother and father's oil-hawkish tendencies---they both went to war in the Middle East---and the fact that Jeb also is a well documented hawk who advocated invading Iran for its oil back in the 1990s.
12. America wishes we had never gotten into Iraq. America is leery of getting into Iran.
13. Jeb Bush's best chance at being president is to trick Dems into nominating someone who is not well known, so that the GOP controlled MSM can shape the debate on that person's "character." You know, call him or her a "waffler" a "fake". This will put the Dem nominee on the defensive like McGovern in 1972, keeping him or her from focusing on Jeb's many weaknesses.
14. Jeb Bush will crash and burn if he has to run against someone who already has a well known persona that can not be morphed by the MSM. Or against someone who is too charismatic to be trashed.
15. The Dems must nominate someone who is absolutely charming in person that no one in the press will want to trash his or her character---like another Obama---or someone with so much history that the public already knows the person. Howard Dean, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton all fit the bill. In other words, we need either charisma or fame. Or both. Give me a nominee with charisma and/or fame and I will jump on the bandwagon. Give me someone who is unknown to the majority of independent Americans and that person had better have "I wanna drink a beer with him/her" potential.
16. So, if you want someone fresh and new, ask yourself "How many independents will want to drink a beer with my candidate?" If the answer is "Not too many, but he or she will do great things once in office!" you are backing the wrong candidate.
17. If Jeb "wins" or steals this election, we will be at war in Iran, our national debt with go through the roof again, you will be paying $4 a gallon for oil.
18. Since this is a free country (for at least two more years) you have a right to ignore number 17 and parrot the GOP whose current talking point for the Dem primary is that Clinton is a "war hawk". Go on. You know you want to say it. War hawk, war hawk, war hawk. Rand Paul called her that on Meet the Press last year. Rand Paul told the nation's Democrats that if they nominate Clinton, she will be perceived as too "hawkish" for independent America. I am sooo glad that Rand Paul has our party's best interests at heart. (Yeah, I am being sarcastic).
19. Anyone who rushes to defend Rand Paul and spit on Hillary Clinton in the replies to this thread is, by definition, a Republican. No, this point is not negotiable.
20. The "enemy" is not any Democrat. The enemy is Jeb Bush/the NeoCons/ and Big Oil.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:26 PM (13 replies)