Judge Janet T. Neff: Personnel is Policy or Garbage In -- Garbage Out

August 4, 2006 | By Jack Yoest

janet_neff_yoest.jpg

Feminist Janet Neff
Michigan Senator Carl Levin (D) has got a deal with Harriet Miers to appoint Judge Janet T. Neff, a liberal member of the Michigan Court of Appeals, to the U.S. District Court (Western District).

Which proves conclusively that Miers was never a conservative. Miers, a Bush appointee, almost made it to the Supreme Court.

On September 21, 2002, Janet Neff sprinkled fairy dust over a commitment ceremony for lesbians Karen Debra Adelman and Mary Catherine Curtin and their pet pussy cat named Boots...

...I made up the Boots part. I think.

Ronald Reagan said that Personnel is Policy.

Tech guys say Garbage in; Garbage out.

We can all say this Personnel Policy is Garbage.

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

No, homosexuals should not get married. But should a business hire a homosexual? Yes, and here's why.

For more see FRC's Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution


Harriet Miers Withdraws

October 27, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

She's just withdrawn her nomination, and they are saying that it is because Senators wanted to see papers from her work at the White House.

An attempt at face-saving.

It was the handwriting on the wall that she couldn't avoid. The Indefensible Speech finished her.


Harriet Miers' Speech Referencing Abortion

October 26, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

hmiers-100.jpg

Harriet Miers

In 1993, Harriet Miers gave a speech to the Executive Women of Dallas. The Washington Post reported this morning that she referenced abortion.

Here's the relevant passage:

The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.

Read for yourself the whole speech.

More later.

* * *

Meanwhile, take a second to VOTE in the Reasoned Audacity Miers poll on the left sidebar. . .

And here's the longer question I'm interested in. Drop me a note in the comments: does this speech Miers gave influence your opinion?

* * *

UPDATE: How explosive was this speech? The big news of the day was the Ed Whelan piece on NRO in which he called for Miers' withdrawal after holding a neutral stance. This was followed late in the day by a press release from Concerned Women for America, joining the Withdraw Miers coalition.

And now, an interesting development at Powerline. Earlier today, Paul Mirengoff responded to Ed by saying (loosely quoting here), "Hey, the speech is 12 years old, give the lady a break." He has now updated that post, after reading the speech carefully, and he, too, is calling for Miers to withdraw.

I've also been curious to see how Hugh Hewitt would respond. The speech is "a mess" he concedes, while still maintaining that "under no circumstances" should Miers resign.

Read the speech.


Specter Says He Will Summon Dr. Dobson

October 24, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

dobson.jpg

Dr. James Dobson

Senator Specter said on Face the Nation yesterday that he will probably summon Dr. Dobson to testify to the Judiciary Committee about his conversations with the White House about the Miers nomination.


George Will Levels Both Barrels at Miers

| By Charmaine Yoest

george_will.jpg

George Will

Yesterday, George Will intensified the drumbeat against Miers with "Defending the Indefensible."

Here's the bare-knuckled conclusion:

. . .any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material. . .

While getting to that conclusion, he made a point that I think is essential to emphasize. Liberals who make this confirmation debate All-About-Roe are being far too simplistic, and seriously misunderstand conservative reasoning:

Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result.

Now. While I found Will's piece to be typically sharp and bracing, others read something else entirely. Over at Big Lizard, Dafyyd thought it was "yawn-inducing" and evidence that Will has entered his "dotage," arguing that, "This column is a sad chapter in the long twilight denouement of George Will's career."

Via John at Powerline, who thinks Dafyyd sends Will's column to "the trash heap of history."


Miers: Getting Off the Laugh Track

October 19, 2005 | By Jack Yoest

david_gergen_harvard.jpg

David Gergen

Once people start laughing at you, how does one get them to stop? This is the challenge Harriet Miers now faces. What can she do? What would you do?

David Gergen was speaking to the Women and Power program at the JFK School of Government at Harvard and was asked about a similiar conundrum.

Gergen replied, "First, find a Rabbi."

The former presidential advisor was saying to find a wise old friend who could offer advice and support and guidance.

This is what Miers -- or anyone who has become the butt of jokes -- now needs.

Harriet Miers now has limited options. But not the rest of us.

If people are laughing at you, here's what you can, and what you cannot do.

First, you cannot not do something. In the old days, before bloggers, a public figure could stonewall, hunker down and ride out the storm.

Run silent/run deep.

Not today. Silence will be replaced with daily dug-up dirt. Passed around online.

The best course of action to mute laughter is to be seen, and embraced publicly, by People Who Matter.

(Like Glenn Reynolds.)

You cannot talk your way off the laugh track. You cannot talk publicly to the masses. You can only talk quietly to a bosom buddy, preferably One Who Matters. Not to CNN.

If you are being laughed at "find a friend." Someone to introduce you to a Person Who Matters, who will speak up and speak often and speak everywhere on your behalf.

If you are the victim or the joke target you have three options. Your Business Blogger (as your unordained Rabbi) advises:

Option 1) Reach up -- President/celebrities
Option 2) Reach across -- Peers/companions
Option 3) Reach down -- Peeps/co-workers

Option 1 is best for most of us in the laughter bull's-eye. Unfortunately, Harriet Miers cannot reach up to President Bush. Their relationship brought the "cronyism" punchline and is part of the underlying problem.

The White House then turned to the "celebrity" endorsement of Laura Bush . . . which only reinforced the "friendship."

So Option 2: Peers. Miers needed to establish some serious peer cred. She should have done lunch with Bob Bork. Discussion of penumbras with the pasta. Judicial intimacy. Like minds thinking.

Looks like it's too late to recruit Bork.

Other "peers"? For Harriet Miers a stage managed photo with Sandra Day O'Connor. Unfortunately some "equals" who might silence the laughs for Miers would further anger the base and Senate support. No go for Miers.

Companions? The one who came forward most publicly for Miers turned out to be a former, or current, boyfriend. Not a strategy to imitate.

Option 3 would use your peeps -- the people who love you. This is audience participation. In our Miers case study this would be another class picture of Harriet hobknobbing with the Appellate Judges whom she leapfrogged. The reach down to peeps is not, for Miers, an option either.

Miers' best course of action is a stellar performance at the hearings. Where she will do okay.

And be confirmed. Maybe.

But no matter how she votes, or what she writes, her work will be intensely scrutinized and met with a collective eye-roll.

Why would she still want the job?

Which brings us mortals to the real decision that real people have when we are laughed at or not taken seriously. If the three paths above don't work, the rest of us still have an option remaining. You are not married to your job or your city.

You can quit.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Volokh has Miers commas.

ProfessorBainbridge has details. Details.

Outside the Beltway has real conservatism.

Michelle Malkin has trouble with Harriet.

The Conglomerate
says withdraw.


Confirmation Conflagration Ahoy

| By Charmaine Yoest

hmiers-100.jpg

Harriet Miers

Hearings to start November 7.


Harriet Miers, Butt of Jokes and The Chonicle of Higher Education.

October 18, 2005 | By Jack Yoest

rearend_dollar_chronicle.JPG

Pictured in
The Chronicle of Higher Education

To follow up yesterday's post, I was researching "Butt of Jokes" and got distracted. Alert readers will notice that this is not the post I promised.

Tomorrow, I will publish how to get off the laugh track when you become the butt of jokes, the challenge Harriet Miers now faces.

But for now let me observe that it is never good to have your name come up in a Google search that includes ladies with dollar bills lovingly inserted into a g-string. Go ahead: Look up 'Harriet Miers' and 'butt of jokes.' I'll take the hit(s).

Anyway, the pictures above and below are from a story in the newspaper of record for the Academy, the Chronicle of Higher Education.

From a sociologist. His academic research. I didn't read the article. I go to Playboy for the articles.

Better writing.

And today we learn that Daniel Drezner has been denied tenure by the University of Chicago. ProbablyMaybe because of his blog. He should have been doing work that Institutions of Higher Learning would appreciate. Advising students. Writing books. And advancing scholarship. . .

Like taking pictures of girls' derrieres.

Tomorrow I shall return to the serious business of advising on public relations disasters.

After I finish this stack of Chronicles.

rearend_biker_chronicle.JPG

The End

# # #

Thank you (foot)notes:

Full Disclosure: My wife has been quoted in The Chronicle, but never photographed.

[And she insists that I add this disclaimer: the Playboy line is a joke.]

Mudville Gazette with Open Post.

Brad DeLong has a Free Country.

Wizbang has Miers SlumLord report.

Point of Law has Miers and judicial activism.

Washington Post has Miers and abortion reporting.

Volokh has Drezner and tenure.

Disembedded has academic facade.

Capt Ed has Miers 2.0.

Patterico has predictions.

Brian's Study Breaks defends tenure.

A Typical Joe
says it's not the Blog.

Cao's Blog has open trackbacks.

Mark My Words has an interesting poll.


Jimmy Durante vs. Jack Welsh: Miers, Quayle, Jihadists

October 17, 2005 | By Jack Yoest

jimmy_durante.jpg

Jimmy Durante

The fabled comedian Jimmy Durante once said, "I don't care if you're laughing with me or at me, as long as you're laughing. Conversely, Jack Welsh said, "Never be a victim."

Who's right?

Let's review three examples: Harriet Miers, Dan Quayle, and the Jihadists.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is now the butt of late night jokes.

The Washington Post reports:

"The tipping point in Washington is when you go from being a subject of caricature to the subject of laughter," said Bruce Fein, ...who served in the Reagan administration's Justice Department.... "She's in danger of becoming the subject of laughter."


quayle_potato.jpg

Quayle's misspell, misstep

Vice President Dan Quayle, once one of the most promising senators on the GOP bench, was derided for misspelling potato in a classroom photo-op in 1992.

The Trentonian reports from Quayle's autobiography:

It was a defining moment of the worst kind imaginable. Politicians live and die by the symbolic sound bite.

And finally the Jihadists, whose only real weapon is strapping bombs under the garments of little girls and boys, are now the subject of jokes.

Short video clip: The Bomber and the Cafe

Why is this funny? Because we are winning. Underlying the laugh track is the sure knowledge that the good-guys are winning. Winners do the laughing.

Each of these examples show that laughter is a leading indicator of failure. No matter how good or effective the candidate, the person, or the method.

A reputation, a brand name, a cause, can survive many setbacks, but being a joke's punch line is the hardest.

Jack Welsh is right: Never be a victim.

Tomorrow's post will deal with what to do when you make it onto the Letterman show (in the top ten list).

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Thank you footnotes:

Captain Ed says the White House wants a do-over.

Betsy's Page has analysis on why conservatives are uneasy over Miers.

John Hawkins says no to Miers.

California Conservative is neutral on Miers.

Outside the Beltway
has Traffic Jam.

Basil's Blog is doing dessert backtracks.

The Political Teen Has Tuesday Trackbacks.


Harriet Miers and the Federalist Society. Or Not.

October 13, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

Houston, we've got a problem. Or, rather, Harriet Miers does.

Remember how much trouble John Roberts got into for being a member of the Federalist Society?

That's nothing compared to the trouble Harriet Miers is going to be in for NOT being a member.

According to the Drudge Report, based on a transcript of sworn tesimony Miers gave in 1990 in a voting rights case, she testified that she would not belong to the Federalist Society because it was "too politically charged."

Well, how 'bout the NAACP? They asked her: Is it "too politically charged?"

No.

So.

Wonder who the President's next nominee will be?


Harriet Miers, James Dobson and the Interview Process

October 12, 2005 | By Jack Yoest

dobsons_yoests_wash_corre_dinner.jpg


Jack & Charmaine with
Dr. Dobson & Mrs. Dobson

On his radio program this morning, Dr. James Dobson said that he feels confident about Miers' future performance on the Supreme Court and that she should be hired confirmed.

His outspoken confidence in her competence has reassured some of those concerned about installing Miers.

This is in stark contrast to hiring an employee where Your Business Blogger learned a painful lesson.

I had given approval to an international sales manager to interview candidates with a particular language skill. We evaluated a woman who claimed to have competency in speaking Mandarin Chinese.

The hiring manager spoke Cantonese and knew enough Mandarin to be dangerous. He tested her. She passed. She was selected.

But the manager was not as enthusiastic at the end of the selection process as I would have thought. There is usually some relief about getting a hiring decision completed. But not this time. The hiring manager's body language was odd; he avoided eye contact. His lack of satisfaction in a job well done should have been a red flag, but we were under other pressures -- the urgent pushing out the important as always.

Nevertheless, she was hired and brought on my payroll.

Mistake.

We quickly noticed her skills were sub par and I released her before too much damage was done. But considerable discretionary management time was consumed because we assumed, to my great embarrassment.

(This is a mistake which You, Gentle Reader would never make -- I merely provide the chance for mature readers of this column to gloat.)

This is the contrast between Dr. Dobson and my sales manager.

Dr. Dobson is providing the vocal and unequivocal endorsement of Miers that all new hires should have. New team members should be enthusiastically backed, and promoted, and celebrated.

My sales manager did not have Dr. Dobson's vocal enthusiasm for his candidate.

If my sales manager had wholeheartedly endorsed his recommendation with the same gusto as Dr. Dobson's support for Miers -- and likewise placed his reputation on the line -- I would have felt much better.

The business lesson is that any new addition to the team must have a champion willing to support and defend the new guy without hesitation. Press Release! Huzzahs! Round of applause for the FNG! (F-in' New Guy)

If not, stop and ask why.

No happiness at hire? Maybe I have the wrong hire, or the wrong manager.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Mudville Gazette has Open Posts. And visit My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy with more on the Miers conflict. Thank you to Soldiers' Angels.

See Basil's Blog with dessert.

Michelle Malkin
has the best updates as always.

The Moderate Voice
details the vetting process.

Charmaine has the political angle.

QandO has given up on Bush.


Are Miers' Opponents Elitist? And Sexist?

| By Charmaine Yoest

janice_brown.jpg

Judge Janice Rogers Brown

I spoke too soon when I noted last week that the debate over Harriet Miers had focused on her qualifications, not her sex. Like a bad penny, here comes the sexism argument, with the White House claiming that the oposition is rooted in sexism and elitism.

Is it?

You can judge for yourself. With thanks to an anonymous source, following is a list of the names that have become so familiar in recent months: a partial conservative Supreme Court wish-list, with their undergraduate and graduate institutions.

Janice Rogers Brown: Cal State, UCLA -- woman, not Ivy League

Michael Luttig, Washington and Lee, U. Va -- man, not Ivy League

Alice Batchelder: Ohio Wesleyan, Akron -- woman, not Ivy League

Priscilla Owen, Baylor, Baylor --- woman, not Ivy League

Edith Clement, Alabama, Tulane --- woman, not Ivy League

Edith Jones, Cornell, University of Texas --- woman, not Ivy League law school


What Dr. Dobson Knew

October 11, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

hmiers-100.jpg

Harriet Miers

Focus on the Family has just released the transcripts of Dr. James Dobson's radio program which will air tomorrow morning. (Dobson is a child psychologist who has a daily radio program on 3,000 stations nationwide and another 5,000 internationally.) Dr. Dobson has been one of Harriet Miers' most vocal supporters, but comments he has made about knowing something that he "couldn't talk about" and "maybe shouldn't even know" have generated considerable controversy.

dobson.jpg

Dr. James Dobson

This weekend the Democrats began serious talk about asking Dobson to testify during the confirmation hearings about what he knows about Miers.

In response, Dobson taped a radio program to address the question.

Preview: no really big bombshells. But some interesting information, two things in particular I want to address.

So here are some excerpts from the transcripts, with my commentary interspersed.

Dr. Dobson begins by saying that he has two reasons for supporting Miers:

First, because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy which was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was campaigning. . .the President promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda. Now, Mr. Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that Harriet Miers fit that description and that the President knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence.

This is good that he starts out with the Constitutional issue. Because he has also addressed her religiosity as a positive (and he does in the broadcast, too), some have accused him of applying a "religious test." I hope in follow-up interviews he will underscore the point that this Constitutional issue was the key one for him -- that's how I read it and I think that's true, but he does need to emphasize that more.

He then goes on to his second point which was that he talked directly with friends of Miers in Texas. I believe that was already common knowledge. He mentions specifically "a federal judge in Texas," Ed Kinkeade, and a Texas Supreme Court justice, Nathan Hecht. No news there. Hecht in particular has been all over the media talking about Miers.

Then Dobson goes on to address the question about what he knew that he characterized as something he shouldn't have known:

Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had been passed over. Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it.

I don't know if I'm buying this. I believe this is what Rove told Dobson, but come on: what does "some" mean? How many? And who? You mean to tell me Janice Rogers Brown took her name off the list? Call me skeptical on this one.

It's certainly an important point -- that the political process involved in getting appointed to any high-level position these days is fraught with incredible stress, unjustifiably so. But to use that as excuse reason for nominating Miers?

But then, here comes the kicker. Dobson goes on to say that Rove made another point about the Miers selection:

thumb_womens_chair.jpg

The Women's Chair?
Courtesy Waco Kid!

He also made it clear that the President was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace Justice O'Connor.

No, no, no! Come on. Mr. President! I thought we'd already settled this "no women's chair" issue!

I'm very, very disappointed that Rove would make caving into gender politics so explicit.

Then Dobson goes on to address Miers being a Christian, and a member of a pro-life church -- he says these were also issues that he was initially hesitant to address because he knew them prior to these facts becoming common knowledge.

So there are no bombshells here. Those looking for the other shoe to drop will be disappointed.

But I predict the Democrats will still bring Dobson up to testify.

Just for the media circus.


Rightwing News Blogger Poll on Harriet Miers Nomination

October 10, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

miers_poll_chart.gif

John Hawkins of Rightwing News polled 200 right-of-center bloggers, including Reasoned Audacity, about the Miers nomination and got 79 responses. He found bad news for the White House:

  • 49% think George Bush made a "terrible" decision nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
  • 53% view George Bush "less favorably" as a result of this nomination.
  • 34% think the President should withdraw her nomination.
  • And there's an even split -- 33%/34% think Senators should vote for and against her nomination, respectively.
  • Of course, we probably should concede that bloggers are not terribly representative of the general public -- more politically interested, more informed, more opinionated. . .

    But still. I'd argue that bloggers are also a "leading indicator" of sorts that give a pulse check, if you will. And my sense, from talking with "normal" people outside the political bubble this weekend is that these results may, in fact, reflect wider public opinion as well.

    My sense, from my years living and working in Washington D.C. is that this is the way the end begins. . .

    First rule of politics: protect your base.


    Vice President Cheney Disses National Review

    October 9, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

    Spent Thursday night at the 25th anniversary gala for National Review.

    The talk, of course, was Harriet Miers. I did my own informal poll on how it's trending for her.

    One conservative commentator I asked immediately launched into a fairly detailed, and plausible, scenario which results in the end of her nomination.

    The next one shrugged and dismissively insisted she would be confirmed easily. He wasn't even particularly interested in alternative scenarios.

    Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer has come out against her, calling her nomination "scandalous."

    And Judge Bork, calling it a "disaster on every level."

    They were both at the gala. As was George Will, who is also opposing Miers.

    Facing that kind of high-level criticism from leaders of conservative thought, I wondered what Vice President Cheney, who was listed as a speaker in the program, would say.

    But he didn't say anything.

    He didn't even come.

    A ballroom full of your most prominent critics -- a target-rich environment, if you will. And he punted.

    Interesting political strategery.

    # # #

    Jack has more, and the pictures.

    Open Post at Beth's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, as well as why Miers might actually be the best nominee.

    Kevin at Wizbang has Carnival of the Trackbacks. . .

    And Mrs. Greyhawk is hosting Open Post this weekend, too.


    Continue Reading »

    Trust, But Verify: Christians and the Harriet Miers Nomination

    | By Charmaine Yoest

    This piece by Jollyblogger is one of my favorites that I've seen on the Mier's nomination. He addresses the question of how Christians ought to be responding to this nomination.

    Go read it, and you'll see why, after discovering his blog, Jack and I went to visit David Wayne's church. And stayed.


    The Crony Argument: Harriet Miers and the Last Gasps of Gender Politics

    October 5, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

    hmiers-100.jpg

    Harriet Miers

    So here's the good news: the argument against Harriet Miers is that she is a Presidential "crony."

    Well, at least that's one of the arguments. Conservatives are most specifically angry that the President didn't pick someone more demonstrably a jurist who subscribes to originalism. The real argument about her nomination centers on her credentials.

    No one -- and I mean no one -- is talking about her being a woman.

    And the feminist women's groups have all come out opposing her.

    Of course one of the reasons the President selected her is that she has the right chromosomal makeup. But notice how quickly that became a moot point.

    No one really cares. Instead they are focused on the President elevating to the High Court a good 'ole boy. Except that she happens to be a woman.

    That's good news for gender politics.


    George Will Opposing Miers

    October 4, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

    Wow. George Will says that, "[I]t is not important that [Miers] be confirmed. . .it might be very important that she not be."The White House should be worried about this.

    Via Drudge.


    Harriet Miers and Harry Reid: The Dance of the Porcupines

    October 3, 2005 | By Charmaine Yoest

    hmiers-100.jpg
    Harriet Miers

    Have the Democrats hit on a new, sooper-dooper seekrit strategy for killing the Miers nomination? By supporting her?

    When the President first nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court, conservative commentator Ann Coulter came out swinging hard.

    Playing a favorite political game -- Read the Tea Leaves -- much of Washington swung into speculation. Was Ann really opposed to Roberts . . . or was she playing a strategy game trying to give Roberts cover by using her opposition to make him look more moderate?

    Fast forward. Now, Harriet Miers has the opposite problem.

    harry_reid.jpg
    Harry Reid

    Harriet has Harry in her corner. That would be Harry Reid. The Democratic Leader in the Senate.

    Miers was on a short list of potential candidates Reid sent to the White House. Here's what Jeralyn Merritt reported last week:

    I was on a blogger conference call a few hours ago with Sen. Harry Reid, and he said that he would like to see Ms. Miers get the nod.

    And now Reid has made some fairly effusive statements to greet her nomination:

    I have to say without any qualification that I am very happy that we have someone like her. . .

    So conservatives are left with some nagging questions:

    Why was Miers on Reid's short list?
    What does "someone like her" mean?
    And finally, if Reid is "very happy," should we be?

    On to the hearings.


    Jack Yoest

    Jack Yoest Read More »

    Charmaine Yoest

    Charmaine Yoest Read More »

    My title page contents

    Subscribe

    Click here to Subscribe to Reasoned Audacity's RSS Feed:
    RSS feed

    Or enter your email address:
    My title page contents Visit

    Management Training Upcoming events


    Washington, DC

    Arlington, VA
    Aug 6 Chicago Nat'l Assoc of Comm Col Entrepre October 11

    Accolades





    View Jack Yoest's profile on LinkedIn

    Reasoned Audacity Supports




    Prev | List | Random | Next
    Join Powered by RingSurf!

    Extra

    Sex Trafficking PPT

    Sotomayor411.com

    Arlington Chamber of Commerce

    Maximum Effect


    "Achieve maximum effect
    by exhibiting
    Reasoned Audacity."
    - Ranger Handbook

    The Cotillion


    Blue Star



    Categories

    Blogroll



    Blogroll Me! http://rpc.blogrolling.com/rss.php?r=306e77ed834ed3b832c6638a9f2d3f57
    shadow

    Blogroll



    Blogroll Me! http://rpc.blogrolling.com/rss.php?r=306e77ed834ed3b832c6638a9f2d3f57

    Blogroll



    Blogroll Me!
    shadow