Tammi's Life EVANGELICS AND OTHER KKKCHRISTIANS AVOID THIS SITE TEMPTATION LIES WITH IN!! WELCOME TO ALL Honest & caring people with open minds. Men should note that I am Lesbian and while I have male friends I am not interested in them Sexually.
Why Romney's Bullying Is Relevant To The Election Five high school seniors at an elite prep school stalk, then jump a younger student with a new haircut they think looks too gay. Their 18-year-old ringleader cuts off the offending locks, while the victim screams and begs for help. Decades later, the victim and several participants are still haunted by the attack.
It’s not a scene from Bully. It’s a revealing episode from Mitt Romney’s formative years.
We’ve all had moments in high school or college we’d rather forget. And certainly we all have the capacity to change. But sometimes behavior as a young adult can reveal much about one’s present character. Romney’s challenge is that his prep school bullying lines up well with the rest of what voters have learned about him.
Here’s the simple picture that’s emerging: If you’re less fortunate or less powerful, Mitt Romney won’t think twice about walking over you if you’re in his way.
Mitt was born into a stratum of society that most Americans know only from movies and magazines. And maybe because of that, he often appears not to understand or care about people weaker than him — even when they’re harmed by his actions. If you’re a member of the jet set, or if you’re useful to him financially or politically, he’s got your back. But if you’re not as powerful you may be as good as invisible, or worse — like his classmate John Lauber — someone he’ll tear down in order to lift himself up.
Romney made his millions in large part by laying off tens of thousands of people. So when he says, “I like to fire people,” well, what would you expect from the silver-spoon bully who, according to one classmate, turned a prestigious prep school into something akin to Lord of the Flies? At a time when many Americans fear for their own financial future, it’s no surprise many wonder if they’re also on Romney’s chopping block.
Even the bizarre episode with Seamus, the family dog who spent 12 hours strapped to the roof of the Romney car, fits the pattern. Mitt Romney seems to have a serious empathy problem.
Now we’re seeing parallels as Romney lays out his policy agenda for the country. The man who rallied his chums to bully a vulnerable kid has produced a set of prescriptions that are striking in the degree to which they advantage his NASCAR-owning buddies over everyone else.
According to a recent CBS News report, Romney’s tax plan “strongly favors the rich.” While cutting taxes for his fellow millionaires, he’d actually raise taxes on the bottom 20 percent of earners. Of course this is the same Romney who earlier this spring said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” as though existing antipoverty programs are sufficient.
Or consider how his policies would harm women. Romney would allow bosses to deny birth control coverage to their employees. He’d overturn health care reform, including a provision to stop insurers from billing women more than men for the same coverage. And he wants to “get rid” of funding for Planned Parenthood — a lifesaving source of health care for millions.
None of these would pose much difficulty for Romney or his privileged friends. But if you’re a woman who needs health care, in Romney’s world, you could be out of luck.
Same goes for the low-income students who rely on Pell Grants as they pursue a higher education and the American Dream. They’d see cuts of up to $170 billion under the Ryan budget Romney has embraced — which could put college out of reach.
And if you’re gay? Romney’s bullying prep school behavior was just the start of it. Before a recent Fox News interview, Romney struck a mock effeminate tone as he considered a pink tie — a nasty jab gay people anywhere would be quick to recognize. Again, there’s a policy connection. Romney wants to end marriage equality in the six states that have it. No “evolution” here.
After the Washington Post broke the bullying story, Romney apologized for his high school “pranks and hijinks.” He took pains to explain that it’s been a long time since prep school, and that he’s changed.
The problem for voters hunting for a leader who cares about their problems and will take their side, is that it doesn’t appear he has.
Why Mitt Romney Should Never Be Elected President. Ever
This man thinks he’s better than all of us—gay, poor, middle class. Think he’s going to represent the interests of anyone who’s not in his country club or fraternity? Think again.
Bil posted yesterday about Mitt Romney's days as a violent bully back in the 60's. The Washington Post had five witnesses who independently verified the story, the Boston Globe has a sixth. The short version is that Romney led others in holding down a kid and cutting off his hair and would shout "atta-girl" at another student who was perceived as gay when he spoke in class, but both articles are worth reading for the whole story.
Romney has several excuses for the whole thing:
he does not remember the incident (even though six classmates, some of whom sound fairly Republican, all do),
even though he doesn't remember the incident, he's absolutely sure he didn't do it because the kids were gay since there were no gay kids in the 60's,
he's had a bunch of kids who also had a bunch of kids, which means that his past is erased or something,
why can't we talk about stuff that's relevant, like how he stole pensions from workers in Kansas City?
it's funny, something to laugh about with Brian Kilmeade, and
A few years ago I worked at a summer camp for future Bain-esque boys whose b/millionaire parents sent them there to toughen them up. Unlike my fairly middle class upbringing, these kids weren't taught to meticulously follow the rules. Instead, they could do pretty much anything they wanted to do so long as they were tough little men about it, and that included bullying and fighting.
So I don't really have trouble imagining that no one involved in this assault was punished. There's a certain class that sees experiences like these as absolutely necessary for growing up to be a leader in certain sectors, and they're probably right about that. We live in a country that's run by its cruelest, greediest people, and the one thing the cruel and greedy can't stand is the notion that there are people who aren't cruel and greedy.
This is their culture and a lot of folks on the right aren't going to really even get why people would be upset about this. It just shows them that Romney is a natural leader.
On another note, I remember a while back David Axelrod saying it was OK for Obama to suck as a president since voters would see that the Republican alternative was comparatively more terrible. The GOP seems to have taken that as a challenge.
North Carolina's governor, Beverly Perdue, today told a local television station that Tuesday's passage of Amendment One was bad for the state.
"People around the country are watching us, and they're really confused, to have been such a progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights of people including the civil rights marches back in the 50's and 60's and 70's. Folks are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi."
To which Mississippi replied, "Those are fighting words. North Carolina can only dream of being as backward as we are."
Ayn Rand-Loving Right Is Like Teen Boys Gone Crazy
By Sara Robinson, Alternet
12 May 12
f, as George Lakoff says, we view politics through the metaphor of family, then Mother's Day is a good time to ask the question: Where's Mom in this picture? What are all those dirty socks and pizza boxes doing in the living room? (Seriously: it looks like a frat house in here.) Who's been drinking the beer I hid in the basement fridge?
And, sweet mother of God: how did we end up letting the 16-year-old boys take over the entire household?
Make no mistake: all this Ayn Rand libertarian me-first-and-the-rest-of-you-go-to-hell stuff - the there's-no-government-like-no-government theology that's now being piously intoned as Holy Received Truth by everybody, male and female, in the GOP - is, very precisely, the kind of politics you'd come up with if you were a 16-year-old boy trying to explain away his dependence on Mom.
Parents? I don't have any parents. I raised myself, on roots and berries and small vermin I dug up in vacant lots. That lady hanging around, feeding me and nagging me and picking up my socks and driving me to practice? She's just the nanny state. That bitch. I hate her.
Society? There's no such thing as society. There's only what I want right now, which is the ultimate good in my universe. And what I want right now is more time on the XBox, pizza money, and the keys to the family car.
The future? If I pursue everything I want now, then the future will magically take care of its self. Dinner will appear. So will clean socks and the next-gen XBox.
Obligations? I am God's gift to the world. I don't owe it anything. In fact: it owes me - just for being so magnificent, cute and special. (Even my mom thinks so.)
On behalf of America's mothers, let me say: I have had enough of this. I don't care how cute they are: it's high time these so-called "libertarian" freeloaders get off the couch, stand up, and show some respect to the rest of us who've done the hard work that makes their cushy lives possible.
You know what I want for Mother's Day? I want these so-called "self-made men" to grow up and get a life.
No More "Nanny State" - Ever
Also: I'm putting them on notice: I don't ever want to hear one more word about the "nanny state." Not one. Not ever again.
First of all : It's ugly. It just reeks of that 16-year-old boy being told to clean up his mess. The big sigh. The dramatic eye-roll. The drawn-out, agonized, "yyezzzz, mommmm..." that lets you know you're about to spend the rest of the evening in a passive-aggressive battle during which your teenager will generate enough inertia to bring the rotation of this and several neighboring galaxies to a dead stop.
The "nanny state" is making you do the dishes, and then it wants you to clean out the garage. You poor persecuted darling. Go dial 1-976-WAAAAAH.
Second of all: It's sexist as hell. Anti-feminist at its very core. It says that the concerns that we most identify with mothers - cleaning up your crap, minding your manners, not annoying other people, taking responsibility for your actions - are intrusive and unwarranted infringements on your essential freedom, instead of the basic adult responsibilities that are required of everybody if society is going to remain free and functional.
It says that the power and authority by which mothers - "nannies," in this construction - set the rules within the family is illegitimate. It belittles women who are bossy enough to insist on adult behavior from men.
It suggests that the things women are stereotypically most bossy about - politically, this would be issues like child welfare and education (looking after your little brother), the environment (housework), and peace and social justice (playing fair and being nice) are beneath the attention and dignity of men. You can almost hear John Wayne: "Don't you worry about what your Mom says, boys. Dad's here, and he'll set her straight. (Big fat wink. Deep chuckle.) You go right on ahead with what you were doing."
(Of course, when the Duke said stuff like this, the result was usually a shrieking, hair-pulling fight with Maureen O'Hara, which always ended with her turned triumphantly over his knee. And then, after a good, sound spanking that put the little lady firmly back in her place, he'd wrestle her tiny hands away so she couldn't slap him, and kiss her until she stopped struggling. And she'd love every minute of it, because in this deranged view of gender relationships, that kind of manhandling is just what all pissy women are really secretly asking for.)
It implies that Real Americans are honor-bound to resist any and all exercise of female bossiness in the sacred name of preserving their almighty "freedom."
And then, as the final insult, it identifies all government action with that exaggerated feminine weakness. Corporations: the domains of independent, active men who are busy creating a better world for themselves - and therefore, automatically, for everybody else as well. Government: the domain of dependent, passive women who are fussing about everybody's business, insisting that they clean up their stuff, eat right, play nice, and get to bed at a decent hour.
Government, like Mom, is a real buzz-killer. And also powerless. You can safely ignore her. After all: all she can do is yell at you, ground you, and dock your allowance. And Dad (or, in the case of government, his lawyers and lobbyists) is the truly sane and powerful one around here, and can be counted on to set her straight when he gets home.
How to Tell the Men From the Boys
Conservatives completely fetishize masculinity. They idolize sports heroes, warriors and the Manly Jesus of modern evangelicalism. They eagerly seek the trappings that will buttress their sense of maleness in their own minds - guns, big trucks, enough money and power to push other people around. The further right you go, the more exaggerated this focus on hypermasculinity becomes.
Psychiatrist Stephen Ducat explained this phenomenon at long length in his book, The Wimp Factor. Ducat's research shows that right-wing men are so obsessed with the external trappings of maleness precisely because they've failed to develop the inner qualities and accept the obligations that are required of actual adult men. It's all show, with nothing solid on the inside to back it up. And the more fragile their masculinity feels to them, the more exaggerated the outer display they put on is.
Given the insecurity that lies at the heart of this sad compensation, it's especially ironic that they've got the whole country buffaloed into thinking this is appropriate adult behavior. We've ended up with a culture of maleness that emphasizes the objectification and degredation of women, a lack of male accountability for anything that happens in the culture, and a definition of masculinity that's all about empty shows of dubious might - like peacocks preening on parade.
For the record: This is a comic-book stereotype of manhood as it's imagined by little boys. But it's not the real deal - not even close.
The essential difference that separates the men and the boys is that men understand and accept that they have an obligation to the greater good, and are willing to unflinchingly step up to that responsibility. They commit to their families. They work to improve their homes and communities, so they're safe and nurturing places for everyone to be. They take the long view as they plan for their kids' future. They look out for people around them who are weaker than they are. And they respect and cherish the co-parents of their children as their equal partners in that effort.
Adult men do not resent being asked to contribute to the collective whole. They know that their actions have consequences, and that they are responsible for the impact of those consequences on the greater good of the community.
As a veteran mom, I understand that it's totally developmentally appropriate for a teenage boy to desperately struggle to separate from his female parent as he begins to find his way toward his adult male identity. But at some point, that oppositional process is supposed to come to an end - usually in the early- to mid-20s, with a reconciliation and renewed acceptance of Mom as a useful guide in his life. And, if he's straight, there will be a mature acceptance of his obligations to a female partner and their children as well.
A 50-year-old CEO who's still whining because Big Bad Government is asking him to clean up his shit, look after his little brother, and not act like a psychopath in public is flat-out suffering from arrested emotional and social development. He's not a grown man, despite his thousands of employees and millions in salary. He's still that teenager, hating on Mom because she dared to remind him that he's still deeply dependent on the resources of provided by his larger family. And as a mother, I'd invite other moms to join me in calling out this immaturity for what it is, wherever we see it.
What I really want for Mother's Day is for America's Lost Boys - the libertarian Peter Pans, the free-market feral children, the neo-liberal ramblin' men - to stop pretending that they're something special and uniquely free because they've managed to disassociate themselves from women's care and women's concerns.
I want respect for the role mothers play - both in our personal families, and in our national one. I want some recognition of the fact that the issues that are typically dismissed by the masculine fetishists as "women's issues" or "nanny-state meddling" are, in fact, the issues that the future of our country most depends on. And I want the common wealth and the common good - the health and wealth of our national family - to get the same kind of loving respect that all mothers are entitled to.
Flowers and chocolate and a nice brunch are appreciated, too. But they're a meaningless insult - a sop to authority we don't have, and aren't seen as entitled to - long as we let the 16-year-olds run the household the other 364 days out of the year.
Sara Robinson, MS, APF is a social futurist and the editor of AlterNet's Vision page. Follow her on Twitter, or subscribe to AlterNet's Vision newsletter for weekly updates.
We all know Scott Walker didn't tell the truth to the people of Wisconsin about his private plans for an ideological civil war.
But now there is never-before-seen footage of Walker talking to a Koch Brothers strategist that proves it.
In a shocking video uncovered by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Walker is caught red-handed discussing his intention to strip workers of their rights as part of a larger secret strategy to "divide and conquer" Wisconsin for his own political gain.
Facebook co-founder gave up his U.S. citizenship to evade taxes
How much is your U.S. citizenship worth to you?
For most immigrants, the day they achieve U.S. citizenship is one of the most momentous in their lives. It's a long, arduous process to get there, involving years of residency, study of our nation's history, and the swearing an oath of allegiance. It's an honor that many would-be Americans have given up their lives for. But for 30-year-old Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, U.S. citizenship has its price: Rather than pay his fair share of taxes on the upcoming Facebook IPO, Saverin has renounced his U.S. citizenship to save some money.
The Brazilian-born Saverin became a U.S. citizen in 1998 after moving here in 1992. Saverin surrendered that citizenship last year, becoming a resident of Singapore, a nation that lacks a capital gains tax. The move could mean a massive tax savings considering that Saverin's 4% stake in Facebook is valued in the range of $3-4 billion.
Saverin won't escape scot-free — giving up his citizenship requires him to pay an "exit tax" on his shares of Facebook. Essentially, he'll have to pay the capital gains tax for the increase of value Facebook experienced while he was a citizen. Still, because he's giving up his citizenship before the record-setting Facebook IPO, the tax basis for those holdings can be reported much lower than had he waited until after.
The idea of giving up your citizenship to realize tax benefits is being hailed as a smart idea, at least from a financial perspective. It's becoming increasingly common, too — 1,780 people gave up their citizenship last year, as compared to 235 in 2008. In fact, avoiding U.S. taxes has become a growth industry: PayPal co-founder (and early Facebook investor) Peter Thiel has invested in an experiment to create floating cities off the coast of California, just outside Uncle Sam's reach.
In this May 29, 2011 file photo, Bristol Palin, daughter of former GOP vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor …Bristol Palin is sparking a social media backlash for disagreeing with President Barack Obama's support of same-sex marriage.
The former Dancing with the Stars contestant, author and unwed mother said in her blog: "We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home."
The daughter of Sarah Palin also commented that Obama's decision was influenced by his daughters, Sasha and Malia.
"I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren't younger, or perhaps today's press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox," Palin wrote.
Reaction to her comments came swiftly.
Samantha Ronson, celebrity DJ and former girlfriend of Lindsay Lohan said of Palin's mother/father comment, "really bristol palin? how's your kid doing?"
Jersey Shore star JWoww first tweeted, "Bristol should keep her uneducated ignorant mouth shut. If Ur living in the past u wouldn't have a kid w/out marriage #hypocrite. It's 2012!"
She followed up with another tweet saying, "My best friend will get married one day and not just have civil union with his man. Stop hating people."
Openly gay blogger Perez Hilton tweeted, "I think I need to give Bristol Palin a good massage. Girlfriend needs to RELAX!!!"
Sherri Shepherd of "The View" commented on Twitter, "Sara Palin educated Bristol ... and not blaming Bristol, but I'm blaming Bristol being young & not excercising good judgment."
Even some not-so-famous commentators got their say, as mediabistro.com's "All Twitter" blog rounded up some of the best reactions to Bristol Palin's comments.
Some of those include:
nolageek "Let's all bask in the irony of Bristol Palin talking about the importance of raising a child in a traditional marriage."
Chico Delainky "Bristol Palin is just envious that some babies have two dads & her's doesn't even have one"
Alec Mapa "Bristol Palin's just jealous because I'm actually married to the father of my baby"
“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.”
This position puts him to the right of even George W. Bush, who famously used anti-gay sentiment to whip up conservative votes for his 2004 re-election. But Romney’s opposition to legal recognition for gay relationships doesn’t end at merely stopping progress, he also supports permanently enshrining discrimination in our Constitution in the form of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one women. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Romney’s campaign and one of the architects of Bush’s 2004 gay-baiting strategy, said this morning that Romney would make a constitutional ban on marriage equality a key issue in the campaign:
Would Let States Discriminate Too
Beyond marriage equality, Romney’s record on basic equality for LGBT people is also troubling. He opposes federal rules that require hospitals to allow visitation rights for gay partners and he thinks we should just let the states decide if it’s OK to fire people just for being gay (which 29 states have decided is just fine).
Speaking last fall to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as “perverse,” according to several people present at the meeting.
Romney’s alleged comments on homosexual practices were part of a 20-minute address he delivered on November 14 to the Cambridge University Ward, which numbers about 250 to 300 single Mormons.
“He said he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuals in the congregation,” said Rick Rawlins, a 32-year-old Mormon who had previously served as a counselor to the ward’s bishop. “He went on to say that he found homosexuality both perverse and reprehensible.”
High School Bully
And just today, the Washington Post revealed that during his years at an elite prep school, Romney taunted one fellow student who was perceived to be gay and “vicious[ly]” assaulted another:
John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. […]
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
More recently, of course, Romney and his campaign stood silently by while the social conservative fringe of the GOP viciously attacked his openly gay and pro-marriage equality foreign policy spokesman. Not only did they not defend the spokesman, they decided to silence him in hopes quieting the attacks. All of this eventually led to the spokesman to quit the campaign.
Out on a Limb
Interestingly, some of Romney’s fellow Republicans seem to understand that making the Republican Party’s open intolerance of gays a key issue in the campaign is unlikely to do them any favors with the American public. This morning, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) dodged several questions on marriage in general, and Gillespie’s comments in particular. “A Romney adviser said this morning that they plan to make gay marriage a campaign issue and that they’re also going to push for a constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that?” a reporter asked. “I’m going to stay focused on jobs,” Boehner replied, before abruptly leaving the stage.
WHAT: A bill to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling.
WHERE: The U.S. Senate.
HOW WAS IT PAID FOR: Instead of going along with the GOP’s latest salvo in its war on women, Senate Democrats instead proposed closing a tax loophole that allows wealthy people to avoid paying employment taxes.
WHAT WAS THE VOTE: As is now typical, Republicans demanded a 60-vote threshold on the bill, meaning it failed despite garnering the support of 53 senators. Of those voting today, every Democrat* voted in favor of taking up the bill, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted “present,” and every single other Republican voted against even debating the bill.
WHY DID THE GOP VOTE NO: It’s apparent that Republicans will do nearly anything to protect the wealthiest Americans. Interestingly, however, just a few years ago when former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) was in the crosshairs for taking advantage of the tax loophole, conservatives were eager to get rid of it, writes the New York Times:
But conservatives have often had a dim view of this loophole. In 2004, the Wall Street Journal editorial page lamented:
“Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn’t stop him from using a clever tax dodge to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a ‘subchapter S’ corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends.”
That same year, the conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote, “It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code, and it is a big one.”
Even Sean Hannity of Fox News got in on the act that year, saying: “Hey, John Edwards is worth, what, $30 million to $40 million, set up a sub-S corporation to keep him from paying Medicare taxes on 90 percent of his income, and then he lectures the rest of us how Medicare is going broke.”
IN ONE SENTENCE: Republicans have shown time and again that no cost is too great for women, students, workers, and the poor to bear in order to protect giveaways to the wealthiest Americans and huge corporations.
Campaigning in the backyard of America's auto industry, Mitt Romney re-ignited the bailout debate by suggesting he deserves "a lot of credit" for the recent successes of the nation's largest car companies.
That claims comes in spite of his stance that Detroit should have been allowed to go bankrupt.
Okay, pick your jaw back up off the floor ... but get ready to lose it once again:
"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet," Romney said in an interview inside a Cleveland-area auto parts maker. "So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."
Their names? Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer. It happened 42 years ago, and is remembered in the famous Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young song, Ohio.
Tammi, you may take the towel off but I do appreciate you for not throwing it in, keep going on as long as you can because people like you DO make a change.
Good morning my dear Tammi, you still remember the butterflies before the first time? I wish you an exciting Sunday and many returns of those unforgettable feelings.
….. with my best wishes, no doctors at all, always enough pocket money, no tears in your beautiful eyes but always happiness in your heart to make you smile ……. KISS
Tammi, you never gave me the chance to find out the correct size but I am sure the top left is the one which will fit you to perfection. I wish for you that your Wednesday brings to you the excitements you are looking for.
Good morning my dear friend Tammi, be careful when doing your spring cleaning, danger can hide in any corner and most accidents happen during home work. Enjoy an exciting Wednesday.
Mitt was born into a stratum of society that most Americans know only from movies and magazines. And maybe because of that, he often appears not to understand or care about people weaker than him — even when they’re harmed by his actions. If you’re a member of the jet set, or if you’re useful to him financially or politically, he’s got your back. But if you’re not as powerful you may be as good as invisible, or worse — like his classmate John Lauber — someone he’ll tear down in order to lift himself up.
witnesses who independently verified the story, the 
f, as George Lakoff says, we view politics through the metaphor of family, then Mother's Day is a good time to ask the question: Where's Mom in this picture? What are all those dirty socks and pizza boxes doing in the living room? (Seriously: it looks like a frat house in here.) Who's been drinking the beer I hid in the basement fridge?
I just never through in the towel. 
