Obama Clamato

About JohnSmart

http://losangelesgd.wordpress.com/ http://johnwsmart.wordpress.com/ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/johnwsmart
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Obama Clamato

  1. Pingback: Obama Clamato (via The List) | gmasceri

  2. gmasceri says:

    Very entertaining and worthwhile use of your time!

  3. Sonata says:

    John, you are insane. I love it.

  4. sophie says:

    I love this ! Can I still have my Clamato Bloody Mary ?

  5. paper doll says:

    one of your best! lol!

  6. Jay Floyd says:

    ‘Taint right, I tell ya. ‘Taint right. It goes a little Cronenberg in the middle.

  7. Jay Floyd says:

    PS: That Bachman won the Iowa straw poll confirms that there are SOOOOO many people in our country that I really don’t want to meet. (I’m quite sure it’s mutual.)

  8. Excellent! I love your videos!

  9. PJ says:

    On Bachmann winning the straw poll, I have to admit, I think Marcus would make a great First Lady.

    Romney doing so poorly with this group of voters makes him go way up in my eyes. He used to give me the creeps but compared to the others, he doesn’t seem so bad.

    • sophie says:

      PJ..I think creepy is the new ‘normal’.

      Coming to John’s blog is like sitting down to a good meal with interesting people. This is so rare in blog world.

    • PJ says:

      I agree!!

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “Romney doing so poorly with this group of voters makes him go way up in my eyes:

      I thinke about 17,000 people at Ames, many of them bused to the event by the candidates This morning I heard on one of the Poltical talk shows that Bachmann paid for 40 buses of Iowans to be transported to the free food, free entertainment, free t-shirts & prizes straw poll. She ended up with 4800 votes, if there were just 50 people on each of her 40 buses that means that nearly half of those 4800 votes she bused in. The Ames straw poll is much more about fund raising than winning. Romney won in 2007, Pat Robertson won in 1987 , so it’s not a true barometer of how the candidate will fare on the national stage. From what I’ve read Pawlenty spent a wad of cash and got around 2000 votes and his fund raising fell apart. He just couldn’t rise above his own dull, uninteresting persona.

  10. Zaladonis says:

    Tim Pawlenty’s announcing today he’s dropping out of the race.

    That didn’t take long.

    • PJ says:

      I’m surprised it happened so fast, but Iowa was Tim’s best shot. At least the other “losers” in the straw poll (like Romney and Huntsman) have NH to look forward to where they’ll do much better.

  11. PJ says:

    There are three debates scheduled in September and I’m anxious to see how Perry performs. I wonder if he’ll get the Texas handicap like we gave to W.

  12. sophie says:

    It’s all about the money. The candidates who can’t raise it come to the end of the road pretty quickly. Will be watching the contributors list much more closely this time, not that they are the whole picture, by any means.
    Oth, Chris Mathews hates Perry with a passion, Perry should take this as a compliment. At least Tingles is staying with names on his hit list that start with the letter P..He invoked Sarah Palin’s name ad nauseum.

    • PJ says:

      Hmmm. Tingles hating Perry gives me pause. I’m kind of surprised. He really fell in love with W (initially), calling him the Marlboro Man. Maybe his tastes have changed. But you’re right, I think it’s a big compliment to Perry.

      I wish he’d get off the Palin-hate. It has gotten so old. I thought Palin did really well in her interview with Don Lemon. I’m not a Palin fan, but I’m working at being more fair to her. :)

  13. Pat Johnson says:

    I am unable to praise any of these people regardless of whatever their last name begins with.

    Why would I even be remotely interested in voting for anyone whose sole aim is to further yoke women into the rules of the patriarchy or condemn gays as an abomination? Who wants to do away with Social Security and all the safety nets that have only helped the poor and middle class?

    Why would I even consider glancing in the direction of people who refuse to tax the rich while breaking the backs of the majority? Or who want to eliminate EPA and deregulate industries that will only cause harm to the environment and our economy?

    Why would I bother with any party who would trim more funding from education, destroy unions, or defund Planned Parenthood? Who wants to do away with the minimum wage and further strangle the average working man/woman?

    The Democratic Party has left me behind to a large extent but I am not willing to rush into the arms of a party who actively seeks to destroy the New Deal programs that have lifted so many out of harms way.

    The very last thing we need is a Republican president who will appoint only SC justices who will act in favor of corporations and will definitely put an end to the privacy laws of Roe v Wade.

    What is needed is an overhaul of all sitting members of both parties: one whose chief aim is to control legislation by obstruction, and the other who goes along with it.

    Until there is a determined and sincere effort to overcome the Campaign Finance laws that permits money to “buy” the members of congress, we are stuck with this system. But finding solace in the arms of the Right is not going to solve the issues this nation is forced to endure when their chief objective is to defend and protect the richest among us at our own expense.

    • NoEmptySuits says:

      Pat, here’s where the proverbial rubber meets the proverbial road: would you vote for Obama in ’12? If you will, you’re an anomoly on this page of Obama-haters; if you won’t, but will only vote for a third party candidate, who cannot win, you’re not going to be a factor. My point is: it’s all well and good to criticize the Reeps, but, in this system, your only realistic choice is Obama or the GOP nominee.

    • PJ says:

      Again, I’m butting in…

      I believe Pat was saying the same thing – our only realistic choices are Obama or the GOP nominee and given those choices, she would choose Obama. You’re right that she’s probably outnumbered, but that doesn’t make her wrong.

      Not that you asked, but I say the choices are Puppet A for big money or Puppet B for big money. For me, some of the Puppet Bs are too scary to even consider (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum) in which case I would vote 3rd party and not be a factor.

  14. PJ says:

    “Until there is a determined and sincere effort to overcome the Campaign Finance laws that permits money to “buy” the members of congress, we are stuck with this system.”

    I totally agree, Pat. I just don’t see how we change that when the Supreme Court will only pass down decisions that keep big money in control, the Legislature will only pass bills that favor big money staying in control, and the President will only sign bills that favor big money staying in control. If you own all three branches of government, you own the whole tree.

  15. PJ says:

    I am open to voting for Republicans as a strategy, but obviously it’s tricky. I’ve seen people engage in this strategy, only to find themselves drinking the Walk-a-dile Red Kool-aid while making fun of the Barry Blue flavor drinkers.

  16. Pat Johnson says:

    Voting for Republicans as a “strategy” gave us the Tea Party winners, many of whom are also governing states like WI, FL, Ohio, NH to name a few. These states have suffered under these men as they slash and burn programs, primarily healthcare and education, that went against the citizens needs. Rather then the promised jobs they all campaigned on, they instead went after unions, women and seniors.

    November was a referendum on the Dems by “sending a message” most of us are having difficulty living with. “Intransience” is not leadership by any means when the middle and lower classes are asked to “share sacrifice” while the money grubbers go unscathed.

    I see no benefit in voting for Repubs as a strategy when it goes against our interests. Unfortunately I see few Dems holding firm against this tide that is taking us down a path of economic hardship.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “Intransience” is not leadership by any means when the middle and lower classes are asked to “share sacrifice” while the money grubbers go unscathed.I see no benefit in voting for Repubs as a strategy when it goes against our interests. Unfortunately I see few Dems holding firm against this tide that is taking us down a path of economic hardship.”

      Truer words were never spoken. This isn’t 2008 when a protest vote in a redstate had no consequence and a withheld vote or a 3rd party vote in a purple state was a signal. These group of GOP/TP candidates make John McCain look like a Socialist. Perhaps withholding our votes will be the best we can do, but supporting or voting for people who we know, absolutely, will burn down our house, makes no sense whatsoever. .

    • PJ says:

      I’m not convinced Obama won’t burn the house down if given a 2nd term, so I’m not sure it makes a difference who wins – we’re guaranteed to lose.

      I’m afraid I’m just like those idiots who go to professional wrestling matches KNOWing it’s all fake, but once inside the arena, gets completely sucked into the drama.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “I’m afraid I’m just like those idiots who go to professional wrestling matches KNOWing it’s all fake, but once inside the arena, gets completely sucked into the drama.”

      NO…..I don’t think you’d do that!!! You’re too smart. You’re more likely to be the person in the crowd screaming, “what a bunch of BS”. :-)

      Do you remember a year or two ago when you and I had a discussion about the religious rights ability to pull-off a government that ended up being a theocracy? If I remember correctly we both agreed they’d have a tough time doing it, I think I’m about to change my mind.

    • PJ says:

      I do remember, and I agree that it’s looking more and more possible. Scary shit. Like Peggy Sue, it may just be that I am in a depressed funk because of Bachmann winning the straw poll. I really don’t think she can win the nomination, but then there’s Elmer Gantry who more than likely will win.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      If I remember correctly, a number or us got into the conversation and none of us, just 2.5 short years ago, thought a religious zealot could be elected as POTUS. Now we’re actually discussing the possiblity. Two years ago, no one here spoke of Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry as potential GOP POTUS candidates or had a clue that the TP would spring up and take over the GOP or that Dominionists would have so much sway over the political dialogue. I suppose that serves to point out how very little we know about what the future might bring. That’s why it’s good to remember that the election is still 15 months away. No telling where this all will end.

    • NoEmptySuits says:

      Voting for Obama after the Dems killed Hill (and there’s no other word for what they did to her) gave us Obama. If Hill supporters had voted for McCain instead of Obama, Obama wouldn’t be prez today.

    • djmm says:

      NES, I have to point out that some of us Hillary supporters did vote for McCain. I thought he would be more liberal than Obama (and I still think I was right). Right wing talk show hosts pretty much called McCain a commie (I heard ‘em) and many right wing Republicans stayed home or voted for Ron Paul. I do not think they will stay home this year, so I am hoping for a more moderate Republican candidate (as well as a Democratic primary challenger for President Obama).

      djmm

    • Peggy Sue says:

      I’m one of those Hillary supporters who voted for McCain. It would have helped, of course, had McCain had his own party behind him. But he was labeled as an evil ‘progressive’ by the same intelligent people who label Obama a socialist but are willing to hop on the Elmer Gantry train.

      So, ple-e-aze no lecturing!

  17. Brian Crowell says:

    Black folks have allowed HRC into the race..

    • Zaladonis says:

      86% of African Americans express support for the job President Obama is doing.

      Eighty-six percent!

      That’s today. That’s the low. That’s before we get treated to the propaganda of what a horrifying racist Obama’s opponent is.

      Black folks have allowed HRC into the race..

      If Hillary Clinton tried to primary Obama, black folks would vilify her in ways that make 2008 look like a love fest.

    • Peggy Sue says:

      Unfortunately, that wasn’t a very impassioned denouncement of Obama by either West or Smiley. What they’re asking for is a primary challenger to throw themselves on a funeral pyre to light a fire under Obama’s rearend. But that’s assuming Barack Obama is doing anything that he hadn’t planned to do to begin with–support those who brought him to the ball, the very oligarchs dismantling the country, piece by piece, day by day.

      The choice now is voting for one of the GOPs hired guns or Obama, flips sides of the same coin. Or go 3rd party. Or just stay home.

      Short of a miracle, I don’t see any of this changing. But then, I’m having one of my hopeless days. Maybe it’s the Ames vote that threw me into a funk. Michelle Bachmann. OMG. The only thing worse is a Rick Perry, who might actually catch fire on the national front. Anyone catch his NC announcement? What a snake oil salesman. Another one being primed, ready to go!

      Ugh.

    • PJ says:

      I heard Rick Perry described (by a GOP person) as a coffee table book – lots of pretty pictures and no text – deja vu. I think you’re absolutely right Peggy Sue, another snake oil salesman primed and ready to go. The oligarchy can’t lose.

    • Zaladonis says:

      Too much importance may be placed on the Ames Straw Poll, IMO. It’s a Republican fundraiser that candidates bus people into who then pay $30 to vote. Not exactly a show of general voter direction.

    • Peggy Sue says:

      I don’t think it’s a matter of taking the Straw Poll overly seriously, Zal. It’s the very fact that a Michelle Bachmann could win a dog race that I find depressing. Okay, so she bused people in and the poll tax was $30 [which the campaigns are willing to pay for if you vote their way]. So can all the other candidates. It’s the very fact that anyone is willing to sell their soul or vote their withered priorities for a candidate as skewed as a Michelle Bachmann is.

      It’s a mind boggling, depressing proposition regardless of how I look at it.

    • Zaladonis says:

      I see what you mean.

      I guess, for me, I stopped being as surprised by crazy in the GOP in 2008 when I realized that even a lot of my fellow Democrats are way off the beam.

      The people I can trust and rely on in my tangible life became all the more important, recognizing how rare they are and how much we’ll probably end up depending on one another.

      Because you’re right there’re a lot of mind boggling choices being made out there.

    • NoEmptySuits says:

      Peggy Sue, I think Perry is going to be the next prez. Please make your best argument for why he’d be worse than Obama. I don’t think he would.

    • PJ says:

      Didn’t you read the earlier thread? Perry is the 3rd anti-christ. John said so. (just kidding, John)

      I know you were addressing Peggy Sue, so sorry to butt in.

    • Zaladonis says:

      LOL!

    • Peggy Sue says:

      Please do a little research on Elmer Gantry Perry before singing his praises. And I never said Obama was a better choice. From where I sit, an Obama vote will lead to slow strangulation where a Perry vote will snap your neck clean.

      What a frigging choice! They’re cut from the same cloth, btw: snake oil salesmen, bought and owned. And not by thee.

    • NoEmptySuits says:

      Why do you think I haven’t done any research on Perry?

    • Peggy Sue says:

      Because I find it hard to believe that any rational person who did real research on the man would still support his bid for the WH.

  18. Valhalla says:

    Obama Clamato is brilliant! I loved the part about the dog. “Admit you chose to put your personal ego gratification above making an informed choice in 2008. Now the nation is screwed.”

    Ah, that sums it up.

  19. propertius says:

    John, you are a very strange man.

    Don’t ever change ;-) .

  20. ANonOMouse says:

    From this MTP this morning:

    No way any mature, self-respecting, self-confident L/G person will vote for this woman. I’m don’t believe even the political Log Cabinites or GOProud members could get on board with her, but they’ve surprised me before.

  21. PJ says:

    Sorry for this turning into an open thread, John. That video really was great. I especially liked the lines about Donna Brazile. Hahaha

    • Peggy Sue says:

      Yup, the ‘sassy black woman’ line was great. Even made me smile, not an easy thing today.

  22. sophie says:

    Currently, among some voters there seems to be two ways of looking at candidates,, pro L/G, antil L/G., pro choice/anti choice, or whatever it is that is goring a particular person’s pet ox..
    Shortly after Cuoma signed the gay marriage bill, Bluffdaddy decided he was now pro gay marriage. If the polls down the road show that hurt him, he will jump right back into ‘civil unions’ b.s., count on it. He is grasping at whatever straw he can, at this point..
    In the end, if families cannot afford an unplanned pregnancy, or if those of us who are pro All Marriages can’t even afford the cake and the champagne to celebrate those unions, we are so screwed that personal issues will fall by the wayside..Grandma was right, “if Poverty walks in the door, Love flies out the window.” or another bromide having something to do with rising tides swamping All ships..
    Bo doesn’t have an economic plan, he paid all his debts to cronies with the Stimulus, another stimulus will be more of the same since he’s probably run up a few more debts .. He Has Got to Go, he is the Problem..I wouldn’t waste a moment’s thought on his stance re:social issues, he doesn’t have one,or any other principle, imo. As a lame duck, he will never stick his neck out on anything that will make the Black community mad,They are his future ghost- written- book buyers, and the payers of many of his future speaking fees.
    If he doesn’t get primaried, I’m buying a parka, it doesn’t take much gas to get to Canada.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “Shortly after Cuoma signed the gay marriage bill, Bluffdaddy decided he was now pro gay marriage”

      That’s news to me, where did you read that? I’ve never heard him say anything but that he believes marriage should be between 1 man, 1 woman. In the last election there were only 2 Dems that were pro gay marriage, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Dems are coming to this late and have been dragged to it kicking and screaming. Still, few dems have been anti-gay, in a decade or two, while the RNC makes sure they showcase their anti-gay positions in the party platform, both in state platforms and in their national platform. They are still Pro-DOMA, support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a contract between 1 man, 1 woman. It’s important to remember that in the biggest federal victory we’ve had in 15 years, the repeal of DADT, the majority of Repubs in the Congress did not want the repeal of DADT. If not for a few repubs who bucked their party in the Senate, it would not have been repealed.

      There’s a huge difference between anti-gay and anti-gay marriage and all L/G understand the difference. Bill Clinton, for example, has long been a supporter of the L/G community, but until recently he didn’t support gay marriage. He says he’s had a change of heart, but Hillary has not, she still supports civil unions. The issues the L/G community are fighting for are really issues of parity and civil justice, not issues of economics, although there are economic advantages in marriage. Why should L/G’s as tax paying citizens be denied the Civil Contract of marriage in any State or in the U.S.A.? That’s the question and unles they drage scripture into the discussion to support their position, there isn’t a single argument that favors the GOP. In other words, it is their god that commands that they say no to gay marriage. Now that’s theocracy at it’s finest.

    • sophie says:

      He did say it, in his way, he is ‘evolving’ according to him.. Wish I could provide a link, but it may have been part of a newscast.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      I don’t need a link Sophie. I wasn’t saying I didn’t believe you, I was saying that if if he said that, I’ve missed it and I pay very close attention to the public positions of POLS on the issue of gay rights.

    • sophie says:

      I didn’t mean it to sound that way, my senior brain just can’t remember where I saw it. It will probably come to me at 4 a.m.!

    • sophie says:

      L/G issues should be included in Civil Rights laws,and additionally fall within the parameters of social justice practices. We have allowed too narrow a defitnition of ‘fairness’ imo. Discrimination is discrimination, period.

    • Zaladonis says:

      If I understand what you’re saying, Sophie, I agree 100%.

      LGBT issues are, obviously, very important to me; have been for many decades. They are not, right now, top most. Jobs head the list. The list is long and there are other concerns above LGBT issues for me. Food and water safety for instance. Also I don’t believe a word Obama says, and for that matter none of the POTUS potentials at this point worry me with LGBT issues — just because they say they’re for or against something doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll take action one way or the other. Also we hear a lot of BS talk from candidates and surrogates, and a lot of opponents fear mongering; I say don’t be distracted by the noise and stay focused on what we know from our own investigation or reliable sources is real.

      We have monumental problems right now and any way I can see for myself as the best chance of getting them addressed properly, I’ll go for.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “and for that matter none of the POTUS potentials at this point worry me with LGBT issues — just because they say they’re for or against something doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll take action one way or the other”

      What makes you think they won’t take action? The TP/GOP’ers have taken anti-gay actions in many state legislatures. In one State they’re attempting to make it illegal to say the word “gay” in grades K-6. They’re working to ban gay adoptions or gay couples as foster parents. In one state they’ve stricken down the capital cities ordinance that banned doing business with companies that held anti-gay work policies. It is the GOP that has passed anti-gay ballot initiatives and anti-gay marriage amendments. Currently 6 states have a constitutional ban on gay marriage. 5 states have statute bans on gay marriage. 18 states have constitutional bans on gay marriage & civil unions. So you live in a BRIGHT BLUE state but most L/G’s do not and who we vote for matters. AND THAT ISN’T AN ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA!!! That is REJECTION of all politicians who are vehemently and proudly anti-gay.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      And bad economic circumstances do not back burner social concerns. In fact there is plenty of historical evidence to support that poverty elevates the fight for social justice. Examples would be civil right,voting rights,women’s rights, workers rights.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      National Conference of State Legislatures report on State Bans on Same Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

      http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430

    • sophie says:

      Zal, thanks for saying what I was trying to say, except you did it coherently.
      Most social issues will remain with the States, if they ever get to the Supremes, they will still get thrown back to the states, imo.
      The supporters of these issues, myself included, should keep a close eye on their state gov’ts.

    • Zaladonis says:

      Sophie,

      In the 1980s LGBT issues were a priority in my consideration of national and local politicians because most LGBT issues in the ’80s were connected to AIDS –research funding, support services and facilities and funding, equal access to a partner’s employer-based health insurance that his co-worker’s spouse had, housing protection, access to decent health care, etc.– and most elected officials wouldn’t even answer our calls much less take needed action until we used voting and street protest clout. Those LGBT issues were about grave illness and death, and deserved highest priority status.

      Today it’s different. Much as I want Federal equal marriage rights, and believe me I do, it’s not life and death the way some other issues are. It used to infuriate me, in the ’80s, when some people would say to me, “You’re obsessed with being gay, everything isn’t about being gay, there are other priorities.” Well when a disease is mysteriously ravaging people and the government’s doing nothing about it, that’s the priority for me. Being gay isn’t my priority, being a healthy human being in a healthy society is. As citizens I think it’s vital we adjust our political priorities as circumstances dictate. Right now IMO priorities like jobs and war and food and water trump gay rights. That’s not to say I give Obama a pass for failing to even try to dismantle DOMA, but the upside to that is with DOMA in place Republicans don’t have any reason to monkey around with Federal same sex marriage issues – so because of Obama’s failure there’s no reason, from a gay rights angle, to be much concerned about a Republican POTUS. As you point out, right now there may be more reason for concern or optimism, with gay rights, with the courts than the WH or Congress.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “most LGBT issues in the ’80s were connected to AIDS –research funding, support services and facilities and funding, , etc” “Those LGBT issues were about grave illness and death, and deserved highest priority status”

      So what you’re saying is that because AIDS has been addressed all the other issues like “equal access to a partner’s employer-based health insurance that his co-worker’s spouse had, housing protection, access to decent health care” are no longer consequential to the L/G community? Do you think these issues have been “addressed”? If you think they’ve been addressed, you obviously DO NOT live in the same world that most L/G’s live in.

      I suppose if you’re well-heeled, live in a bright blue state (or in your case, 2 bue states) and are isolated enough from the real world of L/G’s, you become indifferent to the injustice experienced by others.

      “As citizens I think it’s vital we adjust our political priorities as circumstances dictate. Right now IMO priorities like jobs and war and food and water trump gay rights.”

      Yeah!!!! No place for civil rights in the fight against war, or the fight for jobs or the worry about food & water. Put your hands over your eyes because I’m getting ready to type a truth that you obviously do not want to face. The fact is, the fight against war is a fight for civil rights as is the fight for jobs, as is the concern about the availability and quality of food & water.

      You really need to come down from the balcony.

  23. Zaladonis says:

    This isn’t only my, and others’, concern for the future any more, it’s happening now.

    (CNN) — Critical water pipelines are breaking from coast to coast, triggered by this summer’s record high temperatures. It’s not a phenomenon or coincidence, experts say. It’s a clear sign that Americans should brace for more water interruptions, accompanied by skyrocketing water bills.

    The heat wave of the past few weeks has burst hundreds of crucial pipes in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky and New York, temporarily shutting off water to countless consumers just when they needed it most.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/13/water.infrastructure/

    • sophie says:

      Zal, everyone should be worried. My Dad was an architect/engineer who often designed and supervised the building of a number of gov’t projects, including water treatment plants, in, as I recall, the Sixties.Some of them have seen little change, except for patch jobs, since then. We did not live in the areas in which he worked,but that is when he put the household on bottled water for cooking and drinking.

    • Zaladonis says:

      I remember when tap water changed in NYC. When I was a kid, in the 1960s, it used to be great tasting water but by 1990 it was so foul you could smell the rot and decay. I hated to shower in it or even do laundry. Patch jobs and purification plants were the government solutions, and everybody switched to drinking bottled water; I kept saying what’s wrong with this picture. In the 1990s water pipes were bursting in NYC, all they did was more patch jobs as you say, and a few of us loudly urged Giuliani to spend some of our overflowing coffers on infrastructure rebuilding. Instead, to the delight of tourists and whomever it was who was moving into NYC at that time, he Disney-fied Times Square and Starbucked downtown instead.

      I couldn’t stand what was happening to NYC so even though we have to stay there for work, it was in the 1990s that my partner and I bought our house – it’s (what’s left of) a mid-18th-century farm property and one of the deciding factors for us is it has fresh water springs. The wells and pond that were dug to capture the spring water for livestock, hundreds of years ago, are amazing in their simplicity and efficiency. Unlike a river that has an upstream where you don’t know what’s being dumped in, spring water gurgles out naturally purified. In the winter and springtime it’s magically sweet. We fill bottles at our house for drinking at our apartment in the city; ten years ago our friends laughed at us for that; this past weekend I noticed them filling water bottles and packing them to haul back to the city.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s