Because at this point, if Republicans are bending over backwards to please a militant, wild-eyed subspecies of ultra-conservatives, maybe we should just acknowledge who's actually in control of the Republican party (it's the militant, wide-eyed subspecies of ultra-conservatives). Oregon's only Republican representative apparently laid it all out at a fancy-pants lunch for rich people in September:
On a Monday last month, Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, met with some top GOP donors for lunch at Le Cirque on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. The donors, a youngish collection of financial industry types and lawyers, had some questions for Walden, a mild-mannered lawmaker from eastern Oregon known for speaking his mind.
Why, they asked, did the GOP seem so in the thrall of its most extremist wing? The donors, banker types who occupy the upper reaches of Wall Street’s towers, couldn’t understand why the Republican Party—their party—seemed close to threatening the nation with a government shutdown, never mind a default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised later this month.
“Listen,” Walden said, according to several people present. “We have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.” (Via.)
Much has been made about how ineptly John Boehner's been handling all this, but it's worth remembering that despite the fact Republicans are responsible for this stunt, and will continue to bear responsibility the longer it goes (and the longer that their dreaded Obamacare keeps on rolling out), this is a party that isn't nearly as monolithic as its voting would imply. Let's take a quick flashback to the time just before the shutdown happened, when a few centrist Republicans tried to wave this thing off, Nic Cage-in-The Rock style:
As Monday afternoon slipped into evening, Boehner showed no sign of letting up. He turned aside a centrist effort by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) to block amendments to the Senate bill from coming to the House floor.
King earlier in the day had said that as of Saturday night, between 20 and 25 Republicans were prepared to buck any new attempts to hold up the spending bill with extraneous measures. But when the vote came to the floor, just six Republicans defected, and four of them were conservatives who felt Boehner was compromising too much.
“I don’t want to continue to be a facilitator for both a disastrous process and plan,” he told reporters, summarizing his remarks to his colleagues in a private meeting Monday afternoon. He said he told members that “there are too many who are living in their own echo chamber.”
King joked that after he was done speaking, Republicans responded with “overwhelming silence.”
After the vote, King said Boehner had personally asked wavering members to back him. The Speaker’s message, he said, was: “Trust him. It will work out.” (Via.)
And work out it has!
I'd like to say that the long the shutdown goes—and the longer that Republicans try to figure out some way to save face—the better the chances are that these guys will get voted out when they're up for reelection. That assumes two things: (1) That American voters' memories are that long (they usually aren't), and (2) That centrist Republicans won't have a moment of clarity in which they realize they have to do something to curb the influence of the Tea Party if they want it to continue functioning. A while ago, I would have said (2) was out of the question, but all the heat Republicans are getting (and will continue to get) for the shutdown, it might not be.
“This is a democracy, and in a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can’t win their fights through elections, can’t win their fights in Congress, can’t win their fights for the presidency, and can’t win their fights in the courts. For this right-wing minority, hostage-taking is all they have left — a last gasp of those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy.” —Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaking on the Senate floor, Sept 30.
What she said. Watch her entire speech here.
Today marks the 55th birthday of NASA—a pioneering, inspiring organization that was once America's proudest symbol of our nation's ingenuity, imagination, knowledge, and determination.
Today's also the day that 97 percent of NASA's employees have been furloughed. INCLUDING THE ONES WHO KEEP TRACK OF HORRIFYING, EARTH-DESTROYING ASTEROIDS. Remember Deep Impact? No, of course not. Um, remember Armageddon? Yeah! Thanks to the government shutdown, shit's about to get like that.
Okay, maybe not that bad. But bad. Well, except for members of Congress. They'll be cool.
Furloughed government employees will qualify for unemployment benefits, but otherwise they’ll be on their own. Meanwhile, the people actually responsible for the shutdown—members of Congress—will continue to draw their $174,000 annual salary. (Via.)
MSNBC keeps coming with the hits. Read the whole piece, but here's the part that should stab you right in your bleeding heart:
Federal employees have already had their pay frozen for the past three years. In addition, many of them have been furloughed without pay or received a salary cut as their employers have struggled to adjust to across-the-board sequestration cuts. (Via.)
Oof. Okay. So how did this shit happen?
The short version is that Republicans hate Obamacare—which, just so we're clear, was passed years ago—sooooo much that they were willing to shut down the government just to make sure everybody knows how much they hate it. (Sooooo much.) The New York Times has a graph showing the federal workers who're paying for this stunt, while ThinkProgress looks at the economic effects, both long- and short-term, that will result. (Props to the Times for pointing out that Americans stuck on the International Space Station have to report for work today. Hey, here's something fun: Look how many Americans are currently on the ISS!)
While Speaker of the House John Boehner is straight-up lying about what happened, NPR is asking who the two Republicans were who crossed party lines. Nice work on having some common sense, Peter King of New York and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania! (It should be noted that there were also four Republicans who voted against the shutdown because they apparently felt it wasn't unreasonable enough, because holy shit the House is a fucking joke. Nice to see you again, Michele Bachmann! Thanks for sticking around and continue to flail furiously!)
Okay, so this turned into less of a post about what the shutdown will mean for you, and more of "a bunch of links you can read if you want to see how and why America is so phenomenally, distressingly broken." Sorry! Let's get back to how this matters for YOU, at least if you're uninsured: All this fucking bullshit? All this shutting down, all this stubborn posturing, all these deadly asteroids that now we don't even know about? None of those things stopped the fact that Obamacare is up and running.
The whole reason this shutdown exists is a health care system that isn't great, but is better than the system we've had for a while. And yet: There's a danger that young Americans—the very group that Obamacare should help, the very group that helped elect Obama in the first place—might fuck it all up by not enrolling in high enough numbers.
Which would be awful. You might be young and healthy now; an hour from now, you also might get hit by
a truck an asteroid. Shit inevitably happens, even to young people. There's a personal responsibility inherent in having insurance (take care of yourself, please, so the rest of us don't have to pay for your broke ass when you get sick), but part of the reason Republicans hate Obamacare so much is because by its very nature, it embraces a larger, social responsibility. Health care for everybody only works when everybody goes along with it. Yes, Washington is fucked, and yes, Obamacare is a pale, sad shadow of health care systems that other, smarter, less tantrum-prone countries have had for decades. But it's what we've got, and it's been ridiculously hard-won. If all this bureaucratic bullshit has a silver lining, the fact that Obamacare is up and running is it.
Here you go. Don't fuck it up.
We mostly know Newark Mayor Cory Booker, around these parts, as the rare big-city boss more popular on Twitter than Sam Adams ever was—and also for racing into burning buildings and rescuing pets. But back across the country, Booker is better known as a candidate for US Senate—which means he's finally getting some nasty headlines instead of the fawning reports that have been more typical of his time in politics.
But he still can't get away from Portland.
Buzzfeed just reported on his Twitter friendship with a stripper from our fair city, Lynsie Lee from vegan paradise Casa Diablo. They met while appearing in a movie about Twitter—shocking!—and it seems they've grown close enough to share direct messages. So she posted some of them. And now Buzzfeed's decided to post them, too. Along with several pictures of her boobs.
And now the story is feeding an even uglier one about Booker, a very popular Democrat: Hand-wringing that he's secretly gay, as if that were somehow terrible. Republicans have already accused him of leaking the relationship to shore up his manly credentials.
Don't get your underwear all bunched, though. The messages are boring. Buzzfeed is reaching. Unless she's sitting on some Anthony Weiner-grade beef she hasn't shared. And so what if she is? Booker's single. And, y'know, strippers are people, too.
John McCain, according to the Huffington Post, was especially not amused by one of Cruz's crazier moments:
"If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany," Cruz said. "Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, 'Accept the Nazis. Yes, they'll dominate the continent of Europe but that's not our problem. Let's appease them. Why? Because it can't be done. We can't possibly stand against them.'"
"I resoundingly reject that allegation," McCain said. "That allegation, in my view, does a great disservice. A great disservice to those brave Americans and those who stood up and said, 'what's happening in Europe cannot stand.'"
The Huffington Post also quotes McCain as saying that the fight on Obamacare was over, that Republicans "fought [Obamacare] as hard as we could in a fair and honest manner and we lost."
Given the Obama administration's unprecedented persecution of whistleblowers, it isn't surprising that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden—AKA the guy who committed "espionage" by letting us know how deeply the NSA's wormed into our lives—is now having to dress up to avoid detection in Russia. While it doesn't sound like Snowden's having to go as far as, say, Mrs. Doubtfire, Adi Robertson at The Verge points us toward some more info:
In an interview with Russian magazine Itogi and with RT television—translated in part by AFP—Snowden's lawyer and de facto spokesperson Anatoly Kucherena says fear for his safety has led Snowden to leave home only in disguise. "He would walk past you and you wouldn't recognize him," says Kucherena. "It's a question of clothes and small alterations to his appearance ... He really does walk freely around on the streets."
Kucherena goes on to note that Snowden's life is isolated, that he fears a visit from his parents due to suspicions that the US would track them, and that he's running out of money because he's having to pay for bodyguards in addition to living expenses. (Hell, if a country trying to track me down actually had to publicly cross-its-heart-and-hope-to-die that it wasn't going to kill or torture me, there probably wouldn't be much—not bodyguards, not a dead man's switch—that would keep me from feeling like every morning I might get a wake-up call from a drone.)
The thing that's most interesting about this, though, is the same thing that's interesting about every incremental bit of news about Snowden: it's a simple reminder that holy shit, Edward Snowden is hiding out. Literally hiding out! Right this very second! Possibly dressed as Mrs. Doubtfire!
Just as people stopped talking about Chelsea Manning, Snowden seems to be fading from the public discourse. Which means that Snowden's forced asylum is (1) A thing Americans totally know about, and (2) a thing Americans are, apparently, totally okay with. Snowden released information that should've been public in the first place, and his reward for doing so is fleeing to Russia, altering his appearance whenever he goes on a Stoli run, and only talking to his parents through his lawyer. When did we decide that this was okay? That this is just what happens to Americans when they speak out?
This is the guy that the rightwingers I follow on Twitter are so excited about? This is the guy they want to run for president in 2016? This smarmy, lying, weaselly, pasty-faced prick?
The hard-right conservatives in the House of Representatives want to defund Obamacare, and House Speaker John Boehner has decided to let them try—even though he knows their measure can't pass the Senate, and even though he knows that taking their measure seriously in the House could lead to a government shutdown and more.
In March, the speaker himself said: “Do you want to risk the full faith and credit of the U.S. government over Obamacare? That’s a very tough argument to make.”
On Wednesday, the speaker announced his choice.
“The law’s a train wreck,” he said. “It’s time to protect American families from this unworkable law.”
According to Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the strategy is simple: don't think too hard about the consequences. “Even the best coaches in the N.F.L. only script out the first two series of plays,” he told the New York Times. “They don’t script the whole game. We’ve got to play the game. We’ve got to see how it all shakes out.”
The current Congressional approval rating: 18.5 percent.
Following a months-long organizing effort, temporary food workers at the Oregon Zoo have voted to join a union.
Earlier today, the Oregon Employment Relations Board released the results of the zoo workers’ union election. The vote in the mail-in election went like this: 61 in favor of representation, with 4 against.
This means the zoo's temporary kitchen and service workers and caterers could soon be part of Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 483, which has been organizing behind the scenes at the zoo since earlier this year. Metro, which operates the zoo, has until September 23 to file any objections to the vote. However, if Metro’s stance over the last couple of months is any measure, it should be smooth sailing for the union.
Back in July when Local 483 first filed with the state for union representation, organizers told the Mercury that they expected opposition from Metro—replete with bureaucratic entanglements and foot-dragging. They were wrong.
“The bureaucratic obstacles we outlined did not happen,” says Local 483 representative Megan Hise. “We’re pleasantly surprised, and right now we’re feeling pretty good.”
Hise has reason to feel good. The added zoo temps are expected to grow her union’s Metro membership from 207 employees to about 350 employees. And, Hise says, she doesn’t expect Metro to file an objection. That’s largely because zoo workers have been pleading their case with Metro since the middle of summer. And it looks like Metro has listened.
In July, zoo temps argued for a union in front of Metro’s seven-person elected council. Local 483 reps have also met privately with a handful of councilors and Metro’s human resources department, according to Hise.
The case the workers pleaded was a litany of complaints against the zoo, including that employees’ wages were frozen and the zoo didn’t offer them paid sick leave. As we reported, part-time Metro workers don’t qualify for protection under Portland’s sick leave ordinance. Which, as some zoo employees told us, meant they work sick even while handling zoo goers’ food.
Still, Local 483’s final voter turnout wasn’t as strong as union members might have hoped for.
Jeff Wagner is running for the office of mayor of Minneapolis. Why is he the most qualified? HERE'S WHY:
1) He lives beneath a lake, and only comes out to remind us that the media and big money control elections, and to get a refill of his coffee cup.
2) I thought I had a few more reasons... but yeah. That just about covers it!
Mermaids and Mermen of Minneapolis! Vote Jeff Wagner!
Haha, no! Of course not, you ignorant rube! I mean, there was an option for Wal-Mart to start paying its Washington, DC employees reasonably—and if that DC plan had passed, it likely would've encouraged other parts of the country make their Wal-Marts start paying those employees reasonably, too. But it isn't going to happen. Because it wasn't ever going to happen. Because Wal-Mart threw a hissy fit at the idea of pulling their own weight, as corporations are wont to do. Take it away, Washington Post!
District Mayor Vincent C. Gray vetoed legislation Thursday that would force the city’s largest retailers to pay a super-minimum wage to their workers, ending two months of uncertainty over the controversial bill’s fate and setting up a decisive override vote at the D.C. Council as early as Tuesday.
The debate over the bill, the Large Retailer Accountability Act, has polarized local leaders while garnering national attention and putting focus on the low wages many retail chains pay their workers. (Via.)
The bill was a pretty good one! Sensible, even! It only applied to businesses that can afford to pay their workers more, it gave leeway for unions to negotiate lower wages, and it gave everybody plenty of time to get used to the mind-blowing idea of employees earning a living wage.
The bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating District stores of at least 75,000 square feet to pay their employees a “living wage”—no less than $12.50 an hour in combined wages and benefits. The proposal includes an exception for employers who collectively bargain with their employees, and existing employers have four years to come into compliance under the law.
The city’s existing minimum wage is $8.25 an hour. The bill would raise the annual earnings of a full-time employee making the lowest legally permissible wage from about $17,000 to $26,000. (Via.)
With Wal-Mart threatening that if the bill passed they wouldn't open any of their six planned stores for the DC area, Gray got to vetoin'. That's a short-sighted, moderately insane decision, but hardly a surprising one, given that policy makers seem happy to bend over backwards for Wal-Mart—even when the political and practical benefits of doing so are limited to short-term growth of low-paying jobs. (Once the things are built, it's up to taxpayers to subsidize the business, with (PDF) "public benefit programs [making] up the difference between Wal-Mart's low wages and the costs of subsistence.")
The votes were counted last night, and:
Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a package of state gun laws were voted out of office on Tuesday in special elections seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions after mass shootings at a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.
Cost to the National Rifle Association to make this happen: $362,000.
We give the Portland Business Alliance a fair amount of guff—usually over homelessness and sidewalk issues. Ahem. But here's something we both agree on wholeheartedly: giving everyone in Oregon—no matter their sexual orientation—a chance to legally marry the person they love.
The PBA's board of directors voted this afternoon to endorse Basic Rights Oregon's push for a ballot measure next year that would undo the constitutional dirty work of 2004's Measure 36—which bans marriage equality in Oregon.
PBA members hold a lot of juice in Oregon politics—and presumably this means they'll give big and help the marriage rights campaign gather enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, and then keep giving big to make sure, when it does qualify for the ballot, that it passes overwhelmingly.
Kudos, PBA. Kudos.
The Portland Business Alliance board of directors today announced its support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Oregon, and said it would support a business community-led effort on behalf of marriage equity.
The Alliance board voted to support amending the Oregon Constitution to end the current prohibition against same-sex marriage, while still clearly protecting the rights of religious institutions to choose whom they will or will not marry.
“The Alliance strives to make the region a great place to start and grow a business, as well as a place where employees can thrive in an inclusive environment. To accomplish that end, we need fair and equitable laws that treat all Oregonians equally,” said Gregg Kantor, chair of the Portland Business Alliance board of directors and CEO of NW Natural. “For these reasons, the Alliance will support a business community-led effort on behalf of marriage equity.”
The organization has a long history of supporting inclusion and equity. In 2007, the Alliance endorsed legislation legalizing civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. And in the 1990s, the organization opposed measures that would have limited the rights of the state’s gay and lesbian residents.
Alliance board endorsements include a vote by the full board and two-thirds of the board members present must agree before an endorsement is made.
I don't really care who gets the credit, or how it came about, but if Syria manages to avoid a US military strike by agreeing to hand over its chemical weapons to international control, can't we all agree that this is a good thing?
I mean, that would actually accomplish something positive, right? Prevent future use of these weapons. Whereas the type of strike we are contemplating—maybe a dozen or so cruise missiles—was never intended to be anything more than a symbolic gesture (that is, if you consider killing people to be mere symbolism).
And, everybody gets to claim victory! The Russians get to crow over a big diplomatic win, while the Obama administration gets to claim that it was only the threat of military intervention that forced the Syrian concession. And oh yeah. The Syrian people. The get neither blown up by us, nor gassed by their own government. Yay!
I suppose if your sole objective is retribution, then bummer. But otherwise, it looks like a great deal.
President Obama, speaking to NBC:
If you ask Michelle, "Do we want to be involved in another war?", the answer is "No."
Although maybe there is now a way out.
Business Insider brought my attention to this NPR interview with a man who lost 11 family members in Syria's recent chemical weapon strikes. Almost nothing is made plain in the interview. The man's family doesn't know whether the attacks were delivered by Assad's forces or rebels. He doesn't believe the US should strike Syria, but he does think "America should stand in the middle and stop the fighting" somehow. The only thing that is clear in the interview is the fact that people die whether the weapons used are chemical or conventional.
My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real. I want it to be serious. I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do. It’s prohibited in active wars between countries. We certainly don’t do it against kids. And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.
Sullivan remains unconvinced, and so does Congress.
So said the editors of N + 1 back in 2011. To which Isaac Chotiner of The New Republic, amid the background of the Syria debate, now replies: "N + 1 is wrong. There have been successful humanitarian interventions."
The ensuing Twitter discussion is worth a look. And the whole thing seems worthy of a Blogtown ruling:
The approved resolution would limit strikes against the Syrian government to 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days upon consultation with Congress, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops...
It also reiterated that “it is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria,” urging “a comprehensive U.S. strategy” to not only degrade the government’s weapons of mass destruction but also to improve the fighting abilities of “elements of the Syrian opposition.”
There remains the question of whether this language will pass the full Senate, as well as the question of whether anything at all will pass the full House. But for now, the question is whether it passes Blogtown:
The Anthony Weiner campaign continues its march to "victory" with an angry argument in a deli between Anthony Weiner and some guy who is very upset over Weiner's "deviant behavior."
"There's more aggression and it's becoming more dangerous on the streets," Andrei tells me. "Many gay people have changed how they dress, they've removed earrings, changed their hairstyles, to avoid having problems. Even back in the USSR, where homosexuality was a criminal offence, gays were treated better than they are now in Russia. Ordinary people see us as criminals. They hate us."
There is evidence of that attitude in a series of shocking videos posted online by a Russian vigilante group. In one, a man is being forced to drink urine to "cure him" of being a homosexual. Then a metal bucket is placed over the man's head and hit with what looks like a baseball bat and a police truncheon. Attacks like this, filmed and posted online, are being carried out across Russia by an ultra-nationalist group. It claims its objective is to name, shame and punish suspected paedophiles. But from the tone of the videos the encounters come across as homophobic attacks. In another online clip, a woman armed with a gun and dressed in camouflage jokes that she's "out on safari" hunting for paedophiles and gays. She starts shooting towards an imaginary "rainbow target." The woman's name is Yekaterina. We track her down in St Petersburg, where she heads the local branch of the vigilante group "Occupy Paedophilia."
"Our priority is uncovering cases of paedophilia," Yekaterina explains to me. "But we're also against the promotion of homosexuality. And if along the way we encounter people of non-traditional sexual orientation, we can kill two birds with one stone."
In Russia gay-rights activists believe such aggression is a direct result of the controversial new law signed by President Vladimir Putin. The legislation bans the spread of information about "untraditional sexual relations" to anyone under 18. It portrays homosexuality as a danger to children and the family. "The law itself is not a danger in terms of its application. But it's a great danger in terms of what kind of opinions it shapes," believes Anastasiya Smirnova of the human rights group Russian LGBT Network. "It entitles people to mob rule, to organised violence against those they perceive to be dangerous to society, to families and to children. People take over the role of the authorities to react against what they think is a violation."
The Guardian reports that various, independent anti-gay vigilante groups are coalescing into a national movement. Most of the people being kidnapped and assaulted—and outed—are teenagers.
Says one of the authors of Russia's anti-gay laws:
"Why should we respect all your traditions and you not respect ours?" asks St Petersburg MP Vitaly Milonov, one of the architects of the legislation. "Aggressive pushiness to accept your values is unfair. We don't tell the Queen of England not to sign a law on same-sex marriages in your country. We have no right to do that, because we respect your independence. Why do you not accept ours?"
This is the exact same argument made by the apartheid-era government of South Africa: How we treat "our" blacks is our own business, we don't tell you how to treat your minorities, we respect your independence and you should respect ours, these are our traditions. The world rejected those arguments and fought back against the South African government with boycotts, protests, sanctions, and divestment campaigns. And it worked.
British Parliament voted against taking action in Syria today.
David Cameron said it was clear the Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly," according to the BBC.
But Obama is still considering a solo strike.
The White House said President Barack Obama prized the United Nations and closely consulted allies, but that in the end, his first duty was to US national security, which he sees threatened by a Syrian chemical weapons attack.
There has been lots of talk this week about the situation in Syria and how the international community should respond. Now that there's almost certain proof of the use of chemical weapons, something Obama called a "red line" in a speech a year ago, some sort of violent intervention seems inevitable.
In today's New York Times, there's a rather unsettling op-ed by professor and author Ian Hurd, titled bluntly, "Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal." Hurd presents an argument for circumventing the UN Security Council and intervening (bombing) in Syria.
To his credit, his language is direct. Hurd says, "I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law." No Iraq War obfuscation here! Still, Hurd does not really go into detail about what would be accomplished by said bombing. Seeing how his focus is International Law, I'm guessing it's outside of his concern, though on Twitter he makes sure to clarify that intervention (bombing) is "means not end."
But betraying a hint of nuance on Twitter is not the same as penning an op-ed for an international newspaper detailing why a country should bomb another country. For nuance, thoughtfulness, and candor I would recommend instead reading George Packer's debate with himself on The New Yorker's website. Packer poses questions about this horrible and sensitive situation while acknowledging how complicated it all is. His commentary is the kind of thoughtful piece we deserve if we want to better understand the conditions and complications of international intervention.
If you have any more great reads on this situation please share them.
For ten years Pamela Jones has run Groklaw, a site collecting, discussing, and explaining legal developments of interest to the open-source software community. Her efforts have, justifiably, won many awards.
She's done now...Pamela Jones is ending Groklaw because she can't trust her government. She's ending it because, in the post-9/11 era, there's no viable and reliable way to assure that our email won't be read by the state — because she can't confidently communicate privately with her readers and tipsters and subjects and friends and family.
You should read the whole Groklaw post on this, and really take the moral of the story to heart: The internet is not a safe way to transmit confidential communications. That is a real conclusion reached by real lawyers, and it's hard to imagine someone making an argument to the contrary.
|Most Popular||I, Anonymous||Best of the Merc|
Get the best of the Mercury each week in your inbox!