Ok I'm with ya Mitch on the city. St Paul born and bread. But I live in the nice part of the city, so it's easier for me.

But to say that your neighborhood is "about as placid as it gets these days" is sticking your head in the sand. You are surrounded by drug dealers, peddling their wares 24 hours a day. There was a shooting at night club (probably as close to your house as mine, but still worlds apart) last year. You can't leave your garage door open in the middle of the day because the people in Midway have no qualms about just walking in and taking something right in front of people. And forget about leaving your doors unlocked.

Leaving now would not be leaving at the first sign of trouble. As for what it says to your kids, to me it says "we are smart enough to know when to leave the animals to destroy themselves and not be stuck in the crossfire."

CCK -
It would also be like caving in to the thugs. I agree with Mitch, there are great things about the Midway. You can't say you can leave your doors unlocked in the burb's either. So where's your point there CCK?
It's a very multi-cultural neighborhood, and its right smack in the middle of 5 colleges and universities. Its loaded with history - too often people have bailed out in fear rather than dig in. We lose a part of the city's character when we do that. So when we leave, we lose alot more than something out of the garage if you're silly enough to leave it open in the first place.
BTW have you really looked at the crime reports for the burbs lately? There is a ton of crime, burglary, assault, car theft...but most of all you see alot of homes where elderly people are being hit. The burb has nothing to brag about there. It has its gangs it has its domestic violence, its share of rape and murder as well.
I like the Midway.
And yeah, the food is really great. My kids eat things that I was never exposed to in the burbs where I grew up. I was also never exposed to other races or cultures growing up that way. We were in one of those nice safe neighborhoods. HA. But the over belief was that somehow, we were "good" people with "sense". The city proper was full of scary neighborhoods - and what made them scary? Other cultures we didn't understand.
Now we have burbs with residents of all colors. Thats an imorovement anyway. But its not like the old timers don't bitch about it.
In the Midway,there are specialty shops, small business that you won't see much of in the burbs due to the mini-malls and clones of the same stores everywhere you look influencing people to become more alike rather than contribute to that character with their diversity. It's a good point he makes in the reflection of that attitude by the covenants regarding what color you can paint your home. I rather like the occasional pink house. For those who don't, go ahead and let the city tell you what you can do. If you're comfy with that, thats your deal. Can't knock it. Just wouldn't choose it myself.
Stay where you are CCK: ) You're right, if you don't embrace it and fight for it, you can comply with all the covenants in the world. You're just choosing your battle.

most of my comment was humor, but I find no shame in not wanting to live in a high crime area if you do not need it, and do not look down on those who choose not to live here.

Personally I love living in the city for all the reasons everyone has stated. But I can understand living in the suburbs. For what we paid for a house in Highland, we could get a house almost double its size in Eagan. Almost triple in Waconia.

CCK -
Yep I misunderstood. But I was not just thinking about you when I was writing on hindsite. I was sort of responding to Nihlist's comments on his blog.
You live in a pricey area of St. Paul but I'm really surprised that you could have doubled your space by buying in Eagan! Eagan is kind of upscale - at least the newer parts of it. The older parts of Eagan are really almost countrylike. Very pretty. Older homes and properties but lots of space. Is that what you mean? Anyhow, its hard to argue dollars, but you still have to weigh that against whatever lifestyle you want somewhat. Pretty hard when dollars play in so much.
You know what though CCK, the argument about crime in the city v crime in the burbs...the margin is narrow anymore. Depends on so many factors. The Midway and Highland for that matter both are really great areas with alot of rich history and culture. Its a shame to bail out and give in to thugs period. I saw it happen in Mpls when I was a kid and I don't want to see it happen here. There are too many people investing and trying to renovate, trying to hang onto and preserve areas of the city. They're even working on parts of the Selby area and its good to see. Its just going to take time and support. Its just a matter of which fight you want to take on. One way or another, one place or another, there will always be issues.

I understand Mitch's argument. I used to feel the same way about my nighborhood in Minneapolis. I lived there for twenty years and raised two children as a single parent. I stay for many of the same reasons as Mitch.

However, earlier this year I moved to the state of Wyoming. I didn't leave the city because of crime or fear. I left because I cou;dn't afford to stay any longer and I could never afford to retire there.

Minneapolis is a lot more expensive than St. Paul (thirty plus years of DFL control with run away spending) but watch...St. Paul is going to try her best to run up the cost of living there.

The real estate texes I pay here for an entire year are less than I would pay for one month in Minneapolis (my house is the same size, plus I have two and a half acres and spectacular views). We have a 5 percent sale tax. That's it--no other taxes.

Yo Mitch,

Big NARL fan. Agreed on those city benefits. Lived in St. Paul for 40 yrs. But my last house was by St. Marks in St. Paul. Had I had the $$ and could have afforded their school might have considered it. But:

1. The public schools over there were horrific. All my neighbors had kids in parochial schools.
2. Snow plowing in St. Paul is a two, three day later affair. In burbs as close as Falcon Hts. (where houses are 60 years old) plowing done overnight first night. And in Wdby- quite soul-less, they practically heat the streets. Wonderful.
3. Parking and getting around Grand Av., Highland Village was ridiculous in mid-80's; now it's unbearable. The simple convenience of day-to-day living is so much easier in many burbs. Edina near Southdale, being a significant exception,.
4. Property taxes per sq. ft. moving near suburban levels w/o the schools or public services to show for it.
5. Older suburban neighborhoods do not have covenants, or the busy-body types. More retirees, some immigrant influx. We can proudly park our teal blue run-about in the driveway dammit.
6. My hood was built in '60's, and carved out oak forest - hence stupid name, Royal Oaks. But it's full of 100 yr old arching spectacular oaks, wonderful noises of song birds, squirrels, blue jays, plus all your other suburban deer, etc. So the ambiance I had by U of St. Thomas is available in pockets of the burbs. I see similar enclaves in Golden Valley, older areas of Plymouth, Eagan, etc. Much of the covenant type suburbs you refer to are the newest developments hewn from a corn field, just recently. My children have a wonderful sense of place in this older tree-shrouded house in which they grew up.
7. Stranger in a strange land. Over time my anger and angst at seeing a see of lefty lawn signs for every election from school board to president wore me out. I knew that every one of my neighbors viewed me in the same way as the Bush haters view, well... Bush. It's nice to have a few people around w/whom I can talk politics. In the city this important subject was just off limits. I was so busy judging and disliking these sumbiches, it wore me out after a while.
8.

None of this is to dispute the advantages of the city; I agree. But there's way to get much of that by careful shopping in older suburban enclaves.

Jim Stack
7149 Victoria Rd
Woodbury, MN 55125
jringwood@comcast.net

Yo Mitch,

Big NARL fan. Agreed on those city benefits. Lived in St. Paul for 40 yrs. But my last house was by St. Marks in St. Paul. Had I had the $$ and could have afforded their school might have considered it. But:

1. The public schools over there were horrific. All my neighbors had kids in parochial schools.
2. Snow plowing in St. Paul is a two, three day later affair. In burbs as close as Falcon Hts. (where houses are 60 years old) plowing done overnight first night. And in Wdby- quite soul-less, they practically heat the streets. Wonderful.
3. Parking and getting around Grand Av., Highland Village was ridiculous in mid-80's; now it's unbearable. The simple convenience of day-to-day living is so much easier in many burbs. Edina near Southdale, being a significant exception,.
4. Property taxes per sq. ft. moving near suburban levels w/o the schools or public services to show for it.
5. Older suburban neighborhoods do not have covenants, or the busy-body types. More retirees, some immigrant influx. We can proudly park our teal blue run-about in the driveway dammit.
6. My hood was built in '60's, and carved out oak forest - hence stupid name, Royal Oaks. But it's full of 100 yr old arching spectacular oaks, wonderful noises of song birds, squirrels, blue jays, plus all your other suburban deer, etc. So the ambiance I had by U of St. Thomas is available in pockets of the burbs. I see similar enclaves in Golden Valley, older areas of Plymouth, Eagan, etc. Much of the covenant type suburbs you refer to are the newest developments hewn from a corn field, just recently. My children have a wonderful sense of place in this older tree-shrouded house in which they grew up.
7. Stranger in a strange land. Over time my anger and angst at seeing a see of lefty lawn signs for every election from school board to president wore me out. I knew that every one of my neighbors viewed me in the same way as the Bush haters view, well... Bush. It's nice to have a few people around w/whom I can talk politics. In the city this important subject was just off limits. I was so busy judging and disliking these sumbiches, it wore me out after a while.
8.

None of this is to dispute the advantages of the city; I agree. But there's way to get much of that by careful shopping in older suburban enclaves.

Jim Stack
7149 Victoria Rd
Woodbury, MN 55125
jringwood@comcast.net

Mitch,

Just one more thing. Can you clear something up for me (and your readers)?

Which way is it (please choose one and no trying to have it both ways):

1. You live in a crack-infested, high crime area of Saint Paul that is liveable only through your gallant efforts of running off drug dealers and bravely patching bullet holes (you have written multiple posts about these events),

or...

2. You live in a beautiful, low crime, completely safe area of Saint Paul that is liveable because, well because it's liveable.

Which one is it?

You can't seem to make up your mind. One day it's one the other the next depending on the context of whatever point you're making that day.

So dispense with the rationalizations and choose. One or Two?

JB: it's both, and neither, in a way the suburbs can never be.

In Midway, the difference between the character of neighborhoods just a few blocks apart can be enormous, which is both a blessing and a curse.

I lived on Charles at Simpson, about 2 blocks North of University and 2 blocks East of Snelling. Mitch lives East and North of me a few blocks. Our neighborhoods are similar - his a little farther North of Sherburne and therefore a little nicer.

But go twenty blocks East of Mitch, and you run into Frogtown, which is shoulder-holster territory after dark in the way that Selby-and-Dale was when I lived there 20 years ago (wish I could afford to live there now).

The neighborhood twenty blocks East of Radio Drive is indistinguishable from pretty much anywhere else in Woodbury, or Apple Valley, or . . . .

So yeah, it's both, and neither, and it changes depending on the time frame you're talking about. That's part of the charm. You either understand it or you don't.
.

Nathan's right, it's both, and...

"Which way is it (please choose one and no trying to have it both ways)"

Jeez, where'd you take your logic class, on "Crossfire?" Life is full of gray areas, JB.

Speaking of which, I'm going to repeat my question from below. You're Joe UberCatholic, right?

The American Catholic Bishops are the most socialist-friendly clerical group in America today; they make the ELCA look like Oral Roberts. How can you be a member of a church that spends so much of its time and effort, and your money (presuming you donate) on causes totally inimical to you?

And don't go saying "I'm in a conservative congregation"; the Catholic Church is utterly centralized and preaches nothing if not respect for hierarchy, in a way no city government ever could.

So if (according to you) I can't justify being a proud, stubborn conservative enclave (I and about a quarter of my neibhbors) in a lefty-controlled city, how can you justify with a straight face being a member of a church whose leadership is even MORE allied with the enemy?

I mean, I can at least help organize conservatism in the city, and vote for conservative candidates. You have no such option.

How do you rationalize your hypocrisy, JB?

J'accuse!

You're changing the subject Mitch.

Answer the question.

I already said "both" is BS.

Anyone can see gray. It takes persistence and discipline to turn the gray into black and white.

Answer the question.

Mitch - you need to brush up in your knowledge of Catholicism. The Church is hierarchically ordered, but you are aware that the top level isn't the American Bishops, right? There's that guy working the big room in Rome, funny white hat, shepherd's staff, on TV every Christmas eve - you've seen him right?

Most modern Pope's, and especially the last two, have been exemplars of moral conservative ideology. Your insinuations of liberalism are delusional.

And individual parishes are given wide autonomy in how they operate. Compare something like St. Joan of Arc or St. Luke's to something like my Church, Holy Family in SLP and you'd think you were dealing with different religions. Or should I say dealing with the ELCA vs. the Catholic Church. The teaching of Catholic doctrine is being entrused to human beings. They are subject to error, misinterpretation, and all our favorite deadly sins, for example, pride. Catholic parishes stray all the time, especially in the USA.

By the way, you are changing the subject with JB. To retain credibility on this issue, you need to somehow reconcile your numerous accounts of violence and crime in your neighborhood with your characterizatin of it as "very nice" and a preferrable place to live.

For me there would be no "gray area" involved if people shot bullets into my house and murders were happening a few blocks away (in addition to the littany of other things you've documented happening). And if I had children, those needing comfort because they were afraid of what's happening around them, I suspect the contrast between "very nice" and "dangerous" would be even sharper.

Saint,

Quit enabling JB's evasiveness!

This is not an exercise in Catholic trivia. When you say...

"Most modern Pope's [sic], and especially the last two, have been exemplars of moral conservative ideology. Your insinuations of liberalism are delusional."

No, I'm not. The parallel is near-perfect. JB seems to think that because I live in a city run by whack-job liberals, I should run for the hills or be complicit in their antics. You (and, probably, JB) plead higher authority. So do I; my state and federal governments (perhaps you've heard of 'em, one has a mansion on Summit, another has all the cool nuclear codes) are Republicans.

Your church is controlled, in the US, by people who in the lay world would be on the Berkeley City Council. Your pope may be conservative, but your local dioceseseses are firmly in the hands of the "enemy". And don't be pleading "I go to a conservative congregation"; they report to the same socialist bishops that the folks at Joan of Arc do.

Explain your own contradictions!

As to "reconciling" anything - get over it. There is no contradiction; never has been, never will be. It's a good neighborhood; one kid was involved in drug dealing; some punks shot at him. They missed him and hit my house. The neighbors chased everyone involved out. No, I mean literally - I saw the car that was involved in the shooting, and literally chased them a mile through the backstreets.

If that is a "contradiction" (it's not, except in you and JB's little world where you can jump up and down and say "the argument is just what *I* say it is, and nothing more!"), then every murder in Woodbury and Inver Grove Bites brings exactly the same contradiction, and bids you both to move to a culvert in the Rockies, far from civilization.

Oh, yeah - and...

"And if I had children"

But you don't. And until you do, kindly leave the commentary to those who do.

All kidding aside (and it IS all kidding), it's not a subject for your or JB's approval.

JB,

"I already said "both" is BS."

You don't set the rules for the debate. "Both" is not only not BS, it's exactly correct/

And it takes persistence and discipline to make sense out of gray areas; turning them into arbitrary (and utterly wrong) blacks and whites takes only jerky knees.

Let the record show that Mitch's neighborhood is either (depending on his mood) a crack-infested shithole, or a calm, safe place to raise children.

I would hope his readers take this into account when considering the veracity of his future posts.

You have to ask yourself if you would buy a used car from this man.

JB,

Let the record also show that I live and raise my kids (a purely theoretical construct to you), and am yet more conservative than you are.

Oh, yeah - there *is no record*, and if there were, you're not its keeper!

This is one of those things where I don't need to "win" the "debate" to be right...

...although I'm both right and have won.

And you still haven't answered the question, JB: You're a member of a church run (hemispherically) by socialists.

Justify your hypocrisy!

Mitch - you know nothing of how Catholic parishes operate. The bishop is never consulted on what particular interpretation an individual priest is giving to his ministry. A bishop never interevenes, unless bidden by higher authorities, or from an acclimation from below. Both of these are exceedingly rare occurances. And I've never heard of it happening to a parish I've attended in all my life. The only time I can recall it ever happening at all was when Bishop Flynn mandated (based on assumed prodding from Rome) that Rainbow sash wearing gay activits cannnot receive communion. I can't imagine the Berkely City Council doing likewise. I go to a Conservative parish, you're going to have to accept that. If you don't believe me, come on over and visit sometime.

The parallel between the Church and your city is actually quite close, in that the President or Governor has as much power in your city as the Bishop does in the parrish - vitually none. And they only step in during extraordinary circumstances. I don't recall that ever happening in St. Paul, although I do recall the Governor ordering in state police to quell the gang violence in Mineapolis a few years ago. Another fine example of city living - one I don't recall that ever happening in Woodbury.

Mitch - regarding your scolding that I can't comment on children unless I have any - that's the chicken hawk argument repackaged for your own purposes. As I recall you objected to Leftists calling you out because you never served in the military, yet deign to speak about those issues. Yet you're now doing that to me.

You know I once was a child, I have nephews and nieces and friends with lots of kids. And I'm involved with humanity - I think that qualifies me to be involoved in the discussion.

Instead of trying to silence debate, why don't you address the questions at hand? That is, whenever you manage to fix your computers that have broken down.

Mitch - finally, you bring up the "I'm more conservative than you argument." You did that on the radio show Saturday too. I don't understand what you mean by that? By what metrics are you more conservative than me?

And what does that have to do with the specific facts and issues we're discussing here?

Re: how parishes operate: Ah. So when we're talking about you and your faith (or, more accurately, the mechanics of your church bureaucracy), suddenly we have all the room in the world for the little nuances and subtleties that come with little things like *human institutions in the real world* - but when the subject is my neighborhood, it's either utopia or shithole (based purely on an illogical, selected-to-skew reading of a couple of blog posts at that), reality be damned?

See my point yet? If so, could you pass it on to JB "I Define Reality!" Doubtless?

As re kids; Yes, what I said sounded close to the "Chickenhawk" argument, except the point is not "If you have no kids, you have no right to comment", but rather "If you don't have kids, then don't be yipping about the choices I make in raising mine." Specific, not general. The analog would be "If you've never been an infantry squad leader, then you might not want to quibble about how a platoon of grunts cleared a block of terrorists", rather than the traditional "If you didn't serve..." canard.

More specifically - if you'd let one incident scare you out of the only home your kids have ever known (hypothetically), that's your call; I made mine. You wanna debate my individual decisions as a parent? The blog isn't the place for it, and it's a line of conversation I specifically disinvite.

As re: my being more conservative than you: It's smack talk. Sucka.

Although I AM more conservative than JB.

Yeah, the guy with the kids in shitty, leftist, socialist-controlled public schools is more conservative than the guy whose kids won't even be allowed to pass by the public school.

You're right.

Absolutes are so fun when it's all hypothetical, isn't it, JB?

But way to change the subject again!

WHO changed the subject Mitch?

You're amazing.

You apparently want people to judge you by what you say and not what you do.

Just by declaring that you are more conservative than anyone does not make it so.

And I've got one on the way so it isn't hypothetical for me. My kid will be in a private school.

Mitch, you're getting your ass handed to you on this issue. Give it up.

JB,

I'm dying to figure out where it was you figured you could define reality, "just because JB says so".

"You apparently want people to judge you by what you say and not what you do."

Hm - if by "What I say" you mean "a very skewed selection of what I've written about a dozen years in my home neighborhood in three and a half years of blogging" - selected very self-servingly, natch - as opposed to "What I do", which is work as a conservative activist in a place that desperately needs it - then, er, no, I guess I don't!

"Just by declaring that you are more conservative than anyone does not make it so."

Gosh, d'ya think?

Didn't you ever play basketball as a kid, JB? Never smacktalked your opponent to rattle 'em? Or were you too busy playing polo in Wayzata?

Saying "the argument is either (JB's) black or (JB's) white", likewise, doesn't make it so.

Fine, JB. You are plenty conservative.

"And I've got one on the way so it isn't hypothetical for me. My kid will be in a private school."

Congratulations! I had not heard!

May your financial fortunes always enable that private education. Mine have not - a situation for which I'm sure you'll have an instant, inflexible, pseudo-conservative-sounding bromide or two. I've been raising kids for 15 years; get back to me in a couple of years and after a few of life's little c curveballs, and we'll talk absolutes, mkay?

"Mitch, you're getting your ass handed to you on this issue. Give it up."

JB, the only way you "hand my ass" to me on this or any other argument is to kill me and chop my ass off.

Or try.

There is WAY too much discussion of Mitch Berg's ass!

On this, there is universal agreement.

But seriously, congratulations!

(On the upcoming addition, I mean).

I have to say one thing that really used to piss me off prior to having children was parents telling me I could not enter the conversation since I had none of my own yet. I had no kids until I was 37 fairly late in the game. My lefty neighbors who I would talk with had kids much younger, and were involved in their schools actively also in the Wellstone campaign so we had things to say each other. Whenever I would mention anything about funding unions, merit, testing, etc. I was shot down with the old lame-o dodge: "You don't have kids yet so you can't have an opinion." Horse hockey, My father was a University prof, My wife is aan instructor at MCTC and my mother was a Jr. High counselpr for 35 years. All that aside to say that people without children can't have opioions on how to raise them is as pathetic as saying you can't have an opinion on the war unless you served. Can't have an opinion on homosexuality unless you have been boxed in the ass. Can't have a opinion on prison reform unless you have served time. Spare me.

I love the exchange between the Fraters and Mitch. and side more with JB after reading his post-fisk post. Reader Jim Stack is right on as well and don't see a need to piss on either the burbs or the city in the end. I take a different route, having lived in many different environments, I think there are great aspects to living in the city, country and burbs. I wrote a rant on this subject comparing it to my art school experience at FREEDOM DOGS: BITCHIN'BOUT THE BURBS, but won't paste it in since it is so long.

Cheers.

Proxy here:

I have kids, and I agree with Brian.

Plus: I experienced more "soul crushing ennui" in St. Paul, than in any suburb I've lived in.

Granted, that's probably because I went to law school in St. Paul.

LF

JB and Mitch, a very minor technical point:

When the advocate speaks, it's "May the record show," not "Let the record show."

The judge is in control of what evidence has been received into the record. The judge can say "let the record show that counsel is holding up four fingers" because the judge is the guy who decides what the record will show.

When it's you two advocates talking, then technically you must ask the judge for permission to let the record show something, so you say "May the record show counsel is holding up four fingers?" It's for the judge to say yes or no on what the record will show.

It has to be that way; otherwise, the advocates would just blurt out stuff saying the record showed it, without any impartial neutral person to decide if the advocates had produced sufficient evidence for the record to show what they said it showed.

Okay, so this is an amazingly small and technical point that nobody except night-school wonders would care about.

But when wordsmiths use words and phrases wrongly, they make themselves look silly.
.

Nathan,

Your pedantry is even more annoying than Mitch's.

JB,

Shush and go grab a beer and leave the thinking to the grownups. "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" is almost on.

JB, do you know what "pedantry" is? Because you sound a hell of a lot more pedantic than Mitch.

Sorry, buddy.

Since JB doesn't seem to be around anymore, I'll channel him for you.

Allison: Thanks, sweetie, but fetching beer is your job. Cook me up some food while you're at it. And get those shoes and socks off your feet, kay?

Geoff: Go eat some brie, you MOR putz.

ALLISON! WHERE'S MY BEER, BITCH?!

Nate:

"Night school wonder" huh?

You and me should talk about the Rule Against Perpetuities over a beer sometime.

Just don't bring up the rule from Shelley's case. Bad memories there.

LF

"You and me should talk about the Rule Against Perpetuities over a beer sometime."

What is "Party Conversation in Hell", Alex?

Hey "Geoff" (btw whatever happened to the normal spelling of "Jeff"?)

Examples my friend, examples. You continue to throw out unsubstantiated accusations.

Geoff: You're like mean and stuff
JB: What are you talking about?
Geoff: And you're like, um, pedantic too
JB: How?
Geoff: Sexist!

And thanks Allison. I love the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. A little too proletariat for your tastes?

Right on doppelganger, you nailed it.

"I love the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. A little too proletariat for your tastes?"

So suddenly you're Joe Proletarian?

How very Springsteen-like of you.

I know you are too much of a worldly sophisticate to lower yourself to something so Wal-Mart as the Blue Collar Comedians Allison.

If I was trying to be Springsteen-like, I would write a comment about how the US is deeply corrupt, racist, sexist, homophobic place.

That's the message of many of his songs. See my past posts for evidence.

Wow. I'm a worldly sophisticate? Whoo hoo! I mean, I grew up in a trailer park in Montana with a single mom and a drunk stepfather, Walmart was a major splurge (when it finally came to town) instead of Salvation Army, and I put myself through college in the National Guard, so that must mean I'm doing pretty good, right? For a worldly sophisticate from the hill country?

I spent a lot of my life escaping that "blue collar" BS you're babbling about. If you or whatever suburban fratboy wants to put the "blue collar" thing on like a trucker cap and blab about NASCAR and WalMart and all the Olympia you can guzzle, knock yourself out. It is all yours.

And I actually LIKE the BCCT.

Game and set, Allison.

JB's serve for the rubber set.

(Tennis reference, JB. Sorry if that's too hoity-toity for you. But wait - tennis is something we play in the 'burbs! What will you do?)

Interesting:

JB Doubtless: Listens to country-western music.

Allison: *Is* a country-western song.

Clash of titans!

Actually, "Alison" is better known (to thse of us that d*e*s*p*i*s*e C&W) as an Elvis Costello song.

Anybody know if EC is a bedwetting liberal?

Costello's a Brit musician. You do the math.

And "Alison" was covered (in 1979) by Linda Ronstadt. Buzzkill.

How can you grow up with a single mom and yet have had a drunken stepfather?

Mom remarried when I was 9, and threw the bum out when I was 12 or 13.

What, no snide, dismissive response from JB?

Dont worry about a thing! (into the walkie-talkie) Theres plenty of play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]play65[/url] Say what you were supposed to say in the cafeteria backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]backgammon[/url] Hey McFly whats with this cheap-ass drill youre giving me Thing online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]online backgammon[/url] He comes out of the cafeteria line hes nervous he spills his corn .

Dont worry about a thing! (into the walkie-talkie) Theres plenty of play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]play65[/url] Say what you were supposed to say in the cafeteria backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]backgammon[/url] Hey McFly whats with this cheap-ass drill youre giving me Thing online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]online backgammon[/url] He comes out of the cafeteria line hes nervous he spills his corn .