Sometimes, Republicans, it’s good to think before speaking. Take former Arizona Senator Russell Pearce who recently had to resign as first vice chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, for instance. Pearce would probably still have a job if he didn’t say this if he was in charge of Arizona’s public assistance programs:
“The first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want [to reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
Let’s just sterilize people. Brilliant idea, buddy.
Team Blackness also discussed Kanye West’s latest gaffe, why someone at Urban Outfitters should read a history book, and we touch on the Adrian Peterson controversy.
Subscribe on iTunes | Subscribe On Stitcher | Direct Download | RSS
Before the Nazis began to kill Jews they first sterilized and then killed mentally ill and disabled children and adults. What they discovered was to do these things outside of Germany proper and do them without calling attention to the actions. So the death camps were located in occupied territories, not in Germany.
this is who they are, Elon.
They want Becky and Mary Sue to have as many babies as possible, thus the personhood amendments, trying to ban birthcontrol.
But, Maria Louisa and Taquitta….no, they must be sterilized
I used to live in Russell Pearce’s district.
He’s so scummy, another Republican ran against him in a recall election for AZ Senate and won.
His protege was dishonorably discharged former Marine, and multiple murderer J.T. Ready.
That the State GOP would give him another position of importance tells you all you need to know about Arizona-style wingnuttery.
The neighborhood that burned down in far northern California was a historically black neighborhood. Not so much anymore. The days of big mill towns recruiting workers from the South are long gone. But still an anomalously high black population there. Weed as a whole was about 6% (high for rural California) and the Angel Valley neighborhood was well above that.
I guess nobody lives there now.
Wait, I thought those birth control methods were believed to be abortive by the RWNJs.
Perfect. “We will force you to accept these laws immediately by government decree, immediately after my speech describing how said government should be so small that it can be drowned in a shot glass, because said government should never, ever invade your personal life!”
Because government is evil, unless we’re in power, and then hold on to your hats, motherfuckers!
He’s also the one who claimed that ‘wetback’ was not derogatory:
This goes beyond ‘I guess I thought I was in the locker room’ to plain old, county-style, open racism.
I reeeeally wish there were some kind of reality show where fat white male shitstains like this fella had all access to their bank accounts or other resources frozen, were given an outfit from the Salvation Army, a little efficiency apartment in a squalid tenement in a bad part of town that just had the power and phone shut off, two toddlers to feed and care for, and $50 cash and month’s worth of food stamps and then told: “Now go find work/childcare/food, etc.” Oh, and he’s given the background/identity/resume of a guy with a high school diploma, a short stint in prison, and a spotty work history and is not allowed to call his other fat, white shitstain friends for favors. I would pay good money to see how that turned out.
According to Pearce, there’s all these lucrative jobs out there for the taking, but apparently folks are just more interested in shooting up and having sex. *headdesk*
You can’t spell “crazy” without R-AZ.
I just can’t keep up with the wingnuts. I’m pretty sure that contraceptives are so evil that employers shouldn’t be required to pay for insurance that covers them, even if the coverage doesn’t cost any extra money and it’s entirely up to the employees to choose whether or not to use them. Now I’m being told that they’re such a great idea that the government should be buying them and giving them away to shiftless good for nothings as a bonus when they get their welfare checks. I’m suffering from some severe mental whiplash.
Also, FWIW, this guy is way out of touch with modern contraceptives. Norplant hasn’t been marketed in the US for quite a while; the currently available implant is Implanon.
@Haydnseek: no one should ever believe that coming from them. It’s the biggest lie they tell.
This was taken seriously back in the early 90s too. That was one of the reasons the whole birth control debate in Obamacare was so amusing/sickening.
Thinking about it, shouldn’t we give vasectomies to all the men who are receiving government handouts, just to be even handed? After all, men are supposed to be providers to their children, so they shouldn’t be having any new kids while they’re on the dole, either. Maybe we could limit it to treatment with long-lasting anti-androgen therapy to make it more easily reversible once they get jobs.
@Roger Moore: Anything that inhibits the Inevitable Majority of Those People constitutes a valid use of public funds. Those People, remember, aren’t Human™, so there’s no Foetal Personhood™ to worry about.
mai naem mobile
Russell Pearce is also old skool LDS.This is the kind of crap they believe. They also believe MLK was a commie, that only property owners should be able to vote and that black folks are innately bad. Many of them have learned not to say this crap in public but still believe it.
You know, going all non-PC here, but I think that a woman who’s relying on public assistance who already has a child who is pregnant with another should have continued assistance after her second delivery contingent on some sort of birth control.
First time is an accident … second time begins to establish a pattern … and if the pattern is that she’s already on assistance and still getting pregnant, she is probably going to have a very hard time managing to take care of three or more children – even with significant public support.
But in typical Republican fashion it is really ALL THE WHORES FAULT because they can’t control their seductive ways…… so lets take their uterus.
There is of course no man involved so no talk of sterilizing the sperm donors……..
@balconesfault: Should we retroactively abort the children of women and men who become unemployed or disabled after they’ve had their kids?
The Other Chuck
@balconesfault: Sounds all well and good in theory — well, not really even that, but let’s roll with it. What’s your implementation? Take the children away? Who do you want running this department of Reproductive Allowance?
@balconesfault: Only if we can make assistance to men who father more than one child contingent on a vasectomy. Or if we make assistance to parents who have lost their jobs contingent on their giving away all but one child.
Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)
@balconesfault: Why do you think that we should have any control over a woman’s decision to have or not have kids? You are basically advocating the flipside of the anti-choice folks.
I disagree here, because I believe in the unassailable right of a woman to decide whether to get an abortion or not, without interference from the biological father.
Thus, the right to decide to carry a child to term is hers and hers alone, and thus given this right she also has responsibility that comes with that decision.
And yes – I’m fine with a woman who cannot provide for a child having an abortion. I think that a lot of teen-age mothers would be much better off getting abortions so they can delay bearing and raising a child until they have completed their education, gotten into a stable relationship, and/or established their career to the point where they can manage the burden of child raising.
A family is not a class privilege. Full stop.
Mike in NC
More like out of touch with the entire modern world. In other words, Republican.
@balconesfault: So what? I mean, really, who cares? Let them have kids if they want to.
@balconesfault: Please find me a systematic pattern of abuse, where women just keep having babies while on public assistance. Because we’re not exactly giving them enough to cover one child, let alone multiple.
@balconesfault: So now you want people on assistance to get abortions. I see.
Villago Delenda Est
When you’re a fucktard, you don’t keep up with developments. You’re stuck in some past time.
On edit: I see Mike in NC beat me completely to the point.
I tip my hat to you, good sir. Great minds, etc.
@balconesfault: Here’s what cracks me up: you’ve obviously devoted time and energy to coming up with your solution; a solution to a problem that, when compared with the waste and fraud in the military industrial complex, is as to a drop of water in the fucking ocean. But no, no, it’s those lazy slutty women and their welfare babies that are the root of any governmental financial woes. Jesus fucking christ.
@debit: Well, the god-botherer hobby-lobby-govt-drowning-bathtub party did seem all govt-snowflake-death-panel there for a little bit. seems to have been a touch of mental dissonance too far, even for them, and that lot has been training hard. Hadn’t really expected to find a limit, maybe it’s just statistical noise in the trend.
@balconesfault: Ah. No paternal responsibility because since the woman carries the child the woman is the only one responsible for it. Got it.
Fine. But then apply it to EVERYBODY who gets assistance from the government. This would also mean CEO’s of any corporation (including their Board of Directors) who has gotten grants or funding from the government. Or how about farmers etc etc.
It wouldn’t make sense to simply select one group but let other ones off the hook.
Is there any group that Republicans DON’T want to punish?
@Emma: Responsibility or consequences, apparently.
@debit: Interestingly, I never claimed that slutty women and welfare babies are the root of any governmental financial woes. I am fine with a woman engaging in whatever consensual sexual relationships she chooses to enjoy – and I do believe that women on financial assistance can be good mothers. But I also believe that there is a limit to how many children a woman on assistance can really care for. The intent of my law would not be to tell someone “this is how many kids you can have” … but rather to say “more than one or two kids is in many ways a luxury, given a 7 billion person world”.
@SatanicPanic: You’re not understanding his point, which is that they are lazy sluts popping out their filthy welfare babies so they can continue to live in their Section 8 crap holes and eating food, and possibly having heat in the winter. You know, in the lap of luxury.
@Emma: Actually, I’ve heard a lot of men, including many who I consider good progressives and good fathers, express concern that men have no legal say over what happens to their unborn sprog in utero. They note that while the mother has the right to keep their sprog alive if she chooses, they do not have the sane right. I have had to explain multiple times that they DO have the same right. They just don’t have the same capability.
This argument frightens me.
@balconesfault: And when the birth control she must take fails, then what? Forced abortions?
The rich. And unfortunately many people who are not rich agree with them.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@shelley: Other Republicans.
I’m not quite with balconesfault, but this is going to be at least as unpopular a point of view:
Considering how there are already way too many humans in the world; and considering how many people who have children have lack either the ability or interest to raise them well…
I’ve often thought everyone, and I do mean everyone, should have a reversible contraceptive installed at puberty. The contraceptive could be removed either at a certain age (say, 25) or upon certification that the person is emotionally mature enough and financially secure enough to raise a child.
If that means a lot of people don’t get to have babies, we and the world would be better off.
That’s the first thing I noticed about that list. What was missing.
@CaseyL: And who gets to decide? Fuck me, I cannot believe the comments here today. Seriously, what panel of experts gets to decide? Because there’s no way religious, racial or political biases could ever play a role in that decision making, right? I repeat, jesus fucking christ.
@CaseyL: That’d be great until we end up with an even larger cohort of old people and no young people to take care of them.
The 1%. SATSQ.
@debit: Well yeah, and how do you enforce that? Jail time? Now you need someone to watch kids because their parents are in jail. Fines? Now they can’t afford to feed their kids.
The fact is that we are one of the only first world nations that doesn’t have a shrinking population and that’s due to immigration. If we had zero immigration, we wouldn’t even be at replacement value. We know how to deal with overpopulation, and it’s not a one-child policy or something similar. Shit, if CHINA couldn’t make that work, there’s no way we’re going to.
Morally, I cannot get over how you can give the woman sole right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term … and then not assign her the primary responsibility for the consequences of deciding to carry a pregnancy to term.
President Obama called Kanye West a jackass. Come to think of it, is there really any more to be said?
@balconesfault: I believe the original question had to do with your response that what is sauce for the goose is ohhellno not sauce for the gander. So the women who get pregnant more than once should be forced to have abortions so the rest of the world doesn’t have to support their offspring.
But the guy who runs around and fathers multiple children with multiple mothers, that dude’s just being a guy! You can’t contain his sperm, man, that’s just wrong. Also, you can’t expect him to be able to support more than a couple of kids, so moms three, four, five and six, you ladies are just shit out of luck. Go have an abortion.
This is the first thing in over 20 years a Republican has proposed that I mostly agree with. But the scope is too narrow. I think we need to expand this program to everyone. Wanna has kids? Prove you’re fit.
God knows most people who have them are not fit to raise them.
Oh yeah, what some of you said, also: start chopping dicks, too. Male sterilization is easier, cheaper and more effective.
To forestall the inevitable: No, I don’t like people and that includes kids. It’d be a much better world with a lot less of us.
Can anyone tell me just how many spawns of AP are running around? He had one die a few months back (that was several years old but he had just discovered a few months prior that it was his, however that happens), he’s accused of whipping another 4 year old son, and now accusations of another ~4 year old son of his being abused by him. All by diff moms, natch.
So just how many kids by how many women has he produced?
Population of France: 56,615,155 (1990), 63,702,200 (2013)
Spain: 38,993,800 (1990); 39,058,000 (2010)
Canada: 27,697,530 (1990); 32,976,026 (2007)
Italy: 56,762,000 (1990); 56,762,000 (2010)
Great Britain: 48,197,672 (1990); 53,012,456 (2011)
And fwiw, if Americans have smaller families in order to increase their standards of living, I’m not bothered by immigration. Meanwhile, personally I feel like America’s resources (water, airable land, etc) are much better suited towards 250 million people than 350 million, although I certainly wouldn’t design policies specifically to limit population growth. But I don’t think we need to be in the business of encouraging it either.
Especially when the argument is “I’m getting older, so I need some youngun’s to be working to provide for me when I get old – even if that means when they get to be older the population growth will have created an environmental nightmare for everyone”.
@CaseyL: Sure but this will never apply to “everyone” equally–upper class people will evade it if they want. And in any event this favors people who are middle class and financially secure over everyone else–you are basically stripping everyone of the right to determine when and how they want to become parents on the grounds that you know better than they do what the constraints facing them are and what it is worth to them to have children.
@balconesfault: Nonsense, we can reduce carbon footprints while not drastically decreasing population. You Malthusians are just bummed that the Population Bomb didn’t pan out.
I never said that. I said that they should be directed to get on birth control after their second birth in order to continue on support. Clearly, the state has no more moral right to dictate a woman has an abortion as it has to dictate that she does not have an abortion – both flow from Justice Blackmun’s reasoning.
But the guy who runs around and fathers multiple children with multiple mothers, that dude’s just being a guy!
He is only “fathering” said children if a woman chooses to carry the fetus to term. I am fine with him having absolutely no say in whether she decides to do so or not.
And yes – I do believe that a woman having an unwanted pregnancy, if she doesn’t want to eventually give it up for adoption, would do well to have an abortion. In most cases, it will enable herself to significantly improve her options in life going forward.
@balconesfault: You are so full of shit. Women don’t have an absolute right, or ability, to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term in this country–let alone the right to decide when and with whom to have sex or whether that sex is protected or unprotected. Let men get sterilized proactively to prevent any stray semen from turning up and demanding child support before you start advocating for the mass sterilization of women. Ass hole.
@balconesfault: So men want to fuck, get women pregnant (hey it’s the bitch’s fault if she didn’t take precautions) and not bear any responsibility for the outcomes. Gotcha. I have couple rules here:
1. Since men won’t be financially responsible for their own children, every man will be taxed and the funds put into the women and children’s fund to make sure the state’s children will be taken care of.
2. When a man dies, if he has no acknowledged children of his body, his net worth will be turned onto the women and children fund. If he has, the monies shall be divided appropriately between the children of his body and the state’s children.
@Amir Khalid: Nothing but details. I don’t know about Obama, but I had to share a VERY small commercial flight with him and his five-person “entourage” back in 2002 and it was the most unpleasant flying experience I’ve ever had. That asshole is about five foot five and every inch of him a complete fucktard.
@balconesfault: If the concern is environmental, we should be sterilizing middle-class and rich people, not people on public assistance. Wealthier people have a much larger environmental footprint.
You’re correct, of course. But they should.
And yes, as far as taxation policies to provide for children (I’m of the opinion that women are capable of working to provide for themselves, but that might make me an outlier here), and even division of property laws to provide benefits for future generations, I’m good.
This, in particular, made me retch:
A woman has the sole right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term because she is the only adult person whose life and health are at risk in the process. She does not bear the sole responsibility for the financial support of the child, hypothetically speaking, because the child has rights vis a vis its biological father that exist whether or not the woman survives the pregnancy. The CHILD has rights. Society has decided that it doesn’t want to be financially responsible for out of control male fertility and that it won’t permit men as a first resort to get women pregnant, produce offspring, and then refuse to support those children.
If you are so concerned about unfairness you might contemplate the fact that pregnant women and the fetus are not entitled to support from the father of the fetus and that most cases of child support are more honored in the breach than the observance.
@Amir Khalid: That Kanye is a brilliant musician?
The Other Chuck
@balconesfault: You’re still advocating that the government decide who gets to reproduce. The hole is at least six feet now, you can stop digging.
I can’t even figure out what you think you mean by that. What makes you think that women in this country don’t routinely “work to provide for themselves” and their families, too? Did you miss the last 400 years of female labor in this country? Are you under the impression that men do all the work in this society?
@CONGRATULATIONS!: You’re welcome to volunteer your own junk for that. You’ll get mine out of my cold, dead hands.
Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)
Who is the one bearing the risk of physical harm during the pregnancy? It seems to me that the woman does bear primary responsibility for the consequences. After the child is born, the father and mother share responsibility for the child. How well each lives up to his/her responsibilities is another question.
And a hearty fuck you to you too.
A bit off-topic, but generally related to women’s well-being… Deadspin has a post up regarding a press release from big beer.
I view this as a positive development. A snippet:
Anheuser-Busch, the NFL’s $1.2 billion beer sponsor, released this statement in response to all the women and children being smacked around by football players in recent months:
“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league.”
You will immediately notice that A-B is not actually doing anything, or even threatening to do anything, or even hinting at the possibility of considering maybe doing anything. But even this milquetoast statement, which doubtlessly required many fraught committee meetings to see the light of day, is still a pretty big deal.
Sponsors don’t talk like this—not unless they’re terrified that continued association will be bad for business. As TD Ameritrade told the Associated Press, “[W]e carefully monitor the effect it has on our business and brand, and if we feel those assets are being compromised, we’ll make the appropriate decisions.”
Oh, all right, I’ll grant him that.
@The Other Chuck:
By that token, the government gets to decide who can travel abroad, by charging for a passport. The government gets to decide who sees the Grand Canyon, by charging an admission fee. Etc.
Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)
@balconesfault: No. Just no.
Nope. Simply stating that I am fine with the proposed taxation of men to provide for their children (and I must admit that your pointing out that the child has rights wrt the financial obligations of the father is a very strong point which I was not considering).
I did not see the point of labeling something a “womans and children’s fund”. Providing adequate social services to allow a woman to raise children (and to have access to healthcare and childcare) can be justified simply as a “children’s fund”. Simply a matter of semantics.
On the other hand – NFL games have been getting huge shares this year. And unfortunately every NFL sponsor is deathly afraid that if they pull their sponsorship, the NFL will shut the door behind them for a long, long time. There’s a long list of folks behind them.
We become enablers by continuing to pay attention.
Meanwhile, I’ll entertain the possibility that A-B may actually be appalled by what they see, and not just be afraid of backlash.
@aimai: There is a bit of an assumption that of course all the poor children are living with mothers, moreover mothers that aren’t pulling their own weight, no investigation needed into what may be missing from the income stream due to deadbeat fathers not contributing to the upkeep of kids they may have once voluntarily been entirely in favor of, let alone negligently, or even feloniously contributed to creating. Consequences come with the womb, bitch. Daddy don’t have complete control of the outcome? Daddy’s got the free from all possible consequences card, even if he once agreed but decided to bug out later. Lock up those irresponsible ovaries, causing all these problems. Cheerfully hidden under the veneer of being pro-womens rights and environmentally friendly!
The US government might charge money to issue you a passport or to let you see the Grand Canyon, but do you have to ask its permission to do these things? Per your proposal (and Pearce’s), a woman receiving benefits would have to go on birth control to keep getting them. What is that, if it’s not telling the woman she must have permission to reproduce?
@Amir Khalid: In music, brilliance and jackassery seems to go together. I wonder why.
“Increasingly concerned” is definitely “hinting at the possibility of considering maybe doing anything”. It means that A-B is currently unhappy with the situation and will be even more unhappy if more cases of spousal/child abuse come to light.
Of course, I don’t know if A-B has many options between doing nothing and cancelling a $1.2BB contract.
The Other Chuck
@balconesfault: Funny thing how the government doing thing X doesn’t automatically license them to do completely-different-thing-Y.
That’s the last I have to say to you about it.
I agree. They are obviously trying to make something happen without really doing anything other than clearing their throat in public. This whole thing seems to have grown some real legs, tho. It appears that Nike and Wheaties have also joined the chorus of dissent.
How the hell would you test for alcohol? Doesn’t it leave the system more quickly than most drugs?
Love that he says that it’s OK to use drugs if you have a job.
For these folks, social welfare is just a means to circumvent the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Other Chuck
Random testing, any time, day or night. Small government, amirite?
My theory is that brilliance leads to success; success brings wealth and fame; and wealth and fame liberate your inner jackass, if you have one.
Some Democrat needs to propose an amendment to this proposal extending the prohibitions to include owning guns. If the poor want guns, let them get jobs. Right, NRA?
@The Other Chuck:
Small enough to drown in a urine cup.
It is not. It is permission to reproduce while still receiving government assistance.
@balconesfault: I repeat: what happens when her birth control fails? Kick her off assistance unless she gets an abortion?
@debit: Nope – the policy should not be an ass, and should take into consideration that birth control does sometime fail. The state should certainly not be in the position of mandating an abortion in order to continue to receive assistance – even when there’s a very good argument to be made that an abortion would be in her best interests (with or without additional assistance).
@balconesfault: Then what is the point of your policy?
Actually, scratch that question. There is no point, and I don’t really want to engage with you any longer.
Urine test detects alcohol 12 to 24 hours from what I’ve read. Depends on how much alcohol was consumed tho. Not sure about alcohol blood tests.
It’s more than moral rights too. That’s the actual state posture. They don’t collect child support on behalf of the mother (or parent, as the case may be). They collect it on behalf of the child, and they can do that whether the mother wants them to or not. She can say “I do not want child support from this person” and the court can order it anyway.
Judges collect it on behalf of the child. If it goes thru a court rather than an agency, it goes thru a juvenile court.
The Pale Scot
IIRC, In NJ they capped the benefits at the second child if it was born while the woman was on benefits for the first one, anymore than 2 and the parent/s had to make do with the amount provided for 2 children, the number of 3rd children being born fell by 56%.
Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)
@The Pale Scot: There is a huge difference between this and requiring women to be on birth control.
Another Holocene Human
@PurpleGirl: This is a drastic oversimplification. Dachau was quite close to Munich and in the early days after the Nazi rise to power hundreds if not thousands of their enemies (political and otherwise) were beaten and tortured to death and their bodies cremated to destroy the evidence. The entire point was to silence and induce terror in the families, colleagues, neighbors of the disappeared.
Another Holocene Human
@mai naem mobile:
Sounds like old school Anglo-Americans who want to trace their ancestry back to British kings or at least the Norman conquerers (a la the Romney family). They truly believe they have a hereditary right to rule, all that nauseating shit. Fuck every last one of them.
Another Holocene Human
@balconesfault: The key is that SHE should make the decision about having her tubes tied or getting an IUD. And she should have a lot of opportunities to get that information, in school, at local clinics, but after jr high and high school we don’t force people to sit through condescending lectures…
Unless of course they’re poor women of color because they’re not really people, minds less sharp than a 12 year old British boy and all that.
The ugly, UGLY truth here is that a lot of hospitals force women to come back for separate surgery after a c-section to get their tubes tied which is not medically necessary and a practical heartache, that the military can be quite annoying about it, Catholic hospitals, etc. That there is an ugly fight going on RIGHT NOW about whether women will get access to stuff like IUDs (apparently shitty hormonal treatment with yucky side effects that no rich woman would chose, like Norplant, is okay) or Nuvaring. I know someone who got pregnant on birth control pills and the birth must have cost
themher employer $20K at a minimum but they refused to cough up $300 for Nuvaring so this woman had to pay out of pocket before Obamacare. Fuck. Ers.
It’s funny, when women have a CHOICE about their fertility they often choose to limit it and to delay pregnancy, but it seems like so many “well-meaning” middle class whites think that the milling masses need to be tied down and subjected to forced sterilization. How about NO.
*edited for clarity
If sterilization were mandatory for all, starting with the richest and working down in enforcement to the poorest, per a draft system similar to the military draft…
And the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@mai naem mobile
So presumably LDS members would be exempt from sterilization, since the guy abandoning the mother and she going on welfare is a common LDS game to get around the polygamy ban.
@balconesfault: the best way to achieve the ends you’re describing is improved access to contraception and, yes, abortions. No other way to do it, really.
What other basic human rights are we to curtail for those on the dole?
@Balconesfault @CaseyL It’s good to know, I guess, that the authoritarian spirit is still alive and well in some of our soi-disant “progressives” even now.
@Another Holocene Human:
There was a story a few years ago, perhaps in Salon, about a German pathology postdoc in the ’30’s who recognized a body on a slab as a friend who she knew had been taken in as a political dissident a few weeks before. The hook for the story was that a lot of still widely used anatomical drawings came out of that shop.
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Oh, and the neurotically misanthropic strain, too. Check.
All of them, Katie.
I agree with him. The first thing he should do is assure that he never reproduce.
What, and ruin 40 years of tradition?