New APPS

40 responses to “Weird Al comes out in favor of the Oxford comma! (circa 1:39)”

1. 

   Shelley Tremain

   July 17, 2014

   This video is extremely offensive and derogatory toward disabled people. I hope that you will remove it from the blog. Ridiculing disabled people in this way constitutes hate speech.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Jon Cogburn

   July 17, 2014

   Rather than take it down, maybe it would be better to explain why it’s offensive and why the level of offense/derogation rises to the point where it shouldn’t be up. That could be a teachable moment.
   Is it the line “Don’t be a moron”? Or the picture? The picture and lyric is a send-up of mispelled signs at tea party rallies (google “get a brain moran”).
   I don’t know if this makes any difference, but I was born with a plethora of minor disabilities that cause difficulties to this day (for example, I have no depth perception and as a result had several childhood concussions from walking into things and to this day can’t drive on interstate highways because merging is too difficult). One of the big ones was dyslexia. Kids and sometimes teachers used to not only call me dummy, moron, etc. but also “noj” because it took me a lot of years to learn to write left-to-right with the letters facing the right way.
   So I’m pretty sensitive to this kind of thing, but the song just doesn’t offend me.
   In any case it’s not at all clear that the performer Weird Al really is this prescriptivist about grammar. Johnny Cash never killed anyone in Reno, but he wrote a great song where the narrator had. Likewise Weird Al has brilliantly written a song that gets inside the head of grammar prescriptivists (cf. the discussion of singular they at philosophy metablog- http://philosophymetablog.blogspot.com/2014/05/singular-they.html).
   Satire is also its own special case, I think deserving more latitude. Do we want to live in a world where we can’t share Tom Lehrer songs with one another?
   I realize I might be missing something. Again, feel free to explain and it could be teachable moment.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Christy Mag Uidhir

   July 17, 2014

   Jon, I assume Shelley is referring to the use of the term “spastic” in the song. To be honest, I was taken aback when I heard it being used. Not sure if it’s hate speech but pretty sure it’s not fucking cool.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Jon Cogburn

   July 17, 2014

   Ooh, I hadn’t heart that.

   I just looked up the lyrics. The most offensive part is probably:

   Think you should only
   Write in emoji
   Oh, you’re a lost cause
   Go back to preschool
   Get out of the gene pool

   Try your best to not drool

   When I first saw your post, I initially didn’t get why the word was offensive, but I did some internet research and saw that the term used to be used pejoratively in reference to people with cerebral palsy.
   I don’t think Weird Al would have used the word if he was aware of its history of usage, and I very much doubt that many of the listeners are either. “Don’t be a spaz” was a pretty common childhood putdown in the 1970s and nobody connected it to cerebral palsy, unlike the pejorative use of “retard.” After learning about the history, I of course agree with you that the word shouldn’t be used.
   Again though, the song is satire. Doesn’t that mitigates the offense? I do think we should live in a less cruel public culture (Richard Rorty wrote beautifully about this and the first season of Mad Men illustrated really well how we’ve improved by not tolerating public displays of cruelty as much as we used to), but I also think that Weird Al and Tom Lehrer make important art and worry about being too censorious.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Jon Cogburn

   July 17, 2014

   On the issue of satire, a lot of Weird Al songs are funny in part because the narrator is so over-committed to the central premise. In this one the narrator is so committed to prescriptivism that he calls people who violate the norms moronic and spastic and claims that they should not have children. But as with all of his songs the narrative voice is distinct from the authorial one and the narrator is part of what is being satirized. I’m still not sure that this is ethically problematic, but I know that I might be missing something here.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Jay Dolmage

   July 17, 2014

   My two cents: yes, he is over-committed to the authorial voice here, but it is also his, and it is the voice of most people sharing the post, none of whom ever pull back from the idea that grammatical and usage mistakes are unquestionably emblems of supposedly lesser intelligence. He never makes fun of the people making fun of grammar mistakes, he develops authority through prescriptivist mansplaining. Please let me know if you see people sharing this video in the belief that it actually makes fun of the grammar police. Of course, I will be teaching with the video in my writing AND disability studies classes. The video is a perfect way to get into not just all the “crime” that words like “moron” have empowered (including the eugenics that still encourages people to say “get out of the gene pool”) but it also perfectly shows how we have ALWAYS used arbitrary grammar and usage rules to segregate, stigmatize, and harm non-normative minds and bodies. When the precursors to our modern literacy tests were being developed at Ellis Island, it was Henry Goddard using them to reinforce his invention of the term “moron” as a way to dial back the humanity of specific racial and ethnic groups. “Literacy” has always used disability in these ways.
   I think that what Shelley is objecting to is not necessarily the placement of the video on this site, but the uncritical placement of the video on the site. Most of the time, as Jon said, people are totally OK with using insults that derogate disability. Here, Shelley is saying it isn’t OK on this blog to ignore the history. I agree.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Carolyn Dicey Jennings

   July 17, 2014

   I think I agree with Shelley’s (and Christy’s) perspective on this one. I think many/most viewers will hear the song as making fun of people who use incorrect grammar, spelling, etc. by comparing them with currently marginalized groups, which seems especially problematic in the use of the word “spastic.”

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Carrie Jenkins

   July 17, 2014

   FWIW I don’t think “It was a joke” is a viable defence of using a line like “Don’t be a spastic” in a song. I was also pretty shocked to hear that.
   Perhaps not unrelatedly, there are other issues he’s wading into here (maybe awarely, or maybe not) that relate to race, class, and whose English is “proper”. Those aren’t issues I’d approach in the flippant way this song does, without making at all clear what is at issue and for whom.
   My four cents.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Chris

   July 17, 2014

   Shelly — Whether or not he should have used the word, it doesn’t constitute hate speech. To constitute hate speech it would have to be reasonable to conclude that it may incite violence or prejudicial action against a protected group. Using phrases like this when they are clearly inapplicable does far more harm than good.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Christy Mag Uidhir

    July 17, 2014

    Jon, I didn’t take issue with you having posted the video; I took issue with Weird Al causally lobbing a derogatory term for the disabled into a pop parody. I would appreciate it if you would adjust your post update to reflect this.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Christy Mag Uidhir

    July 17, 2014

    You know you’re a philosopher when you are no longer capable of writing or seeing the word “casually” as anything but “causally”.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Jon Cogburn

    July 17, 2014

    I changed the bit above to reflect this.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Rebecca Root

    July 17, 2014

    @Jay Dolmage Please let me know if you see people sharing this video in the belief that it actually makes fun of the grammar police
    The discussion at Language Log leans toward thinking this was satirizing peevers, not an instance of peeving itself.
    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13455#more-13455

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Jon Cogburn

    July 17, 2014

    Jay, thanks for these points. I agree with you and Shelley that it’s not OK to ignore this history.
    Again though, he clearly does not really want to practice eugenics on people who don’t speak or write in ways deemed correct. Given this, as well as the way narratorial overcommitment is central to Weird Al and Tom Lehrer’s entire corpora, I can’t interpret the song in any other way than as also satirizing overly enthusiastic grammar prescriptivists.
    I don’t know what most people sharing it think, or if it’s likely to make them less humane, but I agree with you that that’s surely relevant to consequentialist concerns about how we should treat the song.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Daniel

    July 17, 2014

    Is it ableist to use the words “lame” and “dumb” to mean “uncool” and “unintelligent”? Probably not—no one associates those words with their (shameful) ableist origins anymore.
    “Spastic” seems to be somewhere in between those words and the “r” word, which is clearly ableist. Until now, I had no idea that spastic used to refer to people with cerebral palsy. Now that I know, I won’t use it. But I think most people who do use it—Weird Al included—aren’t blameworthy, because they (forgivably) don’t know about its ableist origins. Eventually spastic will probably go the way of lame and dumb and become clearly acceptable. It’s not clearly acceptable yet, but nor is it clearly ableist—at least when the user isn’t aware of the word’s past.
    Anyway, thanks for bringing this issue up, Christy!

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Geoff Pynn

    July 17, 2014

    The question of whether the bit is straightforwardly expressing a prescriptivist perspective or satirizing that perspective is interesting; my guess is that it’s intended to be a bit of both (and no, I can’t quite believe that I’m engaging in speculative Weird Al exegesis on a philosophy blog). But that question is orthogonal to the original concern, which is that the language it uses is really offensive. This is objectionable even on the hypothesis that the intent is satirical. “mouthbreather,” “moron,” “spastic,” “get out of the gene pool,” and the rest — that’s seriously dehumanizing language. Suppose a well-intentioned but clueless white person did a bit satirizing racists, using various racial epithets. I’m not quite sure whether I would characterize that as hate speech, and yes the satirical intent would “mitigate the offense” to some extent — but I think it would be clearly offensive nonetheless. I doubt we’d see a link to it on this blog, at any rate, even if it was funny.
    I guess I’m just elaborating on Carrie Jenkins’s first sentence.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    Jon Cogburn

    July 17, 2014

    I think that you are right that it’s a bit of both, and that the best satire does this kind of thing. I also think that you make a really important point about racist speech versus ableist speech.
    I’m not sure that I share your intuition that dehumanizing language (and actions, Weird Al’s narrator threatens to hit the ungrammatical with a hammer) is off the table in songs. I think prohibitions would make sense if: (1) a consequentialist case can be made that the occurrence is harmful enough to prohibit it, or (2) there is no distance between narrator and author, as is the case in white power punk but which is not the case in good country music or satire.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    David Shope

    July 17, 2014

    “”Spastic” seems to be somewhere in between those words and the “r” word, which is clearly ableist.”
    Only if one belongs to a, probably large, subset of Americans. In England, at least, the term ‘spastic’ is generally considered to be very offensive and it has direct ableist connotations (rather than indirect historical/etymological connotations).

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    Daniel

    July 17, 2014

    (I should have said: thanks, Shelley and Christy!)

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    Matt

    July 17, 2014

    “Lame” is always a funny word for me because my wife is a horse rider and general equine enthusiast, and so the term is used a lot. (Unfortunately, horses “go lame” quite a bit. For them, it just means they have some sort of problem with their gait due to a muscle or hoof problem, at least a far as I can tell.) But, whenever she tells me something like, “Hot Shot was lame today”, I can’t help but hear it in the way that I would have used the word when I was in 5th grade or what ever, to mean something like “not cool”, and I find myself chuckling in a somewhat goofy way thinking, “man, that horse is so lame- there’s no way I’d ride a lame horse like that”, as if I were making a clever joke. I don’t know that there’s a moral here, except, maybe, perhaps, it’s a shame to get too wrapped up in these things.

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Rlje Stei

    July 17, 2014

    #cancelcolbert

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    Matthew Smith

    July 18, 2014

    In widespread American English, the terms “spaz” and “spastic” do not have strongly negative connotations. They are closer in usage to “dork” or “doofus” than to anything else. Before being a nerd became cool, “spaz” and “nerd” would have been interchangeable in popular American culture (e.g., Saturday Night Live’s recurring skit “The Nerds” had a character called “Chaz the Spaz”). For Americans, especially of Weird Al’s vintage, it is a derogatory term in the same way that “dork” is a derogatory term. It is not one that would be used with the intent to injure or in a malicious manner. It’s instead a playful insult along the lines of “dork.” To my ears, calling someone a “fool” or “stupid” or “moron” is somewhat more intensely derogatory and is more likely to carry with it the intent to injure.
    In this case, I suspect we are dealing with different idiolects. Speaking strictly from an American perspective about an American artist whose targeted audience is American, the use of this term is not at all offensive.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    Christian Marks

    July 18, 2014

    Graduate school is not uncommonly the “…last resort for the person who is ‘generally artistic and literary but not a writer or an artist.’” Those who make it through should not be dictating to artists and writers.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Chris Scambler

    July 18, 2014

    The word might not be one that is “used with intent to injure”, but that’s surely besides the point. Part of the problem with (and mystery about!) slur words in general is that even when used e.g. as terms of affection they may nevertheless be inappropriate. I might use a racial slur term quite without intent to injure or in a malicious manner, but nevertheless it would still be the case that that word could injure and have malicious effects. What I mean is not directly within my control.
    A similar thing could be said about the “different idiolects” claim. It doesn’t matter if, in my vocabulary or in the vocabulary of my particular peer group, a particular slur term is a perfectly normal/acceptable term to use – it may yet be unacceptable. Otherwise one could defend any hate speech on the basis of a re-interpretation of idiolects.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    Glaucon

    July 18, 2014

    While I don’t think Randy Newman qualifies as “clueless,” he seems well-intentioned as he’s definitely white. He’s clearly satirizing racists of a certain stripe in “Rednecks,” a song from Good Old Boys, a mid-70s album about the American South, with a variety of narrators and perspectives.
    While the narrator’s repeated use of one of the most offensive words in our language makes me uncomfortable, I don’t find it offensive.
    There are contexts when derogatory content “scopes out” (I don’t know the literature all that well, but I’m thinking of Chris Hom’s example of responding to a racist claim about “Chinks” by saying “There are no Chinks.”) It wouldn’t be surprising that a similar thing happens in satirical contexts, especially when the narrative distance is significantly great. It’s clear that the narrator of “Rednecks” ≠ Randy Newman, but the parallel isn’t clear in the Weird Al song. (By the way, the official video is quite good and worth a look.)
    I’ll defer to Jon on assessing the dig about LSU.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    Matthew Smith

    July 18, 2014

    My point was that the term cannot injure since it neither will be taken as derogatory by those who hear it, be they the intended hearer or those in the community of speakers who accidentally hear the term, nor will its usage somehow reinforce unjust power arrangements. At least not in America. The term simply isn’t a slur in the US. So, there is no problem or mystery associated with the word. It’s a childish word. But, it’s not offensive.
    The word is a slur in the UK. No one should use it here.
    This leads me to believe that it is more or less another word here – a homonym. For, it does not have the same reference as it does in the US nor does its use in the US contribute the same sort of illocutionary force as does its use in the UK. One explanation for this is that in America the cultural life of the word was radically different than the cultural life of the world in the UK.
    Your point about idiolects is false. Hate speech terms, like the n-word, do not have positive or neutral valences in the racist/sexist/etc. communities. Were I a white supremacist, my use of the n-word would be an expression of those odious attitudes, not an anodyne usage of the term, regardless of how shocked people were when I used the word or how normal it is to use the word. That a term is widely used amongst polite company in conditions of oppression does not thereby demonstrate that the word is not hateful. It simply reveals had deep the oppression is.
    On the other hand, that in one community a word is not associated with hate, oppression, domination, etc., seems to vitiate the use of that term, or at least indicate that the use of the term is not a form of hate speech.
    So, the word “spaz” in America is not hate speech. It’s not even remotely hate speech. That others living in a different community using a slightly different language do take it to be hate speech is merely evidence that when you are in the UK, you should not use the term because it is offensive.
    Perhaps because Weird Al is internationally famous he should be more sensitive to the way people outside America will understand his words. That, though, is a different matter altogether.

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    Unfair Comedian

    July 18, 2014

    When other people are distracted by petty things like conflict in the Middle East, the commenters at NewAPPS remind us of whats really important… shaming Weird Al for hate speech. hits drums

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    Jo

    July 18, 2014

    #yesallcomedians

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    Brock

    July 18, 2014

    Tiger Woods once learned the hard way that “spaz” and “spastic” are considered slurs in the UK, though not in the US.
    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003020.html
    I was a bit surprised to hear it in the Weird Al song, because I thought their connotation in UK English was well-known after the Tiger Woods incident.

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    Fool

    July 18, 2014

    Good to see this stuff being discussed. Having grown up in England I’ve always found the casual US use of “spaz” and “spastic” uncomfortable. I’ve also found it hard to accept the US-granted idea that “retarded” is hate language. But I think there’s more to this than mere idiolect: if we want to keep open the idea that there might be trans-cultural harms to using certain terms, then one relevant constraint I’ve not seen here is etymology. I’ll raise three issues that I rarely see come up in such discussions.
    1) Chris Scambler says “It doesn’t matter if, in my vocabulary or in the vocabulary of my particular peer group, a particular slur term is a perfectly normal/acceptable term to use – it may yet be unacceptable. Otherwise one could defend any hate speech on the basis of a re-interpretation of idiolects.” I’m worried that this claim leads to one equally empty. On this account, surely there’s no constraint on any word becoming “unacceptable” at some point in the future. That worryingly agentless verb-adjective seems to suggest that unacceptability is just a property some words earn. This seems to locate “acceptability” in some noumenal realm; it’s a straightforward taboo morality, a few-thousand-years-retro, and has limits as philosophy and as conduct. We need a clearer account of what “unacceptable” terms have in common than this if we’re to distinguish among vicious and defensible uses of language.
    2) Etymology gives us a way to think of “spastic” and “retard” as objectionable in a way that “retarded” is not. The former pairing are words that have never had any use other than the derogatory (“spastic” was medical terminology for a while, but not in any indispensable or even accurate way – spasms don’t exhaust the symptoms of those with cerebral palsy). Applying either of them to a person has no descriptive value (Weird Al, man or narrator, isn’t trying to say that there’s a correspondence between spasm-symptoms and grammar failure), only the insult of associating a particular behaviour with stigmatised mental illness. The same goes for a US philosopher catching a small error in their logic and tutting to themselves “oh, I’m such a spazz.” “Retarded,” by contrast, is a word with a long (medieval french) history, a clear meaning (made-late, or slowed by extrinsic factors), and was only late in its life directed to medical use. Ironically enough, its use in relation to mental illness stemmed precisely from an attempt to do away with imprecise slur-type terms and find something that, because accurate, might be ethically “acceptable.” As it turns out, this attempt at precision was medically wrong in all sorts of ways, and on that basis it’s hardly valid to offer “retarded” on its own as a medical diagnosis. It can still have accurate, if vague, medical reference if it’s prefaced by a relevant adverb: “cognitively,” “developmentally,” “renally.” Thus to rule out its use as a taboo seems misguided to me. “Retard,” on the other hand, is a word entirely derived from the medically inaccurate use of “retarded,” and has never had a use that was other than derogatory and stigmatising. Separating “retard” from “retarded” on these etymological/conceptual grounds thus gives us clearer reasons to reject the use of “retard” or “spastic” while defending the valid uses of “retarded.”
    3) On this basis, it seems like we have a minimally idiolect-dependent account of the way words relate to and circulate stigmatisation. “Spastic” should be unacceptable in Britain and the US; “retarded” should be acceptable in its non-derogratory forms in both. This seems preferable too to the approach that would conflate “spastic” with “retarded,” which seems (correct me if I’m caricaturing the position) to be a matter of the term’s having historically been used to derogate people or behaviours by associating them with a stigmatised group, thus compounding the stigma. But as I said in my first point, on this basis, what word currently accepted might not some day end up “unacceptable”? Keeping the whole of language under this stay of execution while not distinguishing among terms until they’ve had the chance to do their harm seems to me unlikely to make our thinking any more precise, our actions any less harmful.

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    Adam Kissel

    July 18, 2014

    Wikipedia: “Reviewing Yankovic in 2008, Brian Raftery of Wired magazine wrote that ‘Ricky’ introduced the world to ‘an accordion-playing spaz with a coif like Rick James and a voice like an urgent goose.’”

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    Neil Levy

    July 18, 2014

    I am extremely surprised that no one here seems to be aware of Ian Dury.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasticus_Autisticus

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    Theresa Klein

    July 19, 2014

    Speaking of the “get a Brain, Moran” signs. It might interest you to know that the congressman of the person holding the infamous sign is named “Jim Moran”.
    http://moran.house.gov/

    LikeLike

    Reply
34. 

    Reinhard Muskens

    July 20, 2014

    I’m glad Neil Levy mentions Dury’s song. Very relevant and performed at the opening ceremony of the 2012 paralympics. Dury had ideas about what can be said in public that are somewhat different from those expressed here. See also this old interview.

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. 

    Rlje Stei

    July 20, 2014

    False. The sign was photographed in St Louis. A number of Moran’s opponents–Moran being a congressman in a different state entirely–started using the sign as a bit of a joke.

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    Christy Mag Uidhir

    July 20, 2014

    FWIW Here’s an apology from Al himself:
    https://twitter.com/alyankovic/status/490724534513700864

    LikeLike

    Reply
37. 

    Daniel

    July 20, 2014

    Glad to see he’s apologized!
    I realize that my earlier comment (which says that Al isn’t blameworthy) kind of suggests that he didn’t do anything wrong, and that he shouldn’t apologize, regret his actions or change his behavior. I certainly don’t think that. I think what’s interesting about Al’s predicament is that he only gets to be blameless if he apologizes, regrets his actions, and changes his behavior–if he recognizes that what he did was wrong, given all the facts, and treats it like one should treat a wrong action.
    The basic idea here is that, even if we do our best, we’re all going to end up in similar predicaments, unwittingly saying something that maligns marginalized people, so we should be mindful when we find someone else doing it. Immediately assuming that we’re dealing with “hate speech” doesn’t seem mindful–though of course it’d be even less mindful to let the speaker off the hook!

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    Chris Scambler

    July 21, 2014

    Sorry for the columbo-style lateness of response here. I had to think about what you said.
    To recapitulate: You are now suggesting that terms like “spaz” are innocuous in the US not only because people do not use them to cause hurt, but also because they cannot be so used in the relevant way among that community of speakers. People just don’t take them offensively (in the ablist sense).
    If I’ve not misunderstood you, I can still defend my claim. I could say something like: the term “spastic” has both a neutral denotation related to cerebral palsy, and a negative connotation meaning roughly doufus. Regardless of whether or not anyone takes offense, that conjunction of meanings(for some reason, I know (nor pretend to know) not what)is just bad/ablist, regardless of whether or not anyone takes offense. Plausibly, similar situations have held with regards racial slurs in the past; many people using them did not mean them offensively, nor did many people affected by them take serious offense since they were deeply engrained in linguistic practice. Yet we recognize them now as bad. This is why I called slur terms “mysterious”; how should it be that a word which is neither intended to, nor is taken as causing offence be bad? Perhaps you disagree that this is possible?
    It was in the sense above that I meant the idiolects claim, though I take your point regarding it and think it was probably too strong to suggest that any hate speech could be so defended. Perhaps if I weaken it to some hate speech, it holds (at least accepting that it is possible for words to be used neutrally by a whole community of speakers and yet be bad, which you might object to).

    LikeLike

    Reply
39. 

    Chris Scambler

    July 21, 2014

    I very much agree that the view I expressed could lead to an equally hollow one, well spotted. Etymology is an interesting way of cashing it out, but just as the naive accoutn alluded to in my previous comment might be empty, the etymological account might turn out to be too prescriptive. After all, isn’t it right that any word should be capable of becoming unacceptable if used in a certain way, regardless of etymology? Perhaps a more synchronous analysis, of the kind I suggest in my response to Matthew Smith, which looks at the connotations of various uses of a given word at a given time (regardless of offence taken) might also do the trick. I.e; if a word is used both with neutral denotation as a descriptive term for some group or other, plus as a term to describe actions/behaviour/traits that are negative, it’s bad, regardless of offence taken &c?
    Of course that’s very quick, and probably wrong. At any rate we are certainly on the same page: some kind of objective criteria independent of particular idiolects and intentions are req’d.

    LikeLike

    Reply
40. 

    Theresa Klein

    July 21, 2014

    The St. Louis rally where the original sign was use was in 2003, way before the Tea Party existed. it was a counter-demonstration to an anti-war demonstration.
    Hence the ONLY Tea Party people hwo ever used it were using it ironically to refer to Congressman Jim Moran.

    LikeLike

    Reply