Michael Tomasky's Blog, page 19
February 23, 2011
So this is the Tea Party's endgame. No government | Michael Tomasky
When Tea Party candidates were elected in a raft of seats across the United States in the midterm elections last November, we wondered what the fallout would be. Now we're finding out.
At the state level, most notably in Wisconsin but in other states too, conservative governors are using the financial crisis – created by Wall Street bankers and the deregulation-mad politicians who serve them – to give the bankers even more power, in effect, by trying to crush the strongest countervailing force against them in our political system – unions.
Continue reading...
America's most disappointing restaurants | Michael Tomasky
Something called thedailymeal.com has come out with a list of America's 101 best restaurants. I warn you before you click through that it's a slide show, which is a really sleazy way of hiking up the page view count if you ask me. Click on 10, 15 slides, sure, all right. But 101?
Anyway the French Laundry is #1, which it often is in these things. A good friend of mine had a terrible experience there, for what it's worth. Per Se in NYC is #2. I'm mildly curious about it, but it's $350 a head, which I could afford, once, if that kind of thing were a major priority for me, but it's not.
The highest-ranked one I've eaten at is Chez Panisse, in Berkeley (#7), where I've dined three times. Two were really good. Once I had a piece of tuna that was cooked beyond death. I understand that Alice Waters is a revolutionary genius, and she's done wonders for this country, but every kitchen can screw up now and again.
I fancied myself a serious foodie until about five years ago, when I just gave it up. Something about straining to get into hot restaurants just seems so predictable for someone of my demographic. I often found I was disappointed by these meals, about which such anticipation had grown.
I'm a good cook, if I may say so. I have a knack for being able to eat something and more or less mimicking it at home. I therefore tend most to like restaurants where I know for sure that I could not do that. Douglas Rodriguez is a chef whose work I could not approximate at home in any way shape or form. His Patria was probably my fave restaurant in NYC when I lived there.
And yet, when things get too fussy, I get grumpy. I don't like tasting menus. Went to Komi, which is beloved here in Washington, and where dinner involves about eight courses, many of which are tiny. Not for me. Takes too long. I get antsy. And I don't like the way the waiters bring you this little thing, you look down at it, it's one bite, and they describe it to you in these hushed reverential tones, as if they're presenting you the original of Shakespeare's first love letter to Anne Hathaway. Give me a break.
At the other end of the scale, I'm usually not wild for steakhouses. I can sear a steak and cream some spinach and bake a potato. Why need I pay (respectively) $37, $10 and $8 for them?
I also rate restaurants more than most people on comfort level. Once a group of us went to a high-end French restaurant in New York. We were crowded around a too-small table that wobbled. That's okay in a midprice bistro, but where I was spending $32 on a lamb chop (this was nearly 20 years ago, so that was really pricey)?
Generally, give me a comfortable chair, a modest noise level, a $9 salad and a $20 plate of mildly creative pasta and I'm in heaven. Or take me somewhere with food I've never had. My #1 dining experience in London was at that South Indian seafood restaurant in Charlotte St. You know the one. I loved Charlotte St.
Of course, throw in two glasses of decent pinot. Which is a whole other area: how high one is willing to go on the grape juice. Even at a fancy place, I tend to think anything more than about $65 for a bottle of wine is pushing it. That same friend who had the lousy meal at the French Laundry...he and I were dining out in Boston once, and he saw something on the wine list that he said one never, ever sees. I won't even tell you how much it was. I refused to split the cost with him on the grounds that I would never do such a thing. I think he quite generously bought it anyway and let me drink my share, if I recall correctly, which was a shame for him, because it was wasted on me. I could tell it was very good, but as I far as I knew it could have been a $40 bottle, not what it actually was. I've always felt bad that I wet blanketed his religious experience.
Hence the headline of this post. I generally find the best restaurants to be the most disappointing ones. And that's why I quit trying to be a foodie. I'm much happier for it, too.
On the subject of headlines: I do write these, usually though not always. And so the "uber alles" reference in last Friday's quiz, which some of you complained about, was my fault entirely. I didn't know it had been dropped from the anthem. Stupid me. Happy to learn it, and yes, in light of this revelation, that was certainly a cringe-worthy hed, and I offer apologies to those offended and to Germany.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Obama inches toward gay marriage | Michael Tomasky
This will develop into fairly big news, you can bet:
The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.
"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional," Holder said. "Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."
DOMA was the 1990s anti-gay marriage bill that Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed. Section 3 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. That's pretty straight (as it were) forward.
Maybe some of the legal eagles among you can parse this paragraph of Eric Holder's letter:
Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.
Will enforce the law but will no longer assert Section 3's constitutionality in court...What legal responses and stratagems does this invite in practice?
In any case, high time, high time. And I applaud Obama for not waiting until his second term to do this. Put it on the table. There are some things you just ought to do.
The tea-party House, of course, will go nuts and will pass a far harsher DOMA bill. And if the GOP nominee is Mike Huckabee or Michele Bachmann or "Lou Sarah," lookout!
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Obama nudges in favour of same-sex marriage | Michael Tomasky
The Obama administration finds part of the 1990s anti-gay marriage act unconstitutional. Wow
This will develop into fairly big news, you can bet:
The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.
"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional," Holder said. "Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."
DOMA was the 1990s anti-gay marriage bill that Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed. Section 3 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. That's pretty straight (as it were) forward.
Maybe some of the legal eagles among you can parse this paragraph of Eric Holder's letter:
Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.
Will enforce the law but will no longer assert Section 3's constitutionality in court...What legal responses and stratagems does this invite in practice?
In any case, high time, high time. And I applaud Obama for not waiting until his second term to do this. Put it on the table. There are some things you just ought to do.
The tea-party House, of course, will go nuts and will pass a far harsher DOMA bill. And if the GOP nominee is Mike Huckabee or Michele Bachmann or "Lou Sarah," lookout!
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Mayor Rahm Emanuel is going to have to act like a leader | Michael Tomasky
Big resounding victory for Rahm Emanuel in the Chicago mayor's race. He needed to hit 50% against several rivals in the nonpartisan primary to avoid a runoff, and he garnered 55%, with his closest competitor winning just 24%. He'll be sworn in in May.
He's wanted this job much of his adult life. Well, now he has it, along with the record $655 million municipal budget deficit that goes along with it. That's 10% of the entire budget, a massive number.
And the above figure doesn't include what is really the city's biggest problem, which is another $363 million that taxpayers would need to contribute every year for the next 50 years, according to the article I've linked to above, to cover pension costs for city employees. The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois have some of the worst pension problems in the US.
Emanuel ran a somewhat anti-union campaign. You can watch a TV spot his campaign made here in which he warns that city government is not an employment agency and that public employees (there are 35,000 on the city payroll) need to understand that they are public servants.
It's reckoned that that ad helped him overall. The public-employee unions largely endorsed someone else, of course, but the ad was seen as an effective pitch to taxpayers. Emanuel of course will not come down on unions in the way the governor of Wisconsin is trying to do, but he will need to ask for, and get, concessions.
I wish him luck because if he's successful he can show that there's a humane and sensible way to do this kind of thing, which I obviously don't deny needs doing. The main thing with Emanuel is personal. He's going to need a temperament adjustment. He's a mayor now. Of America's second biggest city. That makes him a leader, and he ought to behave like one. Dropping f-bombs on everybody who displeases him won't cut it. He ought to try to be a little more dignified. You know, like Richard Daley was with regard to Abe Ribicoff. That's a joke. The rest of it is serious though.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
February 22, 2011
Eight charts | Michael Tomasky
I implore you to take a look at this, from Mother Jones' web site, eight charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.
I think that sort of oversells it, and there are other things wrong with America not explained by this chart, like Ryan Seacrest for example. That said, it's worth thinking about these things as we cast our gaze toward Madison.
Just study the second chart, what I guess you'd call 2A and 2B since there are two of them, which really should be a billboard in every American town. 2A shows the pre-tax average household income in America since 1979. The top 1% has nearly quadrupled, from about $500,000 to roughly $1.8 million. The top 20% has about doubled, to maybe (it's hard to tell because it's not marked well) about $180,000. The third, fourth and bottom 20%'s, where all those teachers and custodians marching in Madison are: flat. That's flat for 30 years, people.
And yet the top 1% nearly quadrupled. And I would reckon, based on other economic research I've seen, that the doubling in the top 20% really happened mostly because of vast growth in the top 5% or so.
Then, 2B shows after-tax change in share of total income. The top 1% gained here by 130%. The top 20% gained by about 25%. The bottom three groups lost share of total income, with the lowest 20% - those custodians who sweep the floors at the University of Wisconsin - having lost the most.
This is just obscene. There is no other word for it. This is not democracy and it's not civil society. It's a sick joke. I have my issues with public-employee unions. But really, what these charts demonstrate is legalized theft from the middle class and the poor.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Not Superwoman | Michael Tomasky
You Brits will likely not have heard of Michelle Rhee, who is a figure of much contention in the US. She's the former schools chancellor of the capital city, Washington DC, much limned and lauded in the US media for this and that and the other, but mostly for the tough line she's taken with teachers' unions.
She is the subject of a fawning new biography, The Bee Eater, said name deriving from the fact that she once swatted dead a bee that was buzzing around in her classroom (back when she was a mere teacher) and promptly picked it up and ate it, an act that has augmented her no-nonsense, dragon-slaying aura.
Well, writes Richard Kahlenberg in Slate reviewing the book, that's a load of hooey. Her reputation is overblown:
Michelle Rhee undoubtedly made some important improvements to D.C. public schools. Under her regime, kids got textbooks on time. Rhee made more efficient use of space by closing underutilized schools. But she didn't revolutionize education in DC. Some schools improved, but even Whitmire concedes that one of her signature "success" stories (improvement at Dunbar High School) subsequently unraveled. Overall, D.C. scores improved on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, but at no faster rate than under Rhee's two immediate predecessors.
Why all the hype? Lots of reasons, but for one thing, the press doesn't like the teachers' unions. Rhee fired lots of teachers. The knee-jerk assumption of most of the press: you go girl, they must be lazy, corrupt or stupid. Kahlenberg:
2009, Rhee said she had to fire 266 teachers for budget reasons and told an interviewer, "I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had had sex with children, who had missed seventy-eight days of school." In fact, she later conceded, only 10 teachers had been fired for corporal punishment and two for sexual misconduct since 2007. Just recently, an arbitrator reinstated 75 educators fired by Rhee in 2008 after determining that Rhee had not explained why they were being terminated nor given them a chance to respond to charges.
For another thing, Rhee talked up a line that journalists usually find irresistible - that things like poverty and pre-school children not being read to at home were mere trifles that could be overcome by heroic teachers. But Kahlenberg wonders:
If the ability to fire bad teachers and pay great teachers more were the key missing ingredient in education reform, why haven't charter schools, 88% of which are nonunionized and have that flexibility, lit the education world on fire? Why did the nation's most comprehensive study of charter schools, conducted by Stanford University researchers and sponsored by pro-charter foundations, conclude that charters outperformed regular public schools only 17 percent of the time, and actually did significantly worse 37 percent of the time? Why don't Southern states, which have weak teachers' unions, or none at all, outperform other parts of the country?
Good questions. Finally, he gets to, in just one sentence, what I think is the main reason Rhee got such great press in recent years:
The fact that Rhee is a hard-working Ivy League graduate makes the elite press respect her as one of their own.
That's it, in a nutshell. She's one of them. Or us, whatever, although I didn't get within a light year of the Ivy League when I was young, as you know. But this is the story. I've met Rhee, once. She presents well. She dresses well. She seems, and I suppose is, refined. You could imagine meeting her at a cocktail party and discussing the latest issue of The New Yorker with her, or Jonathan Franzen, or whether it'll be The Social Network or The King's Speech.
Union officials? Please. They were plaid shirts, polyester ties, thick glasses. They went to SUNY New Paltz, or small and obscure Catholic schools. There was a time when these descriptors applied to journalists, too, and I guess they still do regionally, but not in the elite press. Hence, the identification has been almost entirely with Rhee.
So now, she's lately thrown in whole hog with the right wing, advising tea party governors like Rick Scott of Florida, and undoubtedly cheering lustily for the jackboot to land on the throats of the teachers of Wisconsin. It's ironic, since it was post-blue-collar liberal journalists who by and large enabled her and made her a star.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Wisconsin: the first polls | Michael Tomasky
These are the first polls I've seen on the Wisconsin business, and guess what? Trouble for Mr. Governor.
This is from WeAskAmerica, which TPM says is a GOP-friendly outfit, and is an automated poll. The firm asked two questions: basically, which side are you on, the governor's or the unions', and should the Democratic legislators report back to Madison.
On the second one, of course a majority said yes, by 56-36%. But on the first question, 43% approved of Gov. Scott Walker's plan against collective bargaining, and 51% disapproved. Interestingly, even non-union households were evenly split at 48-46% (within the margin of error).
The second poll was, admittedly, conducted for the AFL-CIO, but it was by GQR, which means Stan Greenberg, one of the best pollsters in the business with a stellar reputation. He finds:
Sixty-two percent of respondents to the poll said they view public employees favorably, while just 11% said they had an unfavorable view of the workers whose benefits packages Walker says are breaking the state budget.
Meanwhile, just 39% of respondents had a favorable view of Walker, while 49% had an unfavorable view of the freshman Republican governor. Voters are split on his job performance, with 51% saying they disapprove of the job Walker has done.
"Since the protests began, Governor Walker has seen real erosion in his standing," the GQR pollsters write in their analysis, "with a majority expressing disapproval of his job performance and disagreement with his agenda."
This surprises me a bit, and pleasantly so of course, but it goes to show one way in which inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom is more conservative than regular people are. Most people just don't hate schoolteachers, and aren't going to be worked up into a frenzy against them, and don't think them greedy either.
Now, the poll number about the Democrats in exile is more problematic from the union point of view. The day they come back, the state senate votes, and it passes the bill. Unless these moderate Republicans can work a bill that imposes the financial cuts but not the bargaining limitations (at least not for all time).
In other words, Walker is still positioned to win this. The best leverage the unions have is keeping the protests going and applying all the pressure they can in the districts of the GOP moderates.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The US and Bahrain | Michael Tomasky
We are all concerned about the events in Libya of course, but from an American geopolitical perspective, it's less pressing than the Egypt situation was (and remains) for the simple reason that Libya was and is not a US client state. So there's less urgency for America to declare itself. And anyway there's no tension: obviously, the US isn't going to be propping up Gaddafy. Although it is a bit mordantly amusing to think back to 2006 or so when the neocons were telling us, now Gaddafy, there's a fellow who's come to his senses, a man with whom we can do business.
The tougher nut for the US among the current flare ups is Bahrain. I'm no expert, but I've been doing a bit of reading. When the regime (members of the Sunni minority, who've ruled the island for 200 years) was shooting at the mostly Shiite protesters in the capital of Manama, one can be sure that small-d democrats across the region took note of US inaction. The US has had a naval base there since 1947, and lots of oil is shipped through those waters.
It now appears that the Obama administration's interventions had something (how much, I'm not clear) to do with the regime's standing down on the violence front. But after that, how far can and should the US go? The catch here is the suspicion that the Shia majority, or some portion of it, has ties to Iran. One Wikileaks cable showed that the king, Hamad bin isa al-Khalifa, told David Petraeus that he thought (but could not prove) that some opposition figures had been in Lebanon, training with Hezbollah.
Here is the 2010 Freedom House country report on Bahrain. The country's freedom status was lowered from partly free to not free. Here is another excellent rundown of the country's political "societies" (not parties, because while parties were officially un-banned a few years ago, change happens slowly).
There's an interesting piece in today's New York Times about Bahrain by Michael Slackman, who reports that US officials are loathe to engage with the Shia population. The "Todd" in the story below is Gwyneth Todd, a former political adviser to the US Navy in Bahrain who was fired in 2007 for "unauthorized contact with foreign nationals," "financial irresponsibility" and "disclosure of classified information." But she has her defenders, too. Anyway the story is this:
As an example of the policies that concerned Ms. Todd, she described one case in which the Navy asked her to organize a gift drive for the children of the poorest Shiite families. She called it a "Giving Tree."
"I went out with the chaplain and we committed to provide whatever each child asked for," she said in an e-mail. "I received a list of about 400 requests, some for gadgets, many for bicycles and toys, and some for bookcases, tables and desks. I committed to meet the requests on behalf of the Navy."
But she said that she was ordered to cancel the promise by a commanding officer who thought it would upset the leadership. "I could not bring myself to do it," she said. "I worried about the implications for Shia attitudes towards the Navy and feared it could lead to hatred and endanger our people. So I spent over $30,000 of my own money to fund the whole thing myself, in the name of the Navy. Big Brother was not happy, but the Shia never knew the story."
Her account was confirmed by the present government adviser.
This is awfully complicated. And this is a small little country with about 1 million people, where there's basically little to no poverty (per capita income $38,000). I think it goes to show that anyone sitting around hoping that suddenly in a year's time we're going to have four or five new democracies in the Middle East is kidding him/herself. If Egypt becomes democratic, the impact could be profound. But this whole process is going to take a while.
And that creates potential tension for the Obama administration, because presidents tend to want dramatic good things to happen while they're in office so they get the credit. It's like the old US political joke about no governor ever funding a highway project scheduled to take 10 years because he probably wouldn't be around to cut the ribbon. Here's hoping Obama and Hillary are able to take the longer view.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
February 21, 2011
Those Wisconsin unions | Michael Tomasky
Today is a holiday here in the states, Presidents' Day, so I'm basically taking the day off and reading the diaries of the underappreciated Franklin Pierce. But I thought that I should check in quickly on the continuing Wisconsin situation.
If you saw Krugman today, you saw the liberal case laid out:
In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.
But Mr. Walker isn't interested in making a deal. Partly that's because he doesn't want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers' ability to bargain.
The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state's workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers — namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning — are exempted from the ban; it's as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.
Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state's budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there's not much room for further pay squeezes.
So it's not about the budget; it's about the power.
I always find it a little frustrating when someone writes a column like that and doesn't include any numbers so the reader can varify, so I went looking for some.
According to the economist Menzie David Chinn at the University of Wisconsin, yes, state and local employees in the state are somewhat undercompensated compared to their private-sector counterparts. First of all, here's a chart, which reflects national averages not Wisconsin ones but is interesting anyway, comparing public- and private-sector workers' wages (I assume whoever made this chart means wages specifically, which refers to money compensation only and not benefits). It shows that at every level of education except "less than high school," private-sector employees out-earn public-sector ones. The difference gets more stark as you go up the education ladder, as you might expect.
However, the "all" category on this chart shows that the sectors are almost exactly even on wages, which is explained I suppose by the large number of less-than-high-school educated people who are in public-sector unions. Another chart compares total compensation, including benefits, and the story is basically the same.
Now to Wisconsin itself. Chinn does a regression analysis finding, he says, that public-sector workers are less-well compensated than private counterparts to the tune of 4.8%. Presumably, given the above, the workers with college degrees are in the 8 or even 10% range, higher in some cases. That's not chopped liver. So they make less money.
But the benefits issue is the public-sector unions' Achilles heel. Politifact, which I trusted when it exposed Sarah Palin's absurd lies (aha! So I worked in a mention) so I might as well also trust today, looked into Governor Scott Walker's claim that "most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums and it would still be half the national average." It found the claim to be true. You can read all the facts in the preceding link, but basically, private-sector employees pay 25-30% of the cost of their healthcare premiums in the US, and Wisconsin public employees generally pay just 6%.
The understanding has long been that public-sector employees make less, so they should have better benefits. There's some logic to that. But it seems that the wage differential against them isn't as great as the benefits differential working for them.
Krugman alludes to Wisconsin union leaders saying they were willing to make concessions. I know not what of he speaks, but it makes political and moral sense to me for the state's union leaders to say okay, our people will contribute more to their healthcare packages and put a non-fake number on the table. That would give them the place of prominence on the moral high ground.
And it would expose Walker's one-sidedness for what it is. If he were trying to bargain an outcome in good faith, that would be one thing. But he's not. He's decreasing the state's take from corporations by nearly 30% and not asking sacrifice of anyone at the top of the pyramid while bullying the people who mop the floors in the university's buildings. Put me down on the side of the floor moppers. If public-sector unions are busted in the US, combined with the Citizens United decision, corporate influence on our politics would double, triple, who knows.
But I have to say that I can see why a $38,000-a-year private-sector worker with two kids who's paying 30% toward their healthcare coverage would be a upset at the deal the public-sector workers have. Democrats and liberals should fix this imbalance before those on the right "fix it" for them.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Michael Tomasky's Blog
- Michael Tomasky's profile
- 11 followers
