Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Discussion with Jen Hogg, IVAW

Army Sergeant posted comments to me from IVAW's Jen Hogg. As this is going to get a bit detailed, it's worthy of a post. SgtHogg's words in blue. LTC Goldenberg's in red.

"Hi Dennis, Jen Hogg here.

My company was support for Combat Engineers in the National Guard, where many soldiers are in their 40's. A few with prior infantry experience were deployed.

Also the male mechanics were told to do a two week course in order to get MOS'Q as combat engineers so they could move to the line units and get rank. When the war started that two week course allowed them to be deployed as Infantry. Myself and the other female mechanic were not deployed with them as we did not have that course. Males without that course were also not deployed if I remember correctly. Our unit was used as filler for multiple other units that deployed so we were not sent as one whole unit (so much for gays ruining unit cohesion). The mechanics were deployed with the 69th as Infantry. I would not have volunteered to go because I was against the war nor would I have been able to. I often joke that it was one of the few times sexism worked in my favor although the guys did not think it was funny that they signed up to be mechanics and were sent as infantry. Also they did a 6 month train up at Drum before deploying."

Hi Jen,

Thanks for that, and back to you in a moment. One of the problems I had with your post at HuffPo was that it certainly gave the impression that a support unit was deployed as combat infantry. You still did not make it perfectly clear here, although slighty better than at HuffPo, that the soldiers deployed were all volunteers, and that those (males only) who were deployed as combat infantry had to have had that skill set. I'm a little perplexed at your claim that "the guys did not think it was funny that they signed up to be mechanics and were sent as infantry" when they volunteered to go as opposed to being sent.

From the e-mail I received from LTC. Goldenberg, PAO for the 42nd I.D.:

"The former 152nd Combat Engineer Battalion, once based in Buffalo New York, and now deactivated as a component of the New York Army National Guard, did not mobilize for service overseas. The battalion did, however, provide augmentees to other deploying units bound for Iraq.

During 2004 and 2005, Citizen Soldiers from the 152nd Engineers volunteered to serve with a deploying infantry battalion task force and an engineer brigade headquarters detachment. Both units were from the New York Army National Guard deploying to Iraq. Cross-leveling between units has become a routine and predictable method to fully man units preparing to deploy overseas.

Soldiers who deployed with the infantry battalion task force did perform duties overseas alongside infantry Soldiers, therefore Army and DoD regulations prohibit the assignment of female Soldiers to this frontline combat formation. The infantry battalion served north of Baghdad in Taji and in Baghdad proper. The engineer brigade headquarters deployed to Tikrit, Iraq and served as the senior engineer element for the Multinational Division for North Central Iraq. Soldiers who volunteered to serve with the engineer brigade headquarters came from a variety of military skills and gender was no prohibition on service. Any engineer from the 152nd with the needed skill set could volunteer to serve with that organization."

Back to you:

"I was discharged before they came home and later I visited my unit. This is when I was told the story. I can't account for its truth but I can account for it being presented as normal by the story teller. Not verified normal policy, but normal morality. That is the point that seems to be missed."

It is still missed. You wrote of what was a personal impression at HuffPo: "He said this as if it were normal and ok.” Even if that was told to you exactly as you say, by what standard do you take that as normal for a broad spectrum of others as opposed to the one person speaking? That is, at the best, reading into something that which one wants to be there.

Back to you:

"No I did not turn him in. Would you if you couldn't prove it was true?"

Pardon me, but it is never to job or duty of a person who comes into possession of information about a potentially serious crime to "prove" anything. That task falls to the proper official investigators charged under our laws, military and civilian, with doing so. The person who comes to the knowledge of information that a serious crime may have been committed is both morally and legally obligated to report it. You argued against a Marine who was taking exactly that moral and legal position. Back to you:

"Its war, what do you expect people to do? Not kill people thy are told are their enemies? Once again the point is what is morally seen as normal."

And you are again drawing a personal conclusion with zero factual back-up. It is not as though there have not been thousands of detainees held and released in Iraq over the years, rather than an implied "normalized" that they were simply executed!

"I did not see any rapes in my unit and I do believe my commander would try address them if they did happen there was blatant sexism in the attitudes and interactions in my unit. However if they had happened I can't speak to how they would have been handled. Helen took "no rapes" to mean treated well. Many females just "suck it up" when it comes to the day to day reality. I just reconnected with a female I went through basic with and she was sexually assaulted by a Drill after she recycled for a hip fracture. I helped another female report being grabbed between her legs from behind by a male during basic training. While I did try to address what I saw as the "big wrongs" of sexism (harassment and assaults) I certainly just let comments and harassing looks go as something women in the military just have to 'deal with'.

It would seem from your interpretation one should only speak up if something happens directly to them and ignore things otherwise."

Hold it right there! I am the one pointing out the legal and moral obligation to precisely report indications of crime to the proper authorities. You were the one telling a Marine with the same stand that he might well be concerned about armed retribution! If you were made aware of the unjustified killing of detainees in Iraq you had an obligation to report it, and not on a HuffPo discussion site while arguing against a soldier stating that he and the Marines he knew would do so in such an event.

"I could see the sexism in the military and its affects on other women in other units. You don't have to google very far to see the multiple reports of it. I don't intend to stay quiet because you think there are contradictions. I think commanders that stand for whats right have units that perform in that manner. Whether its ROE or sexual assault."

Full circle, what would you consider "normal", the commanders and units that do, or those that don't?

"Also the HuffPo comment was not trying to prove anything happened but was in response to another comment where someone said they don't believe "wrong" things happen in Iraq because HE didn't see anything."

That's is not what was said, period. Here is jrockbg's entire statement (in green) that you responded to:

“Wow. I take serious exception to your statements claiming that servicemen are routinely committing war crimes. I served in Ramadi, under the 2nd Marine Division in '05. I never once saw an ‘atrocity’ or criminal act of any kind. Nor would I have turned a blind eye. And we saw some of the worst this war had to offer. Why didn't these soldiers report these alleged atrocities to their commanders? Why is it that we've only heard of a few isolated incidents? I know my commanders were ultra-sensitive about even the appearance of a cover-up.

I don't object to your opposition of the war, just your false characterization.

Back to you:

"My point was to ask is it possible that things out of his sight happened? Especially since there are multiple reports that things DID happen."

And that brings us back to LTC Goldenberg, who was asked about any report or investigation regarding this killing of Iraqi detainees by members of that unit:

“As for your second inquiry, there are no reports, ongoing investigations nor criminal charges pending against any member of either organization for actions that are described in the writer's blog.”

So kindly point us to these "multiple reports that things DID happen"?

"Another soldier was just convicted for shooting an Iraqi. Are the pro-war people comfortable with these convictions? We are trained to fight and kill and then people are convicted for fighting and killing. This takes us into jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Since I believe the war is wrong so much about it is unjust, things that could be just in a just war."

In all things in life, perspective is a requirment for rational thinking. 1.9 millions Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there have been crimes, even heinous ones, as there would be among any population that size, and particularly one skewed heavily in favor of young males. The point is always about people trying to present as "normalized" and "systemic" that which they make not the slightest attempt to show is the case, and further, often do so, as you do, with unverified and uninvestigated charges. The military has always had prisons, laws, trials and punishments. No one argues that crimes are not committed. One side argues that examples, even unverified ones, can be used to charge widespread actions by members of an identified group. The Klan would always point to some genuine crimes by African Americans to make the case that African Americans as a subset of the population commit widespread crimes on a routine basis. The anti-war left has been using the same tactic for decades.

"Also, I think the only honor in the military lies in the goodwill and honor of its members, not in the organization and its uses. That is my opinion."

And you are welcome to it. I grew up in NYC, surrounded by what was likely to world's most polyglot population, and I was entranced from an early age by different cultures and peoples. Suffice it to say that I have known a great many from foreign lands who have felt very differently than you, with cause, about America's armed forces.

If you believed, as you posted at HuffPo, that this story of the killing of Iraqi detainees had even the chance of being true, much less something "normalized", you had the moral obligation to report it. The immoral thing to do would be to not report it, and then seek to use the story for a political purpose.

UPDATE: LTC Goldenberg had a bit more in that e-mail, and I believe I am morally obligated, as a matter of honoring those who deserve it, to show that also:

"Both units served with distinction. The infantry battalion task force, known as Task Force Wolfhound, served on infamous Route Irish, the Baghdad Airport road in the summer of 2005. The unit reduced violence on that route dramatically, turning around one of the most dangerous roads in all of Iraq. Their story is told in "The Fighting 69th," by Sean Michael Flynn, a rifle company commander who served with the task force. The engineers in Tikrit served as part of Task Force Liberty and oversaw more than 1.8 Billion dollars in local and regional reconstruction projects, construction of Iraqi security facilities for army and police forces and assisted the economic development of the four provinces of North Central Iraq as they conducted their historic constitutional referendum vote in October 2005.

...Our Citizen Soldiers reflect the best of American values. We set aside our commitments to our families, our jobs and our communities at home when our nation calls for our service. We mobilize and serve our nation and our Army at war when called. It is frequently noted that when you call out the Guard, you call out America. Thousands of National Guard men and women from across this country have served honorably and nobly in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Guanatanamo Bay and other places throughout the world we would much more rather not see. "

That doesn’t sound like IVAW member Clifton Hick’s description of “these National Guard types who are safe and don't even know what an Iraqi looks like."


Jen said...

Wow, I never heard anyone "asked" if the wanted to deploy. This LTC may qualify it as that but if you served in the military you know how the term "volunteer" gets used to describe "orders". I am sure some of those guys would like to know they volunteered. As far as the portion open to anyone I never heard of volunteers being taken, only slots being filled. Even if there was an open call for volunteers I would not have participated, so I really have no reason to hide if they did becasue I am telling you straight out I wasn't in support of it.

Same thing happened on 9/11 where we were all told we had to go, no choice given, and afterwards found out it was a "voluntary activation".

I can't help if you got the wrong impression about a support unit. I wasn't there at HuffPo to give a unit history and it seemed pretty clear to me since I stated I wasn't deployed because they were sent as infantry. There aren't many other options that statement could fulfill.

I think when you talk to someone you know that when they say people were shot there is a way that is sounds like its an everyday thing or like its a wild occurance.

You seem to doubt the story wholeheartedly. I am not sure why you think I had any reason to think it was true either. You are trying to creat some kind of Catch 22. I stand by the assertion I will not start wild goose chases for your satifaction. I did not see said shooting. The point of the story is to talk about what is normalized,and not a statement of things that actually happened. Otherwise I would not post it on HuffPo. I would go public with it. Another guy also said they shot wild dogs in Iraq. Maybe the LTC can look into that too.

The comment I was responding to set the bar of proof at seeing something first hand. My point was can we be sure nothing happened if we didn't see it first hand; just as I cannot be sure of the statement made to me, but I can imagine it as true. I can imagine it as true that things happen and people don't want to get thier buddies in trouble. I can see the fear of retribution acting on peopel while in country. One reason I can see that is by way of the deaths of women after they have reported rapes. He even said he heard similar stories in his response to me. Have you emailed him and asked why he didn't report it?

I am not telling him to "not" report, I am saying that it sure does seem possible that some don't report for those reasons, so the numbers won't acuratly reflect the reality since he asks why hasn't he seen more reports.

What I am refering to as normalized is not the action, as far as policy, but the acceptance of it by personel in a wartime situation. Something that naturally occurs when you see dead people (no pun intended). So that does not mean I am saying detainees are routinly killed. That does not change that innocent people are routinly detained.

When I said that there are reports of things going wrong I was not speaking of my unit. It was an overall assesment of the war as a whole and a counter example to the Marine who's bar of truth is set at things he see's happen. There are plenty of reports of things, such as the marine who was just convicted, Abu Ghraib, Abeer Hamza and such. He hasn't seen those things, so does it mean they didn't happen?

You're comparrison to the Klan is off base. Most often there were no crime and ones were made up in order to justify racist murders based on crimes that all types of people have the capacity to commit or did commit. It was using a made up crime to justify a crime. What (you try to distill as) the "anti war left" attempts to do is show people the reality of war in order to end it. I don't think you mean that everyone has the same experience as combat soldiers and Marines where as in the Klan example eveyone has at least the same potential to participate in what the Klan was accusing. No one on the legit anti-war side is making up crimes in order to justify crimes, that would be more akin to making up a story in order to prosecute a soldier. That is something that is the exact opposite of the stated goal of ending the war and makes no sense. Such as Jesse Macbeth, who does more to hurt ending teh war than helpit. The logic of your example is not sound.

I don't know if the story has a chance to be true, what I do know is the tone of voice and comfort with the description. That is why I posted at HuffPo and not some place serious. You may feel ok with going on wild goose chases but you want to support the war by making indivual examples of bad apples. I want to end the war by showing its not bad apples, but just how people are changed and are able to operate in a war zone.
I have two things to go on: my military training and what is said by people who have been there.
I can see from my military training we are given three seconds to shoot at every target that pops up. There is no innocent target, like simple video shooting games have or like hunting has with does or small bucks. I can imagine how that leads to innocent people being shot.

Also, I don't doubt there are times when our armed forces do good. I do doubt that this country has a clear idea of all the military actions we have been involved in. Thats like saying because a few goods things happen we should ignore the bad. I do not try to ignore the good, which is why I do make the statement that I fing honor in those who serve. Ward Churchill has a book called "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" detailing every military action down to the day. I know you don't like him, so I ask that you find me a book you do like that does the same so I can compare.

In conclusion, in case you thought this was gonna go on forever, I think we both love service members. We disagree on what their jobs mean. I love the dedication they have to something they may have the oppurtunity to enjoy. I think that speaks a lot more about a person than idle talk. I can agree that we need a military to fight just wars, but I am sure we disagree on what a just war is.
My concern comes in the age old proverb, "do unto others as you would have then do unto you". Most things will raise concerns for me if I know that I would not like them done to me or if those advocating something would not like it done to them. If after 9/11 we were angry it makes me scratch my head why so many peoples response was to support shock and awe. That is revenge, not justice. I understand the intense emotion, but don't agree with it and believe we should have different standards for things done in our name.

I'm on a crappy comp so please excuse spelling errors, no time for spell check.


Denis Keohane said...

"I'm on a crappy comp so please excuse spelling errors, no time for spell check."

Jen, I can do typos on a Cray Super Computer with auto Spell Check!

Thanks for coming by and for your comments.

We could go round and round, but we would likely be flaying dead horses. As it is, we've both had opportunity to comment, and I think there's enough here from both of us that we can comfortably leave it to the readers to make their own judgements.


Thus Spake Ortner said...

I appreciate you responding Jen. I happen to not agree, but do appreciate you showing up.

Well done as usual Dennis.

Again I note that most stories are second hand, and the ones that are first hand tend to be of the Hicks/Massey/MacBeth variety. Quite honestly, I live to hear such stories, since every time except one that I have tried to verify the stories I have found obvious inconsistencies except one, and that was the lunatic De Wald.

Thus Spake Ortner said...

Denis, did you read what Jenn thought about us on the IVAW page? Those of us who debunked the stories from the NYT about being killers are the problem. I haven't worked out the logic of that one, especially in light of the fact that my full time job is working with the DoD and the VA on these very issues, but there it is.

I'm not going to bother going through it line by line because honestly, the arguments just shift when I do that and then I'm told I don't support the vets, even though I am one.

Jen said...

Yeah that whole De Wald thing is crazy. I don't know the guy to be able to vouch either way.

I will say though that I thought his response to the Sniper woman(photoshop pic)is a poor representation of IVAW, although sexism does exist in the organization (Yes I fight sexism there too).

Also I appreiciate your lack of desire for circular arguements of opinion.

TSO, the debukers of actual lies aren't the problems, the deniers of truth are. I wasn't thinking of you unless you think you are in that catagory. You may not agree with my reasoning but I think we all can agree Vets don't always get what they deserve or as easily as the should. It seems as though people are lying about actually supporting the troops. We don't have to agree on tactic but I think we can work on at least some similar goals.

If there are anti-war people out there saying they support the troops on Saturday and denying jobs to qualified vets on Monday because they disagree with the war/think they are unstable/whatever I want to have words with them. They are more likely to read my blog than pro-war folks. I prefer to write to them than you guys. I am sure you are nice people, but I don't think I am the most effective person to debate with you, with my radical lesbian feminism and all.....

Thus Spake Ortner said...

What I resent is your statement that all College Republicans are looking for a way out of the war instead of going. Since I was in college republicans, and since I left law school to go to Afghanistan, and since I work for a veterans group EVERYDAY on these issues, I take severe umbrage with your categorical statements like that.

If I said all Ivaw people hate the military and american, you would immediately call BS, and you would be right, and then you engage in the exact same type of stereotyping.

Thus Spake Ortner said...

"They are more likely to read my blog than pro-war folks."

I'm confused, in your other post you said that the vast majority don't care, and now they are reading your blog postings? Or am I misunderstanding that?

jason said...

hey, here is the site i was talking about where i made the extra cash, I was making about $900 extra a month...
check it out ..

Denis Keohane said...

"Denis, did you read what Jenn thought about us on the IVAW page? Those of us who debunked the stories from the NYT about being killers are the problem. I haven't worked out the logic of that one, especially in light of the fact that my full time job is working with the DoD and the VA on these very issues..."

Yeah, TSO, I actually read it a while back, and was also mystified. I've been meaning to do a piece on PTSD, and will, and how a real problem is being misused and misrepresented to the detriment of those folks claim they try to help. As to the Times piece and supporting it, on grounds of caring for the troops...sigh!

If someone wrote an atricle and claimed they did so to make people aware of AIDs and sympathetic to those who suffer with it, and the article detailed case after case of hemophiliacs who died terrible deaths after receiving blood sold to blood banks by junkies suffering from AIDs trying to fund their habit....I'd also scratch my head in wonderment.

Jen said...

TSO, I was talking anti-war folks who say they care, as to who I am speaking to. I don't think that because someone is "anti-war" they have all their eggs in the basket.

I will pepper my remarks about College Repubs with "most" and not "all". I think the number who have said they support the war and have "reasons" they don't join the militray far outweigh those who do. It just seems people who don't like IVAW would have an easier time trying to recruit those people to the military than stopping IVAW from operating (like the GOE). I have also had personal conversations with quite a few and always get the "I can be of more service here" which just makes me roll my eyes.

Putting your money where your mouth is something to be proud of.

And appearently Jason can help us find that money.

Are both of you guys going to be in DC? After you get done fighting with Dewald's impersonator maybe we can sit down and talk about things besides the war if you aren't out of breath. I'd like to see what you have to say about PTSD Dennis. I don't think the conversation is correct either so I am interested in expanding it.

Thus Spake Ortner said...

I will be at WSII, so will meet you there.

We are however, obviously from mars and venus, since we view things differently right from the gitgo.

I am grateful to the US for allowing me to serve. The taxpayers paid me, and I got to do what made me happy. I don't think people abrogate their right to speak up by virtue of going or not. When people thank me for serving, I always thank them for allowing me to. Service isn't a right or a responsibility to me, it is a priviledge.

I know plenty of people who can do far more outside the military than they could in. Some have medical issues, others just don't have the temperment. So long as our Constitution appoints civilian leaders above our military ones, I am not going to frown on those who do not serve for speaking up. I generally associate only with military types, but that is not the same as looking down on others who for one reason or another do not serve.

Talon said...

Jen -

For the record, Gathering Eagles has never been interested in "stopping IVAW from operating". Please permit me to remind you that the vast majority of the members in GoE are veterans who served and fought to defend the rights of every American to exercise their freedom of expression and assembly, and that includes the members of IVAW, ANSWER, UFPJ, Code Pink and even America-hating idiots like Ward "Little Eichmanns" Churchill, Nicholas "Million Mogadishus" DeGenova and Noam "What Killing Fields?" Chomsky.

That having been said, these same rights extend to the members of GoE, and to demonize these people when they exercise their own First Amendment rights is pseudo-intellectual thuggery aimed at deligitimizing and depriving them of their own freedom of expression and assembly. Who's trying to shut down who here, Jen??

I know that the emergence of GoE and Eagles Up in March 2007 has come as a shock to many in the "anti-war" movement, but those individuals are simply going to have to get used to the fact that they do not speak for every veteran and civilian in the United States. As the ANSWER peaceniks like to say, this is what democracy looks like - it's not fascism, it's not "stopping IVAW from operating".

Jen said...

Hi Talon

I am not sure what GoE's main purpose is, I can only speak of personal interactions. I don't visit your site frequently and have been pretty much unable to have a conversation in those personal interactions due to insults being loudly hurled and my service being questioned after assumptions of having never served because I am female are addressed.

What it does seem to me from what I have seen and heard is that GoE comes out to challenge the speech of IVAW and if IVAW were not speaking, they would not have much to do.

If your primary interest was in protecting IVAW's right to free speec I imagine the people I have seen would be protesting with less insults.
I heard NY members call an Iraq combat vet a coward, liar and a traitor and told an Iraqi woman to "go home". The worst GoE offenders were adnmittedly not veterans.

You can't as a large oganization control what every member does. However, if I was at an event and saw someone on the "left" said those things to a pro-war vet I would say something to them very quickly and very harshly.

Here is the thing, I don't let people around me use ad hominem personal attacks towards GoE or anyone else. I wish the GoE members I have seen would do the same.

I don't have a problem with your protesting or using your speech. However your tactics don't seem to be there for countering our message, they have presented themselves as insults and intimidation. I don't see a love of country in them, I see a hate of IVAW.

This is the same reason I didn't agree with the postings under DeWalds name or the picture he admitedly made of the Sniper woman. It is also the same reason I will give any GoE member the benefit of the doubt. It is also the same reason I am reading this blog. Disagreement is good and forges new thoughts, just breaking other people down does not.

Army Sergeant said...

I agree with Jen Hogg on this one. As other readers of this blog can verify, I am happy to call out people on both sides of opinion on the war if they behave badly. Simply agreeing with me that the war needs to end is not a guarantee of a free pass. I do not hold with anyone disrespecting anyone else in that fashion.

GoE is more than welcome to have their own opinions about the war, and their own rallies. I don't tend to approve of 'counterprotest' in general, because I think it creates highly confrontational situations. I also don't hold with namecalling. If a GoE member wants to say that he feels personally hurt that I'm a soldier and against this war, I'm happy to listen. If a GoE member wants to call me a traitor and a coward, I have to admit I listen a lot less to the substance of what he may be trying to say.

Jen said...

For my own knowledge, what is the mission of GoE and what constitutes completion of that mission?

talon said...

Hi Jen -

Sorry I could not respond to your post sooner. While I am not a spokesman for GoE, I will do my best to respond to your comments and questions.

As Army Sergeant can tell you, I am not one who condones or engages in ad hominem attacks. I, too, have encountered the hostility you describe in your post from "peace" protesters and I have also seen it expressed on various websites (including and I don't care for it, either. My wife is also a veteran, and she has been subjected to being called a "chickenhawk" and other pleasantries that I would never repeat in polite company, so I understand your frustration with the individuals who have questioned your service. While we may disagree with one another on the war and other issues, I think we can agree on the need to elevate the rhetoric in this country to a more civil level. That's one reason I have enjoyed the oasis of sanity that exists here on Denis' blog.

While the GoE's demonstrations and counterprotests are certainly its most high profile actiivities, GoE is engaged in far more business than showing up for the "anti-war" movement's made-for-media events. Much of this involves lobbying lawmakers, raising money for charitable organizations, equipment and other items to support the troops and their families, sending out care packages, and many other activities that have nothing to do with responding to the words and deeds of the "anti-war" movement and its constituents. A note to Army Sergeant - none of us are particularly thrilled about having to travel hundreds of miles to Washington, DC at our own expense to engage in political street theater, either, but since members of UFPJ vandalized the Capitol in January 2007 and ANSWER decided to use the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as a background for their March on the Pentagon two months later, it has become necessary to make our presence known to the media, the protesters and government officials.

As for the GoE's mission, that is posted in the "About" section at It is difficult to define what exactly would constitution the completion of that mission in its entirety, as it is open-ended for the most part, but some of that should be self-explanatory (ex., GoE's position on the Iraq war).

talon said...

Pardon my typo - the last paragraph should read:

As for the GoE's mission, that is posted in the "About" section at It is difficult to define what exactly would constitute the completion of that mission in its entirety, as it is open-ended for the most part, but some of that should be self-explanatory (ex., GoE's position on the Iraq war).

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that Ms Hogg being a disgruntled lesbian have anything to do with her hatred toward men and the military and her willingness to jump on any opportunity to bash or demonize either one?

Jen said...

Poor sweet anonymous,
You must be right. Lesbian=disgruntled=hates men.

Why didn't I figure that out sooner!

I guess I have to let all my guy friends know. I guess I should quit IVAW since the war effects more men than women. Wow, all the free time that opens up!

If your logic is correct than all straight men can't ever hate women either, right?
Its just not logically possible.


I LOVE it when lesbians make people so insecure that they put those insecurities on display.

Can't we all just get along?

Reggie Brown said...


Just came across this.

Wanted to let you know that I am SO PROUD of you.

Anonymous said...

Hi there, I public prevalent your blog via Google while searching doomed for blue ribbon abet well-earned to the fact that a generosity engage in fracas and your temporary looks very intriguing after me