Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

What we need is legislation that will narrow the scope of the Special Prosecutor, this will limit the amount of fishing trips it takes to get to the truth.
We also need legislation to stiffen the penalties for anyone that leaks information from the Special Prosecutors office.
We saw a great deal of this during the Starr hearings.

Great post, David. Appreciate it, especially considering you probably had a hard day at the office.

Coincidentally, my daughter & I discussed this same issue tonight. Unfortunately, she sided with prosecutor, and against Judith Miller. Oh well, the point is to learn to think for one’s self, not echo the parent’s thinking.

Nothing would please me more than to see whoever leaked this information frog-marched down the capital steps in handcuffs, snorting like a harpooned whale. It might be Rove- that’s still uncertain at this point- but whoever leaked the info did great harm. Anyone Valerie Plame met with while abroad could be suspected by their government of being a traitor, just for meeting Joe Wilson & his CIA agent wife for dinner.

I applaud the prosecutor for going after this as hard as possible. Retaliating against Wilson by outing his wife was an utterly despicable act.

Yet Judith Miller is absolutely right to take a principled stand. I cannot understate my admiration for her. As much as I detest the Bush administration, and Rove (or whoever turns out to be the source), the long-term implications must be weighed; and viewed from the long-term, First Amendment rights & the freedom of the press trump those other considerations.

When it comes time to award a Medal of Freedom, Judith Miller should be first in line.

Freedom of speech and protection of press sources are indeed vitally important in Democracies. But they cannot be absolute. For example, I don’t know what the situation is in the US, but in my country and I know in the UK, there are laws against racist comments.

With respect to the freedom of the press, of course this is important. But again, the press cannot be put above the law. Protection of sources who are whistle blowing is obviously an important ideal. This could be achieved by law whereby legal mechanisms could be put in place to handle such cases, with complete protection for the whistle blower.

This case, however, is distinguished by the fact that the source, as far as I am aware, was acting in bad faith in releasing information which was expressly criminalised by the law; identifying a CIA agent. He/she was presumably doing so, in order to damage someone who had contradicted the Bush administration over Iraqi nuclear programs, and whose information was shown to be accurate in contrast to that emanating from the Government. On the face of it, it seems to me that to protect such a source would be preverse in the extreme. It would seek to protect a criminal from the consequences of their actions.

On a broaded level, the press cannot be put above the law. That kind of power has been described as the prerogative of the harlot, power without responsibility. And I think across the Western World, we have seen a degrading of the standards of the media, particularly in relation to Multinational global media conglomerates, whose agenda is not to simply keep the public informed, but to nurture and promote their own political and economic agendas. The media is not an altruistic part of a nations constitution. It is a self serving element of the economy which must be amenable to the laws, in the same way as any private or corporate citizen.

Paul, you are correct in saying that journalists should not themselves be above the law. However, let’s be clear, this government official was intent on revealing the CIA agent’s identity. If they did not believe the journalist would keep the source confidential, they would have released the information to a NON-journalist. What does that mean? That means the public might well have never even known there was a criminal in the Whitehouse who was releasing top secret information, since relaying the leakers information may not have been taken seriously.

Let’s also not forget, that Miller did not write an article about the leak. Also, the the prosecutor has all the information he needs. Miller is protecting the identity of the Whitehouse criminal leaker, BUT, more importantly, she is protecting the public’s right to know what whistleblowers have to say about government. In this case, where the leaker’s identity is going to be known by the Grand Jury, Miller’s protection of 1st Amendment speech, which is so integral to the protection of the public at the hands of awesome and secretive government is the primary issue, not the hiding of a criminal’s identity.

The reason the public DOES know we have a criminal in the Whitehouse, is precisely because of the whistleblower’s belief that confidentiality would be maintained.

David,

as I understand it, this Government official you refer to was the leaker. If they disclosed the proscribed information to a NON-journo, then they could not have expected to benefit from having their identity kept secret. Isn’t it therefore likely that they would not have dislosed to anyone? Surely this means that there would not then have been a criminal in the White House leaking secret info?

As to your final point about the “whistleblowers’” beliefs, this was not a whistleblower. This was an author of a criminal act, not an innocent bystander speaking out about wrongdoing. In this case, the silence of the press is protecting a criminal in the White House. Now David, I cannot in my mind square that with a public benefit. It is instintively wrong that a wrongdoer should be protected from the sanction of the law. To do otherwise would be to encourage others in a position of power to act in a similar manner to the source of the secret info in this case.

as an afterthought David, there is an old legal maxim that comes to mind, and it goes like this, “he who comes into equity, must come with clean hands”.
A variation of this is another maxim, “He who seeks equity, must do equity” Another, ex turpi causa non oritur actio - no action shall arise from a base cause. The same principle should apply here. An informant whose motives are base, and particularly where they are acting against their countrys’ interests, should have no protection from investigation and prosecution in the normal way.

David,
I agree with you that Miller is to be highly commended — but not for refusing to name her source (who was committing a criminal act), but for not printing that info because she knew it could be harmful to Valerie Plame and every single CIA opperative she came into contact with.

Paul in Euroland:
“As to your final point about the “whistleblowers’” beliefs, this was not a whistleblower. This was an author of a criminal act, not an innocent bystander speaking out about wrongdoing. In this case, the silence of the press is protecting a criminal in the White House.”

Yes. I think you are spot-on here. This was not a whistleblower, this was someone getting back at a person who was challenging the lies that were coming out of the Whitehouse. It was an act of base revenge — and it was printed by Robert Novak, who also knowingly put Plame and other opperatives in danger.
IMO, the source committed an act of treason, and Novak acted as his accomplice — therefore, both should go to jail.

Why not combine this with the democrat part as they both have the same view on all subjects?

Hi All:

Just my two cents worth.

Thanks, and an ovation to Judy Miller, Her family, friends, “Hold your head up!” You have inspired others not only by your actions, But also for your “PRINCPLES”. More people should be like you, you gave your word to protect an informant, not even the threat of imprisonment could get you to change those beliefs. Your word is your bond, though not always true anymore, With your decision to be jailed rather than name your source shows just the Moral Courage that our children should be taught in school. You fight for what you believe in and then live by your word. “Thank You”, and “Hats Off” to you Judy Miller for being principled in these days of “BIG Government”.
JPG

As Always,
Wayne

Freedom of Speech and of the press as guaranteed by the Constitution seems to have been violated in this case.

The unamed informant however has contacted the other gentleman (reporter) and given his permission to be revealed. This spares the reporter from possibly going to jail as well.

So, one person goes to jail, the other doesn’t and we get the name of the informant. IMO the woman will never serve a day. I would also hold the informant equally responsible.

I think there is an underlying issue here and that is Freedom of Lying. What is to stop someone from concocting some kind of story, giving it to a reporter who then prints the story and someones career/life is ruined. The reporter, such as Judy Miller now being placed on a pedeastal and lauded with praise by some posters here simply says she will not reveal the name of the informant and takes her chance on jail time which we all know will be minimal at best.

There have to be checks and balances to some of these freedoms.

Hello Wayne,

How are you doing, well I hope.

I see we disagree somewhat on an issue.

Interesting article on this subject that appeared today, written by David Corn.

I have to agree with Paul, and a few others, on this one. The question here is not whether a reporter should be able to protect her source, but whether a reporter can refuse to divulge the name of a national criminal to a Grand Jury. By doing so, that makes Judith Miller an accessory to the crime.

Let’s be clear about this, though. This case is not blowing the top off a government scandal, such as Watergate was. This is aiding and abetting a person who compromised the cover of a CIA operative. Not knowing what Agent Miller’s specific assignment was, it’s hard to comment conclusively, but revealing her identity could be considered as much a traitorous act as providing an enemy organization with information about a planned US action against that organization. It compromises whatever US interest Agent Miller was working on.

Whoever Judy Miller is trying to protect, its a safe bet that it isnt Carl Rove!

Most every news agency has admitted the (so called) “outing” in this case wasn’t really a crime, and whoever they are after now, its for lieing to the fed.’s.

Freedome of speach, in its classic terms, should include “speaking”?
Refusing to speak is covered?
A federal shield law for the media?
Wouldn’t that just open the door to lie or slander anyone by putting: acording to an unamed person at the end of the article?

Sorry folks, I won’t sign up for that one.

steve smith, you obviously have been oblivious to the news on this issue. Miller went to jail yesterday and will remain there until mid-to late October at the very least.

Paul, and John and others, here remind me of those Russians who happily accepted Stalin’s leadership in the hopes of true law and order, or the Germans who fell in love with Hitler for trading economic depression for iron fisted law and order. Miller is protecting the public’s right to know what government officials have to say. Obviously, some here refuse to see that. They want their criminal to be punished even if it costs all Americans their democracy and right to know when government officials violate them.

It is incredible to me that folks here can’t see it. Yes, in this case, the informant is a criminal and not a whistleblower - DUH! Congratulations, some of you actually got your brains to leap that far forward before hitting a brick wall. Miller is not acting on the principle of hiding a criminal - Miller is acting on the principle of the next time the courts want to jail a journalist for reporting a whistleblower’s story, the people’s right to know will override the Judge’s authority to command a journalist’s sources. She is refusing to cave in to the slippery slope of giving our government the authority to command sources or jail journalists who acquire information from confidential sources.

For those who can’t see the higher good here, I can only pray you become the object of government abuse and no one ever knows about it because no whistleblower can get the protection of anonymity after reporting who in government abused you. You deserve the government abuse you are willing to tolerate. Miller is not willing to tolerate government abuse and she is in jail rather than give government that kind of power to keep secret their wrongdoings through intimidation of any who would otherwise come forward.

I know, this is way beyond junior high school mental juggling to understand and comprehend. Some folks can only focus on Novak’s source as a criminal and can’t also focus on the loss of freedom of the press as protector of abusive government. For the rest of the readers here who can see it is better to let one criminal go free than sacrifice the pubic’s right to know and journalist’s willingness to report on government wrongdoing, I tip my hat and extend my respect.

Beagle said: “Whoever Judy Miller is trying to protect, its a safe bet that it isnt Carl Rove!”

Beagle, can you not see that she is NOT protecting her source, she is protecting journalist’s rights to acquire information on the basis of their right to uphold confidential source agreements? If you can’t see that, you totally fail to grasp Miller’s choice to go to jail rather than give up her sources.

Additionally, the Grand Jury very possibly has the source already from Novak, and definitely has the source information from Cooper’s notes and testimony to come now that the source has released him from the confidentiality agreement. So, Miller is NOT protecting the ID of the source/(s). She is protecting democracy and freedom of the press.

David,

“steve smith, you obviously have been oblivious to the news on this issue. Miller went to jail yesterday and will remain there until mid-to late October at the very least.”

Do you think that her hospitality suite is next to the tennis courts or the swimming pool. Is her secretary stationed in her suite or adjacent to it. Get serious.

steve smith, your retort makes no sense to me. Why not just say, “Oh, I didn’t know that. Thanks”. If I were you, I would be a little embarassed for saying she won’t serve a day in jail, a day after she was jailed. And for your information, her lawyers requested a country club jail, the judge, said no, she will serve time in a D.C. Jail or local federal prison.

It helps to be informed before expressing oneself in a public venue. Or, do as I do, and not express opinions on things which I have not done my homework on.

David, you speak of your Government with contempt. No alone are we not talking about the executive branch here, we are talking about the judicial branch. If you have no confidence in your judiciary, then clearly you have little respect for democracy, of which the judiciary are an essential and integral part. The press is not a constituent part of the structure of Government in a democracy. It has a very important role to play, but it must be subservient to the law. And as I posted earlier, the press is not a public service. It is a ruthless business, which like any business, pursues its own interests before any other. If you place greater faith in an unaccountable private institution than in the ultimate bulwark of freedom in a constitutional democracy, the courts, then that indeed is a sad day for freedom.

David my friend,

I understand your point, try to understand mine.

I agree with, and will defend freedom of speach, I can’t agree with a shield law that might just protect lieing and claiming an unamed sorce.
We’ll just have to wait and see how this all sorts out.

David:
“It is incredible to me that folks here can’t see it. Yes, in this case, the informant is a criminal and not a whistleblower”

It is incredible to me that you can’t see that it is THIS FACT which drastically changes the entire scenario!

Paul, I live under the auspices of the greatest government ever conceived in the history of the world. When I see that government err, out of a sense of wanting to see her greatness maintained, I become critical of her. The fact that I live under the greatest gov’t. ever conceived, does NOT mean I should trust those in Government.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I love my country, I do not trust my government, yet, I am proud as I can possibly be of the Constitution of the U.S. and its Bill of Rights, and my criticism is aimed directly at those in government who would weaken that Bill of Rights in the name of a temporary need to get a bad guy.

I utterly disagree with you perspective on the media. While money drives their advertising and sustains all of their activities, there are great media sources who believe and act on behalf of the public’s interest and right to know about their government and what it is doing. So spare me the one-sided myopic view of media as corporate evil.

Media is a business, some of those media are in the business of watchdogging government, like the NY Times and Washington Post, and much of their money comes directly from the public’s appreciation and consumption of their watchdogging efforts.

Without protection for journalist’s sources, the public will not have their investigative reporting on government.

You can have a virtually crime free society - just impose Nazi like martial law. Don’t like that notion? Then you have to accept that freedom of the press will sacrifice the fact that an occasional criminal will not be punished. Given the choice of martial law or freedom of democracy, I will choose to live with some crime in the freedom of democracy. Apparently from your argument you would prefer a crime free martial law society. So be it.

Beagle, the shield law can include provisions that except circumstances where imminent national or regional danger is at stake. You know me, I don’t buy into all black or all white arguments. They don’t fit all situations.

I do see your point, but perhaps I explained mine better in my response to Paul above. This whole situation reminds me of a time in America when educated Americans believed it was better that 3 criminals go free than on innocent person be sentenced to prison or death at the hands of the state. We are losing that standard and ideal rapidly in these modern times, and that is how great nations are whittled down to existence in chapters of history books only. Bit by bit, they lose the standards and ideals which once made them great.

The First Amendment is under attack by this Judge Hogan, and government power is winning over the freedom of its citizens to watchdog it. This is just another Roman Gothic territory taken too far to sustain the greatness of Rome. And just as certainly as Rome’s demise rested on conquests too far to maintain, so too, is this chipping away at the First Amendement a reach for control which cannot ultimately be sustained when a nation of formerly free people wake up and realize their freedoms have been stolen from them bit by bit.

David, I guess we all entertain shibboleths and legends about our own countries. In mine, there used to be a lot of talk about leprechauns and little people and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. It seems to me that some Americans believe that they live in the penultimate democracy and that the quality of their freedom is better than anyone elses. As an outsider and a citizen of a mature democracy with a proud constitution which fits easily into the pantheon of the world’s great Constitutions, I frankly find that attitude offensive. Further, if as you say that you are proud of your Constitution, then you must accept it. The constitution mandates the separation of powers, the idea being to have checks and balances to ensure against abuse of power by one arm of Government. The Courts in a democracy are the ultimate bulwark against those who would pervert the constitution. If the courts are not allowed to do their work, then the whole system becomes destabilised. As for your remarks about Russians and Stalin, and Germans and Hitler, don’t you think you’re being a bit of an opera queen? I wasn’t aware that either of those dictatorships had a liberal constitution with courts empowered to sanction abuses of the executive branch.

Adrienne, if Judge Hogan’s contempt ruling stands uncontested or is upheld in the Sup. Ct., government will have won the right to suppress journalist’s most basic freedom to watchdog government for the public. There can be no watchdogging of government with teeth without protected insider sources. Joe Scarborough made this point extremely clear on his show on Wednesday. Can you not see that the cost of jailing Miller is going to be ever larger and more secretive government without 1st Amendment protection for journalists sustained by confidentiality of sources?

We are trading our right to know what is going on in government for all time just to get one despicable political criminal here and now. The trade off is staggering and will haunt freedom loving Americans for decades if not generations.

David, what on God’s earth does this case have to do with the first amendment??? If in fact what the court required was in breach of the first amendment, then it would easily be overruled by the Supreme Court. Pleas stop mouthing slogans and think the issue through - your courts are you greatest safeguard against tyranny. They themselves draw their authority and their raison d’etre, if you’ll pardon my French ( ;-) ) from the Constitution, and they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If you cannot trust those whose training and whole professional lives are dedicated to upholding and protecting your Constitution, then maybe it’s time you started asking yourself if it’s them, or is it you.

David Remer,

The woman will serve Martha Stewart type incarceration.

Paul, your country’s history has the dubious honor of being the tryannical monarchy and dictatorship which oppressed Americans into kicking your countrymen’s loyalty to king asses the hell out of here. Get over it. Yes, you all have a great democracy as well, in some ways better, in other ways not, just as parliamentary government has pluses not shared with that of a republic. So spare me your indignation. If it weren’t for the U.S. kicking your ancestor’s asses, you likely would still be living in under a dictator king.

As for Germany and the Nazi’s, Oh!! they had courts alright. You should read up on them sometime and gaze at the atrocities of those courts due to the lack of journalist’s rights to keep sources confidential.

I hope we in free nations don’t have to prove our ignorance by repeating the errors of history all over again. A free press, meaning free from government intimidation and repression, is essential to democracy, any type of democracy. It amazes me how many free people fail to recognize the bedrock of their freedom as step off without a care into the quicksand of law and order at any cost and by a government which places its own power above that of the people’s right to know what that government is doing. Simply amazing.

David, I think we have a case of mistaken identity here. Firstly, I have to confess that my country does not have the dubious honour you so graciously bestow upon us, or our ancestors. Nor do I live in a constitutional monarchy. In fact, my country is a republic, with a President as its’ titular head, tho not an executive President. In fact, your country and mine have in common what you seem to think divides us, ie, kicking British asses! We had our own little revolution here during our war of independence and finally, after 700 years, managed to acquire a measure of freedom, which we later upscaled to a full republican constitution.

The point I was making about Germany and Russia, which you must have been aware of, was that they did not have the kind of constitutions which would have prevented the nazis or bolsheviks coming to power in the first place. We do. I do not mean to be personally abusive, but I do believe that you are mouthing ill thought out cliches, based on the legends that Americans agree to honour in order to bind and unite a diverse society.

David:
“Adrienne, if Judge Hogan’s contempt ruling stands uncontested or is upheld in the Sup. Ct., government will have won the right to suppress journalist’s most basic freedom to watchdog government for the public.”

I don’t agree. I think that while this ruling will probably stand because of the criminal nature of Miller’s source revealing sensitive national security info, this will also be a catalyst for change.
I think we can expect to see that the upshot of this is going to be the institution of protective laws for journalists in whistleblower situations. In that way, I have a feeling that Miller’s name might become linked with something that is very much needed for all the great reasons you have described.

You see, I actually do agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying, but can’t go along with the idea that anyone is a hero in THIS PARTICULAR case.
The source was committing a federal crime by outting Valerie Plame - and was doing it for the most despicable reason of all - as payback for Wilson having the guts to step forward and knowledgably and honestly refute the president’s lies to this nation about the threat that Iraq and Sadaam posed. I don’t think any journalist who has an intact sense of right and wrong should want to protect that kind of treason.

Adrienne, I agree entirely with you that whistleblowers need proetection in order to carry out their essential function. I just don’t agree that they could only operate through the press. It would be entirely possible to legislate to create an agency of the courts to facilitate the coming forward and protection of whistleblowers. Such an agency could pass useful info to prosecutors for further investigation. Of course, many such investigations would be stumped by the unwillingness of the whistleblower to give evidence in open court, but that could be partly ameliorated by allowing the agency to brief the press on such allegations as have been made, and they could then pursue those allegations independently in their normal way. The reality of it is, once the allegations are out there, there is a trail for the press to follow, and it is usually very difficult for a wrongdoer to at that point escape having their behaviour exposed for the world to see. Wouldn’t that be an acceptable compromise?

Paul, sorry for the misunderstanding. I am guessing, but, I presume you are from Ireland.

Our courts are a separate branch of government. But what you are overlooking is that our courts, specifically judges, are elected or political appointees. That makes them vulnerable to pressures by lobby and campaign finance interests or their political party or political benefactor.

The only true independent source for whistleblowers is the free market press, some of which stake their entire profits and business on honest and truthful investigative reporting on government.

Your comment above of a judge turning info over to prosecutors is precisely the weak link in your proposition. They can just as easily turn it over to politically biased interests within government.

Adrienne, I certainly hope you are right about the legislation that could shelter journalists when working with whistleblowers. I doubt anything that idealistic will result from our current politically divisive process, however.

David, I think despite the tone of our exchanges above, we actually have much in common. The issues you have with the idea of an independent office/agency/judge whatever is just that, an issue. It would be possible to overcome those perceived problems. In my country, which you have correctly presumed is Ireland, until recently Judges were appointed by the Govt. They are now appointed by a Judicial Appointments Commission. We never had elected Judges. However, there is an office in the North of Ireland, which has significant investigative power and that is the office of the independant Police Ombudsman. This lady has real teeth and is highly respected. Now of course her role is that of a police ombudsman, so is not exactly analygous, but a similar mechanism could be constructed to get at the truth. Simply what I am saying is that the details could be worked out. It is not beyond the wit of man to do so ( and the male gender includes the female, where the context so admits, sorry ladies, ;-) )

Paul, our counterpart is the special prosecutor, who is at the heart of the controversy at hand. Our special prosecutor has power that our Attorney General does not have and operates on rules which are far more lenient than our Attorney General. If this issue had been handled by the normal police power, the journalists would have been protected. You see, if the AG had gone after the journalists, they would have run smack up against the Constitution and the First Amendment. But, the Special Prosecutor is an investigator with subpeona power through the courts that not even the Attorney General could invoke Constitutionally.

This issue could go either way, now, that the Special Prosecutor has opened the door to government power that circumvents the Constitution’s 1st Amendment. It could result as Adrienne hopes, in legislation that shelters the confidential source agreements between whistleblowers and journalists, or, the special prosecutor could become a tool of the politically motivated Congress to violate freedom of the press using the courts as their lackey, as this Congress and judge have done via the Special Prosecutor.

The Special Prosecutor invention of Congress was a nightmare during the Clinton administration with witchhunts that never could have stood up to Constitutional scrutiny if handled by the Executive Branch’s Attorney General’s office. My fear is we have fully let the genie out of the bottle now, and freedom of the press will exist only to the extent that such freedom serves government’s purposes.

The first rule of corrupt power under any form of government is to control the media. That is precisely what I see happening here.

David:
“Adrienne, I certainly hope you are right about the legislation that could shelter journalists when working with whistleblowers. I doubt anything that idealistic will result from our current politically divisive process, however.”

I don’t know David, the press has been going crazy over this, and I think a lot of people (including myself) feel very uncomfortable about this whole situation surrounding Miller’s incarceration.
Much as I think these journalist’s shouldn’t want to protect their inside source when it was clear that the info they were conveying immediately made that person a criminal, it all seems horribly unfair. That Miller, a journalist who chose not to let that sensitive info go to press has been held in contempt and jailed for failing to comply with the courts demands, while there have been, and seemingly won’t be, any reprecusions for the odious Novak — a journalist with the exact same source, who actually allowed it to go to press.
I think we’ll eventually see something happen as result of this, especially since Miller will be in jail until October, and she’ll no doubt be viewed by many people as a martyr for serving a sentence that (though not logically, but certainly on an emotional level) seems to belong more rightfully to Novak.

Paul:
“Simply what I am saying is that the details could be worked out. It is not beyond the wit of man to do so ( and the male gender includes the female, where the context so admits, sorry ladies, ;-) )”

I agree completely. And I really do think this issue will be worked out eventually through some kind of legislation.
After all, who hangs around Senators and Congressional Representatives more than journalists? If they’re pissed about Miller, and worried they might find themselves in the same position one day, the pols are definitely going to hear about it, don’t you think?

Oh, and no sorry needed. Although… if you’d used the word “mankind” instead, there would’ve been no need to furnish the disclaimer! ;^)

Hey adrienne, :-X :-)

Thanks Paul! :^D
I wasn’t expecting a virtual kiss from a charming Irishman…
but I’ll gladly take it!

Adrienne, if only I could show you the sun going down on Galway Bay, the stars twinkling into the deep indigo of the massive ocean, and seeing them reflect off your shining eyes, those pools of passionate promise, then a virtual kiss might well translate into a maelstrom of passion, and primeval carnal desire, as our lips meet in sparking fire……………..(the rest is censored!)

Adrienne and Paul,

If you sent me your travel schedules I will arrange a room for you.

BTW I have no idea what those little sybols mean.

*^) Sounds lovely, poetic, and ummm, hot, Paul. But sadly, I must tell you I’m very happily married lady. (Damn, and he was just getting to the best part, too!)

Me too Adi, (that is a very happily married man) but no need to let the facts get in the way of a nice fantasy! ;-D

These here blogs are turning into singles sites!
Enjoy your fantasies….sometimes(most of the time) they are better than our realities!!!:)

Fancy a fantasy traci?

Steve, rotate your head 90 degrees anti clockwise and you’ll get the symbolism. As for the room, just send a cheque, I’ll arrange the room myself!!!

Paul~

What a silly question- BUT OF COARSE…..to bad we can’t get the full affect of your accent though!:)

[Since, the comments have left the topic of this article, the comments section of this article have been closed. It is a good idea to take topics having nothing to do with the article to email. WatchBlog Managing Editor]