Blogress Ann Althouse discusses implications of a McDonald's ad running in France (you can view it with captioned translation through the above link) that's caused expressions of consternation from Bill O'Reilly and other American conservatives. As Althouse summarizes,
"we see a young man and understand something about him - he's gay - and then we see his father doesn't really get that, but they love each other and spend time with each other...at McDonald's.
". . .When O'Reilly jokes about McDonald's doing an ad in this series showing a member of Al Qaeda, he's revealing that he thinks gay people are a group that most people view with justified hostility. McDonald's, operating in France, hasn't analyzed things that way. That's their judgment call, and I hope it's a good one."
Actually, I think O'Reilly and other miffed conservatives are showing how out of sync they are. With "Glee," one of the Fox network's biggest hits, including storylines about a gay high school student and his sympathetic but not-quite-comprehending father (shades of the French McDonald's ad), it's clear that the times have changed. I'd be very surprised if in the near future we don't see gay inclusive ads such as this one running here in the U.S., despite the wailings of certain members of the old guard.
More. I should add, it's also another sign of how capitalism drives equality, as discussed here, when not thwarted by social conservatives or anti-market progressives (as in this blast from the past).
45 Comments for “Inclusiveness and Reaction”
posted by Bobby on
Glee has bashed conservatives in many occasions, I don’t think that’s a good example of us being out of sync. Sara Palin has a number #1 best seller and her facebook postings are taken seriously by millions of people. Fox News is #1, Glenn Beck has SEVERAL best sellers and is the #1 show at 5pm. It’s the progressives who are out of touch, if you look at the polls you’ll see how Obama is out of touch with healthcare reform, cap and trade, the flotilla incident, and the Arizona law.
As for Bill O’Reilly, all I can say is that he’s not a conservative, he’s an independent. Either way, conservatives don’t get minority marketing. Why? Because conservatives and some independents don’t look at the world in terms of gay and straight, white and black, Christian and Jewish, etc.
Conservatives don’t understand why we must divide everyone into neat little groups, they don’t get why we celebrate African History Month and have Hispanic pride classes in public schools when we are all Americans and have a common history.
The reason gays are rarely seen in TV commercials (for examples visit commercialcloset.com) is because 90% of the public is straight and that’s who commercials are trying to reach. By the same token, you don’t see a lot of white people in the commercials on BET.
The only mistake Bill made was not having someone gay debate the ad with him, perhaps he couldn’t find one at the last minute, I don’t know what happened.
posted by Debrah on
Ah yes!
Frau Althouse is the barometer regarding all things kosher and non-kosher inside the caldron of this country’s culture wars.
posted by Debrah on
Frau Althouse feebly opines:
“I’m sure, back in 1980, some people didn’t like to see a little white boy give his Coke to the black football player Mean Joe Green in the famous Super Bowl ad. And Coke might have thought about that. This will alienate some people who are not ready to see black and white people sharing a simple intimacy.”
****************************************************
Uh, no…….Frau Althouse.
Only backwoods racist porcine academic fixtures would have come up with that one.
What an incredibly stupid analogy.
This type of archaic—and totally lame!—drivel might work for fellow insular readers whose own life experiences growing up in America must have consisted of watching “Different Strokes” in order to cop a feel of “diversity”.
Althouse’s inane and labored…..not to mention, affected…..comments regarding this issue reveal her socially-arrested and behind-the-times ideas much clearer than anyone she might be chastising as a way to have something “empathetic” to post.
Miller truly chose an idiot to reference on this one.
posted by William on
As someone with small government leanings, but who’d still call myself a liberal, one thing that annoys me about conservatives and some strands of libertarianism is the excessive pleading like we get from Bobby in the comment above. Do you actually genuinely think O’Reilly had got in touch with a gay conservative, or any gay person, and that at the last minute they had to cancel? O’Reilly’s comment has got to me in a way I wouldn’t have expected, because even as Fox commentators go, I had some small respect for him. Two boys having a romantic relationship is not a political statement.
Micro-targetting for advertising is a perfectly rational business decision, not a political statement. All humans are not the same, even if we’re equal before the law, we do have different tastes, male and female, gay and straight, and of different ethnicity. That’s a simple fact, and conservatives should acknowledge life as it is. Doesn’t mean you give preferential treatment in law to any group, and by all means avoid special protection, but don’t go crazy or defensive when private individuals, be they firms like McDonald’s or whatever, acknowledge this.
Bobby, if the promoters of Sex and the City were to advertise more heavily in women’s magazine, would you accuse them of splitting up the world into different sections?
posted by Merge Broth, etc. on
Debrah… er, I mean “Be Hard,” you might want to check the thread downstairs — someone has figured out that you’re actually a gay-Republican operative posting under a pseudonym!P.S. Since you’re always saying I should blog more, click my name to see my latest project (just something for the summer) — I’m finally getting around to reading my favorite Russian novel in the original Russian, from cover-to-cover, and creating an online version with English annotations as I go. (Obviously, it’s mainly of interest to students of the Russian language, but my own personal Throbertian observations will be marked in day-glo blue highlighter, whenever the spirit moves me.)
posted by Debrah on
Big Andy had a post on the subject in which Savage was characterized as being “pissed”.
posted by Debrah on
“…….someone has figured out that you’re actually a gay-Republican operative posting under a pseudonym!”
****************************************
()))))))))))) YAWN ((((((((((((()
I’ll have to beg off both “gay” and “Republican”……..
………however, I do believe in the diversity of love !
And an observer’s right to fantasize!
posted by Debrah on
By the way, Throbert.
That’s an excellent project you have going.
And you will need a new chic photo for your profile.
posted by Walker on
Conservative blogger Ann Althouse defends a gay-themed ad and slaps down Bill O’Reilly, and Debrah’s response is to sling mud wildly in Althouse’s direction for no discernible reason. Would that more commenters achieved the level of thoughtful discourse that William displays. As he suggests, we’re all equal individuals under the law (or we should be), but of course we have different interests, and advertisers appeal to us on the basis of those interests.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, I missed that one. You didn’t even paraphrase what his actual response was to the ad (just what someone else’s response was to his response), and you’re uninformed enough about Bill O’Reilly to call him a conservative (seriously, don’t take his word for it: anyone who watches his show for long enough can tell there’s a difference between O’Reilly and almost anyone who calls himself a conservative). I’m not motivated enough to look up what this is all about. If what O’Reilly had to say were anything notable, someone else would have had a lot more to say about it before you made this post.
posted by Debrah on
Jorge–
This is what the brouhaha is all about.
I used to catch O’Reilly occasionally; however, I haven’t watched the show in a long time…….so, didn’t see this.
In my opinion, people like Andrew Sullivan and the others who jumped onto this hyped-up bandwagon simply needed a “controversy” about which to devise a post.
And used this one.
It’s a stretch to believe that O’Reilly was actually comparing gays to Al Qaeda.
He always takes humorous jabs at those who put Valentines on subject matter and use it to advertise.
And I found the Althouse comment about the Coke commercial totally loopy—and inaccurate!
posted by Jorge on
Well, thank you, Debrah.
Humph:
1) That ain’t no “consternation” on Bill O’Reilly’s part.
2) Still, it does reveal something about O’Reilly that is fairly obvious to anyone who watches him on a regular basis. I don’t consider the segment anti-gay in the least. But he is very heterosexist and has a difficult time divorcing homosexuality from the progressive movement.
posted by Tom on
Does anyone else wonder why a McDonald’s ad running in France elicited comment from Bill O’Reilly? The ad didn’t even hit the AFA’s hypersensitive gaydar screen.
posted by Brian Miller on
Wait a minute… capitalism drives change?
But this is an ad in FRANCE! Socialist, Islamofascist France! And it was criticized by pro-capitalist Republican Party luminaries!
Surely, capitalism has nothing to do with it!
/sarcasm
posted by Bobby on
“As someone with small government leanings, but who’d still call myself a liberal”
—Hey William, perhaps you’re a classical liberal? Because Obama’s no small-government guy.
“Do you actually genuinely think O’Reilly had got in touch with a gay conservative, or any gay person, and that at the last minute they had to cancel?”
—I do, because some liberals refuse to go on the O’reilly factor because they’re afraid of offending their friends. However, I have seen gays being interviewed on the factor, maybe he couldn’t find one at the last minute. The segment also covered two other topics, perhaps that’s why he had that woman.
“O’Reilly’s comment has got to me in a way I wouldn’t have expected, because even as Fox commentators go, I had some small respect for him. Two boys having a romantic relationship is not a political statement.”
—Put yourself in his shoes. Imagine you lived in a country that was 90% gay and you had to see a commercial with a heterosexual couple, how would you react? Bill is a straight talking kind of guy, he doesn’t pull punches, he speaks his mind. I’ve seen him gone on the record supporting same-sex adoptions, civil unions, and other issues.
“Micro-targetting for advertising is a perfectly rational business decision, not a political statement.”
—Is it? Commercials are expensive to produce. When I used to work in Hispanic advertising we we didn’t do as many commercials as mainstream agencies, and when we did they would be shown in Telemundo or Univision where 99.9% of the audience is Hispanic and thus part of the target audience. McDonald’s gay commercial has a very limited audience.
“All humans are not the same, even if we’re equal before the law, we do have different tastes, male and female, gay and straight, and of different ethnicity.”
—How many commercials you see with deaf, blind, or people in wheelchairs? While minority marketing exists, most marketing is created for mass appeal. What McDonalds did was a publicity stunt, nothing more.
“That’s a simple fact, and conservatives should acknowledge life as it is.”
—They do all the time at Fox, they’re always doing stories about crime, drugs, sexting, teachers who molest their students, scientists who lie about global warming aka climategate, etc, etc, etc.
However, what differentiates conservatives from progressives is that they’re not politically correct, they don’t have the “right” opinions, they simply have opinions! The left is always so careful not to offend minorities, newspapers no longer describe the race of burglars. Isn’t that tragic? The police needs help capturing Jack the Ripper, but they won’t tell us if he’s black, white, etc, unless they have a picture.
The left on the other hand is always choosing which groups you can offend and which groups you can’t. So, it’s perfectly fine to ridicule Christians, refer to tea partiers as “tea-baggers” and terrorists, ridicule people from the country, compare Israelis to nazis, etc. But if you criticize a Muslim radical they accuse of Islamophobia, and if you refer to people who cross the border illegally as illegal aliens then you’re called a racist, and if you wear the American flag on cinco de mayo, well, you saw what happened.
“Doesn’t mean you give preferential treatment in law to any group, and by all means avoid special protection, but don’t go crazy or defensive when private individuals, be they firms like McDonald’s or whatever, acknowledge this.”
—He didn’t go crazy, he’s not boycotting McDonalds, he was simply surprised and decided to do a bad joke about which other minority will they try to please next. By the way, he was quite hard on Carl Jr. when they did that ad with Paris Hilton cleaning a car while holding a burger. So you see? Bill IS fair and balanced.
“Bobby, if the promoters of Sex and the City were to advertise more heavily in women’s magazine, would you accuse them of splitting up the world into different sections?”
—Of course not, that would actually make sense since most men are not gonna caught dead watching that stupid chick flick. In fact, I don’t think SATC advertises on ESPN or Spike TV. And there’s nothing wrong with gay commercials as long as you advertise them on gay TV stations or anywhere where gays watch in large numbers to justify the cost.
posted by Jorge on
I mean, I have doubts. I think the idea that this segment shows he thinks homosexuality is something to be put ina category to bristle at has some merit. On the other hand I see the gears turning in other ways. He asks what is the reason for this ad: is it an appeal toward the 10% gay demographic? What does it say to the 90% who are not gay? These are questions progressives think about and which have become mainstream with other identity groups, and which Bill O’Reilly is more than prepared to have a serious conversation about, except that his partner was another news anchor who doesn’t go that far with him.
Now, Bobby, you were the first to mention that Bill O’Reilly is not a conservative and you also accurately mention areas where he is very supportive of our rights and privileges. Yet most gay conservatives, and I believe you’re one of them, also affirm gay rights. What is the difference between gay conservatives and Bill O’Reilly when it comes to gay rights issues?
posted by BobN on
Looks like a lot of folks are as dumb as O’Reilly. This ad isn’t targeted at gay teens. It’s targeted at teens who think their parents are clueless.
THAT is a majority demographic.
And O’Reilly is a dick.
posted by Debrah on
“And O’Reilly is a dick.”
*************************************
Well, then.
You ought to really like him.
posted by Bobby on
“Looks like a lot of folks are as dumb as O’Reilly. This ad isn’t targeted at gay teens. It’s targeted at teens who think their parents are clueless.”
—Not at all, if 90% of people are straight and you’re a gay in the closet without stereotypical characteristics, how are your parents supposed to assume you’re gay? People judge what they see, if you walk around dressed like a biker people are gonna assume you beat people up when in reality you could be the most peaceful person that ever lived. I’m sure McDonalds in France simply wanted to generate some controversy, Calvin Klein and Abercrombie do that all the time.
“Yet most gay conservatives, and I believe you’re one of them, also affirm gay rights. What is the difference between gay conservatives and Bill O’Reilly when it comes to gay rights issues?”
—If by gay rights you mean marriage, adoption, and service in the military, I’m with you and I think so is O’Reilly with some reservations. However, gay conservatives are more worried about other issues like the economy, taxes, and so forth. Also, true gay conservatives are not going to sacrifice their values to get a few gay rights.
posted by Jimmy on
“Also, true gay conservatives are not going to sacrifice their values to get a few gay rights.”
Sentiments like that are what make Stephen Miller’s posts so ridiculous. Bobby displays exactly what we on the other side already know about gay republicans.
Where is the huge opportunity that Miller supposes is being missed out on?
posted by Jorge on
—If by gay rights you mean marriage, adoption, and service in the military, I’m with you and I think so is O’Reilly with some reservations. However, gay conservatives are more worried about other issues like the economy, taxes, and so forth. Also, true gay conservatives are not going to sacrifice their values to get a few gay rights.
I mean everything socially and legally. I think you’re to the right of O’Reilly on hate crimes, for example.
Well, I do think there’s a difference in the direction you all come from. Bill O’Reilly’s reasoning on a lot of issues (especially race) accepts the assumption that there is institutional prejudice; he very often balances progressive values in this way. He doesn’t really give a lot of play to the notion that gay marriage is something that is consistent with traditional values, he’s more about fair play.
I say, I tried to make him sound progressive but that sounds downright awful. I think I’ll shut up now.
posted by Jorge on
Looks like a lot of folks are as dumb as O’Reilly. This ad isn’t targeted at gay teens. It’s targeted at teens who think their parents are clueless.
That is beyond ridiculous. The teen’s body language is about secrecy and uncomfortability, not scorn.
posted by Tom on
Stephen trashes liberal gays and lesbians for failing to hold Democratic politicians’ feet to the fire on gay and lesbian issues. At the same time, he overlooks the failure of gay and lesbian conservatives to hold Republican feet to the fire. Instead, he insists that liberal gays and lesbians are at fault for failing to support the few Republican politicians who are gay-supportive.
What Stephen is missing is the obvious fact that liberal gays and lesbians are not going to change the Republican party.
Conservative gays and lesbians might be able to do so — I have my doubts, given the strength of the so-called “values” voters in Republican primaries — but for the most part, like Bobby, “are not going to sacrifice their values to get a few gay rights“.
And that’s the rub. Democratic politicians aren’t exactly paragons of virtue when it comes to gay and lesbian issues — they are as opportunistic as politicians in general — but in comparison to Republicans, Democratic politicians are gay-supportive. Why? Because liberal gays and lesbians have been working in the Democratic trenches for decades and conservative gays and lesbians have not made a similar effort in the Republican trenches.
Stephen seems to think that the changes in Democratic politics over the last two or three decades came from outside, from groups like the HRC. At least that is what I infer from his suggestion that the Republican party isn’t changing because outside liberal groups like the HRC don’t swoon over gay-supportive Republicans like Tom Campbell.
I think that Stephen is dead wrong on that score. The change in the Republican party will come, if it comes, from inside. And so long as conservative gays and lesbians act like Bobby — “Also, true gay conservatives are not going to sacrifice their values to get a few gay rights.” — Republican politicians will continue to cater to far-right religious conservatives who, unlike conservative gays and lesbians, are politically involved within the Republican party and consistently vote on their issues in Republican primaries.
If you want change, you have to help make change. It is that simple.
posted by Debrah on
“If you want change, you have to help make change. It is that simple.”
***********************************************
Who will disagree with that one.
However, I think you deliberately minimize the effects that your fellow gays produce by their predictable and incessant allusions to groups like HRC.
Even those who would otherwise garner respect from the general population and who are successful, or at least semi-successful, in their careers will make infantile professions like…..
“I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life.”
And then they”ll move on to rhapsodize how one’s personal relationship with another, or a life partner, is the most significant part of their lives and that a decision to “marry” that very significant person in their lives is a “fundamental right”.
When the crybaby tears from such men finally subside long enough for them to wallow in some hot gay porn…….
…….they go back to touting HRC and all the obnoxious gay groups as they scream that they’ve “never voted for a Republican”.
LIS!
Let me reiterate that I am a registered Democrat and that I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans.
Anyone who purports to have a degree of intelligence and can also say that they’ve never voted for a Republican (if the opportunity ever presented itself) is a pathetic little knee-jerk phony…….
…….who uses what’s going on below his waste as the most significant aspect of his life.
People like that always wind up effing up things in one way or another if allowed to be “in charge”.
This aspect makes the usual “gay agenda” appear ridiculous.
posted by Debrah on
Correction:
Make that “waist”.
posted by BobN on
That is beyond ridiculous. The teen’s body language is about secrecy and uncomfortability, not scorn.
It is not beyond ridiculous. What you point out is exactly why the ad is not a “pro-gay” ad. McDonald’s doesn’t put out ads that are aimed at just a fraction of the audience. Nobody does. It’s not economically sensible. You have to craft an ad that, while having “minority” characters, appeals to a broader demographic. And where did anyone say anything about “scorn”? Kids who think their parents are clueless about them don’t “scorn” their parents. They just roll their eyes and make that typical teenage face — like the kid does.
French attitudes toward homosexuality have progressed far enough at least among the young that straight kids watching this ad see a kid like them, with secrets and thoughts and lives their parents don’t understand, and unlike Debrah and Bill O’Reilly, don’t immediately start thinking of anal sex.
posted by Debrah on
“French attitudes toward homosexuality have progressed far enough at least among the young that straight kids watching this ad see a kid like them, with secrets and thoughts and lives their parents don’t understand, and unlike Debrah and Bill O’Reilly, don’t immediately start thinking of anal sex.”
*****************************************
You’re so obtuse and ridiculous that it’s unreal.
I perhaps know much more about “French attitudes” than do you…….and not from reading about them in a book or lackadaisically watching burger commercials.
It’s a gross exaggeration and a form of ignorance on the part of the average American to say that the French have progressed beyond anything in the United States.
Go there and live for a while.
Or just go there for about a month’s visit.
This over-hyped romantic version of the French went out of vogue a long time ago.
I don’t know about O’Reilly; however, since he’s both Catholic and Irish, I would assume he’s got some baggage as many here do regarding the subject.
If anal sex comes to mind during the discussion of gay male relationships, then certainly don’t blame observers.
They are the ones constantly assaulted by this prominent aspect of “gay culture”.
Why else do middle-age gay professional men openly subscribe to websites with young guys showing their d!cks and posteriors all the time……..if that isn’t such an important feature of their lives?
Perhaps McDonald’s could make a commercial with Ronald McDonald showing his butt crack and winking at the camera while splayed over the golden arches.
My true opinion of the aforementioned commercial is that it’s so benign and insignificant…..to even be discussed.
posted by BobN on
You’re so obtuse and ridiculous that it’s unreal.
Mon Dieu! I appear to have struck a nerve.
The French have the nationally recognized Pacte Civil. Strikes me as considerably more progressive than the U.S. (though less so than the states which allow same-sex marriage).
And I doubt my view of them is “romantic”. They can be quite insufferable.
My true opinion of the aforementioned commercial is that it’s so benign and insignificant…..to even be discussed.
D’accord. Pity Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t have your perspective.
posted by Brian Miller on
gay conservatives are more worried about other issues like the economy, taxes, and so forth
Au contraire. Gay REPUBLICANS are “more worried by other issues” (e.g. the GOP’s Uncle Toms on gay rights), just like many gay Democrats are “more worried by other issues.”
Neither the GOProud crowd nor the HRC clique are worthy of much other than scorn (and an occasional chuckle) when LGBT-relevant policies pop up.
posted by Debrah on
Yada, yada, yada………
Moving on to a more significant topic.
For some obscure reason, occasional comments will surface which have been totally italicized……when great care has been taken to italicize only the quoted portion of the comment.
Must be a glitch somewhere……or else “BobN” and “Tom” extend forth such negative external factors and Far Left vibes that the whole system becomes unbalanced for brief moments in time.
This only happens when I’m responding to something they’ve written.
Perhaps a “Far Left-Wing Conspiracy”.
Mysterious, that.
posted by Jimmy on
“For some obscure reason, occasional comments will surface which have been totally italicized…”
Mandatory Renaissance?
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
“Mandatory Renaissance?”
****************************************
A type of forced cleverness, no doubt.
By the way, have you checked out Throbert’s blogs?
IMO, he should be updating and working on “Throbert’s Theatre of Thinkologizing” instead of the current one he’s on.
posted by Jimmy on
“IMO, he should be updating and working on “Throbert’s Theatre of Thinkologizing” instead of the current one he’s on.”
I agree.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll admit to not knowing much about French society, BobN. To me that ad and that “come as you are” slogan screams out that it’s about being closeted, and it being not by choice. Not some kind of teenage secret.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, I’ve started the process of applying for a job as a junior instructor of Russian at DLI. Since it was almost 20 years ago that I majored in Russian at UVa, I want to be able to present something that demonstrates my ability with the language, my commitment to improving my skills, and my passion for helping others learn.
posted by Tom on
Its probably just an ID=10T error, Debrah. The usual cause is an occlusion in the central retinal vein, causing a brain flitter and distorted vision in one or, rarely, both eyes. If persistent, you should check with your health care provider, although probably not the one with the tattooed lesbian assistant.
posted by Brian Miller on
probably not the one with the tattooed lesbian assistant
Ah, nothing better than snarfing morning tea!
posted by Debrah on
Thanks, Tom.
I’ll get right on it.
That same “error” seems to have afflicted you many times in the past on these fora.
And I will use the word “fora” instead of “forums”……even as you might try to direct internet traffic. IGF consists of many fora which some—perhaps you—call threads.
Since you’re such an ultra-Liberal, I know that you’re in favor of the freedom to choose.
And I must give kudos to you for having such a good memory.
The story of the annual physical and the doctor’s assistant was some time ago.
However, if I recall, I gave the assistant high marks for efficiency and professionalism.
Lastly, “North Dallas Thirty” was on the mark when he characterized “Brian”.
Seems the guy sticks around to throw goofy, gummy spit wads……attempting to feed off the exchanges of others.
I do hope the guy finds something to occupy his time.
He’s going simply nutty over my hair on another thread because there’s just so…..well…..so much of it.
My senses tell me that “Brian” walks around 24/7 wearing his yarmulke to hide his huge bald spot.
No other reason for his obsession with the mane of a woman.
LOL!!!
posted by Debrah on
“I want to be able to present something that demonstrates my ability with the language, my commitment to improving my skills, and my passion for helping others learn.”
***********************************************
OK, Throbert.
Comprendo todo.
I thought you were just buffing that blog for fun.
Quite a good idea, actually…….but how many people are going to be able to read it? !!!!
I still think you should go for a regular blog when you find the time.
Lately I’ve gotten emails from some people who want me to start an issues blog—spinning off from the one I have now which is just for fun—but I have resisted simply because a blog that really smokes is a full-time job and it’s difficult to decide to commit that kind of time to one.
However, it might be easier to have a place like loudmouth Andrew Sullivan’s.
All he does is show up and link columns by other people, give a few critiques, and post comments and photos from readers.
Then he’ll do an occasional column.
That’s not real work; however, it does require you to be tethered to the computer 24/7 for updates on news and events.
posted by BobN on
IGF = metafora?
Hmmmm.
posted by Debrah on
Very clever, BobN.
Be careful, though. Don’t get Tom riled up over “fora”.
He’s kind of mean, but he often hides it.
posted by BobN on
Well, more cute than clever. Clever would entail being cute and grammatically correct.
posted by Tom on
posted by Tom on
See, I just blew a “close blockquote” code. That’ll teach me to post before I’ve finished my morning coffee.
With me, the explanation has nothing to do with getting “vibes”. The simple explanation — user error, or ID=10T, is all the explanation I need.
If I did start sensing “vibes”, through, I’d check for pharmaceutical side effects. What you are picking up as a “vibe” might be nothing more than lightheadedness from your meds.
posted by burnnotice.download on
Very clever, BobN.
Be careful, though. Don’t get Tom riled up over “fora”.
He’s kind of mean, but he often hides it.
signature:watch las-vegas.