Fortune's 25 Highest Paid Men and 25 Highest Paid Women. Grab a barf bag before reading.
For extra shits and giggles, note the total compensation of #25 on the men's list (the lowest of the highest) and then the total compensation of #1 on the women's list.
It'll Trickle Down Any Minute Now…
Maude Help Us
The fate of a controversial $700 billion financial bailout plan was in doubt Monday as a House vote turned against it.The whole story is here.
The next steps were not immediately clear but supporters were scrambling to put it up for another vote.
...The measure needs 218 votes for passage. Democrats voted 141 to 94 in favor of the plan, while Republicans voted 65 to 133 against. That left the measure with 206 votes for and 227 against.
This is the problem: There are good reasons to vote against this bill, but not everyone who's in a position to affect the economy understands that. Investors are freaking out. That's more dangerous than not passing (or passing) this bill.
From the Wayback Machine
Mustang Bobby's earlier post about Obama, McCain, and the dichotomy of their individual willingness to engage in bipartisanship, put me in mind of an incident from February of 2006, before the Democrats regained control of Congress, that I'm surprised hasn't received more play during this campaign:
Obama asked McCain if he would consider co-sponsoring a Democratic proposal on ethics reform, instead of appointing a separate task force on the issue, as McCain wanted to do. The Dems, you see, had already introduced legislation, the Honest Leadership Act, which addressed many of the things McCain was saying he wanted to appoint a task force to explore; ergo, Obama was hoping that McCain would instead just sign on with the Dems' instead of wasting time with a task force.
Obama's letter (pdf) was extremely polite and professional—but, reading between the lines, one can see Obama was also essentially calling McCain's bluff and testing his claims of being a wild and crazy maverick who knows how to reach across the aisle and shit, as calling for a task force is often a strategy employed by a senator who only wants to appear to care about an issue without actually having to take a stand, as the task force "investigation" indefinitely delays establishing a firm position. Here was an ethics reform package ready to rock and roll—so Obama asked (again, politely and professionally) for McCain to sign on.
McCain's response (pdf), which Matt Stoller called "the single most bitter, nasty letters I have ever seen from any Senator," was not only shocking in its tenor, but put paid the lie that McCain cares about reform and bipartisanship.When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again…
McCain having directed this level of rancor at Obama two and a half years ago further contextualizes his refusal to even look at Obama during the debate (which I've no doubt is attributable to a number of other things, too). McCain basically told Obama in official correspondence he's got no respect for him—and now he finds himself two years later going toe-to-toe in a campaign for the presidency with the freshman senator he deemed disingenuous and un-admirable—and he's losing to him.
I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
It's no wonder he can't look him in the eye.
News Flash: Internet Just Got Better
Quote of the Day
"We don't want [Hispanics] to become the new African-American community. And that's what the Democratic Party is going to do to them, create more programs and give them handouts, food stamps and checks for this and checks for that. We don't want that. I'm very much afraid that the Democratic Party is going to do the same thing that they did with the African-American culture and make them all dependent on the government and we don't want that."—Didi Lima, Republican communications director for Clark County, Nevada and co-chair of John McCain's Nevada Hispanic Leadership Team. Lima has been "removed" from both positions.
[Please insert your own joke about Republicans making socially irresponsible corporate executives dependent on the government here.]
Still No Terrorism Since 9/11
None here. And none here. And none here. And none here. Nor here or here. Nor here or here. Or here, either.
And certainly none here:
Baboucarr Njie was preparing for his prayer session Friday night, Sept. 26, when he heard children in the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton coughing. Soon, Njie himself was overcome with fits of coughing and, like the rest of those in the building, headed for the doors.This, at the end of a week in which Muslims celebrated Ramadan and in which "thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West—the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail—were distributed by mail in Ohio," bearing, by the way, "the endorsement of the chair of the counter-terrorism department of the U.S. Naval War College."
"I would stay outside for a minute, then go back in, there were a lot of kids," Njie said. "My throat is still itchy, I need to get some milk."
Njie was one of several affected when a suspected chemical irritant was sprayed into the mosque at 26 Josie St., bringing Dayton police, fire and hazardous material personnel to the building at 9:48 p.m.
There has been terrorism in the United States since 9/11, no matter what the Bush administration says, no matter what John McCain says, no matter what the Republican Party says. It's just that the people terrorized aren't people they give a shit about.
I don't even know what else to say. Blub.
[H/Ts to Shakers Ginmar, Renee, Dori, and Zen.]
Monday Blogaround
Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Kevin: Who Would You Vote For in a Blind Taste Test?
Chris: McCain Camp Prays for Palin Wedding
Magpie: Will the Wall Street bailout fix the ailing U.S. economy?
Digby: Enablers
Sweet Machine: On Temptation (and Jeans)
Kyle: DNC Wedges McCain on Gambling
Leave your links in comments...
Bipartisanship
The McCain campaign trotted out an ad before Friday midnight about how Barack Obama said "John was right" several times during the debate. They seem to think it's a winning strategy to portray Mr. Obama as a McCain supporter. Hilzoy disagrees:
It would have been one thing had Obama not also been willing to say, forcefully, that he thought McCain was wrong. But he was, and usually his acknowledgement that McCain was right on some point was the preface to an explanation of why he was wrong on another.I think this points out an element of Mr. McCain's idea of bipartisanship: he's happy to claim his willingness to reach across the aisle, but the anecdotal evidence is that it's only when he gets his way; otherwise he's more than likely to tell you to go Cheney yourself. And as this ad campaign indicates, he's not even willing to acknowledge Mr. Obama's agreements because he doesn't consider him as a worthy equal on the stage.
[...]
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign seems to think that pointing out the occasions when Obama said that McCain was right is a winning strategy. I think this is wrong, not only for the reasons I mentioned, but because it undercuts one of McCain's main lines of argument: that he is willing to reach across the aisle and work for bipartisan solutions, whereas Obama is not.
Think about it: McCain couldn't even bring himself to look at Obama. He was consistently contemptuous and dismissive. And now he has released an ad that takes Obama's willingness to acknowledge that his opponents are right to be the sort of thing that's worth attacking him for.
McCain claims that he can truly reach out to his opponents and work with them, while Obama cannot. It's hard for me to think that his performance in this debate didn't seriously undermine that claim.
This is the Rovian mentality oozing in under the Mavericky door; turn your opponent's strength into a weakness even when it's the same as your own.
(Cross-posted.)
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, #86
And apparently, I've got to rename this series to racism, Muslim, unpatriotic, scary black dude, and antichrist watch:
Fort Mill [South Carolina] Mayor Danny Funderburk says he was "just curious" when he forwarded a chain e-mail suggesting Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the biblical antichrist. "I was just curious if there was any validity to it," Funderburk said in a telephone interview. "I was trying to get documentation if there was any scripture to back it up."Of course not. Because, like millions of Americans, Funderburk believes in a God who gave him a brain that He doesn't want him to actually use.
…When asked if he believed Obama was the antichrist, Funderburk replied, "I've got absolutely no way of knowing that."
The e-mail, which has circulated in the last six months since Obama secured the Democratic nomination, claims the biblical book of Revelation says the antichrist will be in his 40s and of Muslim ancestry.You know who would forward an email speciously circulating that someone was the antichrist, even after it had been debunked…? THE ANTICHRIST, that's who!
There is no such scripture. And Obama is not a Muslim. But that hasn't stopped the e-mail.
The urban legend Web site Snopes.com first exploded the myth in March. Funderburk forwarded the e-mail this month.
That's right, Shakers—Danny Funderburk is the antichrist. And you will each be receiving an email to that effect momentarily. Please be sure to pass it on far and wide. It 's what Jesus would want.
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five.
Boehner to Vote for Crap Sandwich
Mmm, delicious:
In a closed-door session with House Republicans, Minority Leader John A. Boehner just called the financial rescue deal a "crap sandwich" – then said he’ll vote for it when it comes to the floor Monday.Might as well get used to voting for crap sandwiches now, Boehner. It will just make Nov. 4 that much easier for you.
Tina Fey::Sarah Palin:Amy Poehler::Katie Couric
(If anyone can find a transcript, please let me know in comments. This one's a little on the long side for me to do one myself.)
Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin is just amazingly spot-on. Amy Poehler's of Katie Couric, not so much. But, hey—they can't all be winners.
Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
How can this be the only clip on all of YouTube of Oscar-nominated actor Greg Kinnear's stint on Talk Soup?! Criminal.
SNTDBIDW - The Same Damn Thing You Did Last Time
OK -- here's installment two in SNTDBIDW:
How To Break Patterns
I do not personally know a single adult human being who hasn't danced out at least one horrifically dysfunctional (at worst) or annoyingly ineffective (at best) pattern in their life.
Granted, I do not personally know the Dalai Lama, and I acknowledge that there may be a plethora of exceptional human beings who do not run up against this challenge -- but if they exist, I have not met them yet.
If you are one of these exceptional human beings -- someone who has never once had the thought: "Uh-oh, here we go again!", or "Oh shit, I've had this exact same argument before, with this exact same person", or "Crappity-crap-crap! I KNEW I shouldn't have done this!!!!!!" -- please introduce yourself -- I will consider you the exception that proves the rule.
I will leave aside, for the moment, the multitudinous psychological and metaphysical discussions that we might have about why otherwise bright people sometimes engage in patterns of behavior that are self- or other-destructive, counter-productive, or just plain stupid.
I will instead, attempt to describe the "Because It Doesn't Work" aspect of dysfunctional patterns, and offer some suggestions.
I will start with an example, by way of personal anecdote, about one of the "patterns" that plagued me for many years.
For many, many, many years -- (like 46 years) -- it seemed to me that the only type of person that I could possibly be attracted to as an intimate partner was a "withdrawer".
Which was problematic for me.
You see, I am not a "withdrawer". I am an "advancer".
If a conflict arises, I am the type of person who wants to confront it immediately, and talk it out until it is resolved, no matter how tired, hungry, angry, or cold I am at the time (and therefore, often, how fairly in-equipped I am to find resolution at the time) .
However -- I have, with atomic-clock-like precision, paired with partners who were my polar opposite in this respect -- human beings who tended to want to take time away from the issue until they were not so tired/hungry/angry/cold before they attempted resolution -- or who wanted to take time away from the issue altogether -- forever -- and seemed to actually prefer entertaining the subtle, toxic undertone of unresolved shit, as if it were some kind of exotic spice for Relationship Stew (pun intended).
For many years, I approached this dilemma with a single strategy: I would simply batter away until I got them to "deal with it".
Ask me how that worked out.
Over time, I began to realize that I was approaching these situations in a most unscientific, illogical, and irrational manner -- I, who prided myself on my rationality, and my logic.
Here's the metaphor: If you were a scientist, and you went into the laboratory and mixed two chemicals in a beaker, and the reaction of the two chemicals was such that it blew the laboratory sky high, and burned the fuck out of you -- would you rebuild the same exact laboratory, and mix those exact two chemicals in precisely the same kind of beaker again?
OK -- maybe you would -- one more time. Tops.
On this second attempt, though, if you blew the lab to smithereens and burned the fuck out of yourself again -- well, chances are that you would . . . . . . Try Something Different.
Strangely, I didn't do that for many years. Instead, I kept applying the same disastrous formula to my experiments -- over, and over, and over, and over.
It went like this:
a) Problem arose in relationship (usually in the form of conflict or disagreement).
b) Argument ensued . . . . or Discussion ensued -- and quickly devolved into Argument.
c) Partner who had low-tolerance for conflict or ongoing process demonstrated fatigue, or expressed desire to go away and process internally before continuing to talk. (I tend to process "on-the-fly", as I talk.)
d) I would press partner further, often pulling out the "Never go to bed angry" card, or claiming that their need for a break was simply avoidance (which observation may have actually been correct, in some cases).
e) My pressing would simply add to low-conflict-tolerance partner's overload, and render them even less likely to want to engage.
f) At that point, I would generally push harder and thus, exponentially grow the conflict.
(Lab Note, circa 2002: After several dozen disastrous explosions in the period between 1974 and 1983, I undertook a slightly different approach for the next eight years in which I chose to give the subject "space", while fastidiously resenting the fuck out of them. This procedure ultimately resulted in a somewhat delayed, but much larger, explosion. During the period from 1991 to 2002, I alternated between the "press on" and "back off and simmer" procedures, with consistent results. [see attached slides of rubble and broken glass].)
I'm not 100% sure why I persisted in applying just these two strategies for so many years, but I have a partial hypothesis, and some strong hunches. The hypothesis is the result of years of in-depth therapy, wherein I figured out that I was in reaction to my mother's tendency to withdraw in the face of any conflict. The hunches are along the lines of: I suspect that I held in my mind some notion that if my partner got what they wanted, it meant that I couldn't get what I wanted (because that was the way it had worked in my FOO).
I'm not fond of the concept of "compromise". I don't think it's bad as a theory, but I've rarely seen it work in practice.
The Merriam-Webster definition of compromise demonstrates why that may be so, I think:
I think that, all too often, while meaning #1 is usually the intended theory, meaning #2 more often represents the actuality.Compromise:
1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial compromise of principles
What's interesting to me is that, even though I had self-awareness about my dynamic with my mom and my family-of-origin, and insights about my own judgments concerning the concept of compromise, this didn't magically get me to stop blowing up the laboratory (I'll speak more below on what did end my lab-annihilation streak).
Before I do that, however, I want to note that these were my particular chemicals and beakers -- yours may be different.
You may be the person at the other end of the spectrum -- the person who overloads easily in conflict, and needs space to process internally before having the energetic resources to resolve things with others (and isn't it remarkable how often we pair in just this manner -- Withdrawer with Advancer, Introvert with Extrovert, etc.?)
OR
Your particular pattern may have nothing whatsoever to do with personal relationships, but rather, it may a pattern that you have repeated ad nauseum in your work life, or your spiritual path, or in some other arena of your life.
Here's what I did to change the withdrawer/advancer dynamic in my intimate relationship:
I did something different.
About six months into my current relationship -- the relationship in which I found the love of my life -- the apple of my eye -- the floatage for my boatage -- the frosting for my flakes -- I noticed that "that thing" was starting to show up. That oh-no!-so-familiar thing: My partner withdrawing, and me pressing on.
Prior to meeting my Beloved, I had assumed, from the frequency of my patterned behavior in intimate relationships, that I just had what I called a "broken picker". I assumed that I had simply made poor choices in pairing -- by choosing partners who happened to demonstrate traits that were like my mother, and which, consequently, triggered the living hell out of me.
However, with the Beloved, I felt quite clear that I had made the correct "pick". I was madly, frothingly, in love with her, and she was madly, frothingly in love with me back. This was not at question for either of us in any way.
So, when the dreaded pattern started showing up, I had two epiphanies: 1) Maybe I was picking people "like that" for a reason -- that reason being that I actually needed to clear up this pattern, and 2) Maybe my past approaches had simply been ineffective -- not "wrong" -- not "bad" -- simply inefficient.
During our third big repetitive fight (in the car -- bad place to fight, btw), as I found myself thinking: "Here I/we go again!", I did something I had never done before -- I pulled the car over to the side of the road, and I said exactly what I was thinking:
"Sugar, I adore you. I want nothing more than to spend the rest of my life with you. And. . . . . .what we're doing now? -- Where you withdraw and I press on? I've done that before, and I don't want to do it any more. So, if this is what we're going to do in the future, I think we should just break up right now, even though I'm madly, frothingly in love with you, and I know you're in love with me, too. Because I already know where this goes, and I just don't want to go there any more."
My Beloved stopped, looked thoughtful for a minute, and said: "Yeah, I've gone here before, too, and this isn't how I want to do it, either . . . . . let's do something different."
Since that day, six years ago, we've been doing it differently.
Our particular form of doing it differently means that we don't compromise -- but rather that we work collectively to make sure that each of our needs gets met in our interactions. This means that I sometimes give her space to think and process at her own pace, but that she also recognizes my "need for speed", and that when she does take space to process, she makes a concerted effort to actually process, rather than simply escape (which she admitted was one of her patterns). It means that I acknowledge that my "need for speed" can be just as much a tactic for escape from discomfort as I used to think her need for process-time was. It means that when we come into conflict with each other (which is remarkably rare these days), we often end up choosing to do things that are not necessarily as immediately "comfortable" as our old patterned choices were -- but since we've tried those patterns out pretty thoroughly, and discovered that they just don't work, we're each willing to go through that discomfort.
So, if you hear yourself saying or thinking things like: "Here we/I go again!", or "Damn! I thought I had figured this out, and here it is once more!" -- or even "See! I told you this would happen!", I'd suggest to you that you have just admitted that you are dealing with a pattern -- something with which you have enough experience that you can recognize it when it comes around again, and dread the results as predictable.
I would posit that it is at this precise moment of recognition that you have the opportunity to Do Something Different.
That "Something Different" will probably feel (at least initially) uncomfortable and unfamiliar -- which is usually a very good sign that it is actually Something Different.
And if you blow up the lab again?
Well, at least you will have new data about what works and what doesn't work.
Phoning It In
So after all that hugga-mugga last week about "suspending" his campaign (which he didn't) to race back to Washington to help negotiate a deal for the financial crisis (which he didn't), and threatening to not show up at the debate Friday night (which might not have been a bad idea after all), John McCain spent Saturday in his condo in Arlington and made a bunch of phone calls.
Asked why Mr. McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, [McCain adviser] Mr. Salter replied that “he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.’’I think the words we're looking for are "drama queen."
(Cross-posted.)
The Debate You Missed Last Night
"Horseshit"?
Did John McCain use a barnyard epithet twice last night during the debate? Andrew Sullivan says he "clearly" did.
Here's the video; the money quote is at time mark 4:30.
I listened to it several times, and there's cross-talk; I think he's saying "course not." You be the judge.
UPDATE: Mr. Sullivan retracts his claim and agrees that Mr. McCain is saying "course not."
Paul Newman - 1925-2008
Paul Newman has died at the age of 83.
Words fail me. He was an inspiration as an actor and human being.Newman died Friday after a long battle with cancer at his farmhouse near Westport, publicist Jeff Sanderson said. He was surrounded by his family and close friends.
In May, Newman he had dropped plans to direct a fall production of "Of Mice and Men," citing unspecified health issues.
He got his start in theater and on television during the 1950s, and went on to become one of the world's most enduring and popular film stars, a legend held in awe by his peers. He was nominated for Oscars 10 times, winning one regular award and two honorary ones, and had major roles in more than 50 motion pictures, including "Exodus," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Verdict," "The Sting" and "Absence of Malice."
Newman worked with some of the greatest directors of the past half century, from Alfred Hitchcock and John Huston to Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese and the Coen brothers. His co-stars included Elizabeth Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and, most famously, Robert Redford, his sidekick in "Butch Cassidy" and "The Sting."
He sometimes teamed with his wife and fellow Oscar winner, Joanne Woodward, with whom he had one of Hollywood's rare long-term marriages. "I have steak at home, why go out for hamburger?" Newman told Playboy magazine when asked if he was tempted to stray. They wed in 1958, around the same time they both appeared in "The Long Hot Summer," and Newman directed her in several films, including "Rachel, Rachel" and "The Glass Menagerie."
Grace be unto him, and peace. I hold him and his family in the Light.
Filmography/bio from IMDb.
Obama 1 : McCain 0
No question Obama won tonight. The only surprise is that the media actually seems to agree. I'm so used to thinking that the Democrat was the clear winner (because I, ya know, listen to the actual content of the debate) and then listening to two solid hours of talking heads rewrite the debate into something not remotely resembling what I just watched, that I can't actually believe it's not happening this time. Now that's some change I can believe in!
I won't spend any time discussing the policy shit, because, let's face it, McCain was a total disaster. Those talking points are deader than Tut, man.
And does no one on his team know that striped fabrics don't broadcast well? I seriously thought his fucking tie was going to give me a seizure.
(Also, that enormo eagle backdrop? Was preposterous.)
I found Obama to be extremely likeable, and McCain to be extremely condescending, neither of which I expected. Not because I've never found Obama likeable (I have) and certainly not because I've never found McCain condescending (I sure have), but just because I didn't anticipate that those particular dynamics would emerge quite so forcefully during this debate.
I thought the most emblematic part of the evening was this exchage:
MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy...McCain is a rude shit; Obama undermines his contempt gracefully and cleverly, and deals a substantive blow to boot.
[a few moments later]
OBAMA: ...The [pauses; looks at McCain] strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise?
The only thing I really wish Obama would have done, at some point during the debate, is turn to McCain and ask him: "John, what the fuck do earmarks have to do with the financial crisis, you enormous ass-flavored tool?" McCain kept talking about reining in spending in Washington as if that was the root of this crisis, when the Congressional issue with regard to the economy is deregulation, not spending.
Anyway, wev. McCain tanked. Good.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
TFIF, Shakers—bloody hell, do I need a drink!
Belly up to the bar and name your poison...
As you've no doubt noticed, there are two Virtual Pubs this evening. This one is for those who really have no fooking interest in watching the debate, or for those who want to enjoy non-debate conversation while also keeping one eye on the debate.
Just below, you'll find The Greater Depression Debate Pub, hosted by Petulant, where the debate will be shown on all the virtual teevees in the virtual pub.
Enjoy!
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning.]
"Why were they after Jesus? It's the same reason. Jesus is living within me."—Evangelist Tony Alamo of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries who was arrested yesterday in Flagstaff, Arizona, on charges related to a child porn investigation, according to an FBI spokesman. Alamo has been "charged under a federal statute with having knowingly transported a minor across state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity."
That's really, really not why they were "after Jesus."
I'm so fucking done with this week.
