When Racism Died a Little in Utah

Villa Theatre in it's heyday

Villa Theater in it’s hey-day

I don’t know what it is about fried chicken restaurant chains and Salt Lake City, but we somehow played host to the birth of two popular ones last century. Obviously, Kentucky Fried Chicken is still around, but the other one, which was also opening outlets around the country is gone. I’ll get to that later.

I’m old enough to remember what the original KFC, which is still located at 3900 south State Street, looked like. It featured a very large painting of a butt naked child with the caption, “Come As You Are!” Probably something you wouldn’t see today.

The picture above is obviously not a chicken restaurant. It’s the facade of the old Villa Theatre, which was later changed into a rug outlet, at great expense, to keep the structure similar to what it was. The theater was actually pretty famous for it’s day and as late as 2001, was named on a list of ten great classic Theaters in the United States by USA today.

When I was six years old the Villa theater was showing “South Pacific”, and I remember very well how the songs from that movie were being played and sung all over town. The Creators of the play that the movie was based on ran into trouble because of a song in the play called “You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught”, but demanded the famous anti-racism song be included in the production.

From Wikipedia:

Rodgers and Hammerstein risked the entire South Pacific venture in light of legislative challenges to its decency or supposed Communist agenda.


James Michener, upon whose stories South Pacific was based, recalled, “The authors replied stubbornly that this number represented why they had wanted to do this play, and that even if it meant the failure of the production, it was going to stay in.

Also from Wikipedia:

In 1958, the [Villa Theatre] became famous for showing a 10-month-long run of South Pacific, drawing Patrons from as far as Idaho and Nevada.

If I recall correctly, another great anti-racism movie, (West Side Story), played in Salt Lake for almost 2 Years. I always like to accentuate the good in my community because I’ve lived here all my life. After the Villa put up their huge Cinerama screen, which, at first, required three different synchronized projectors to play a film, I saw some great ones, including my favorite: “2001 A Space Odyssey”. I was buzzing with excitement after that one.

The Villa theatre was a place of wonder, but just down the street was the other national fried chicken chain that had it’s birth in Salt Lake.

My family had a get together and we were going through some very old pictures, when I saw something unbelievable.

If you want to look at something really ugly, CLICK HERE for page two.

Pages: 1 2

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 1:33 am

    I’ll be checking for comments often to make sure they’re not getting caught in the spam, if anybody has something to say. Don’t worry, they will be up within a day and sooner, until we get this fixed.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 1:36 am


    Look at that. I was slamming Obamacare on this blog and now I love it!

    Sorry Obama.

  3. #3 by brewski on March 18, 2015 - 7:11 am

    Larry, SLC was home to the first KFC franchise. Not the first KFC. KFC was founded in Louisville, KY.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 8:52 am

    I’m aware that the colonel had a chicken place in Kentucky, but this is where he came to lay down the foundation of his national chain. I try to keep my posts small and didn’t mean it to be a history of either restaurant. It’s more about racism.

    Colonel Sanders didn’t seem to be involved in that, as far as I know.

  5. #5 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 9:05 am

    Good lord! This appears to have been a work in progress.

  6. #6 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 10:52 am

    Those were the days, eh brewski? We were white and proud.

    • #7 by brewski on March 18, 2015 - 11:46 am

      I have no idea what you are talking about.

      • #8 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 3:03 pm

        In relation to what?

        • #9 by brewski on March 19, 2015 - 9:42 am

          Your post #6. I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no idea what that could possibly have anything to do with me.

          • #10 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 12:36 pm

            You’re a racist, brewski. You accuse people who aren’t racist of being racist to deflect the conversation away from yourself. That seems to be the republican approved technique ever since Obama got elected. Plus he won the election unlike W. or his brother Jeb.

            That’s your cue to go into a Latino diatribe.

          • #11 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 12:42 pm

            Actually, the technique is pre-Obama. It involves accusing the other side of doing what you’re doing and I think it originated with Machiavelli, although I’m not a historian like glenn/whoever.

          • #12 by brewski on March 19, 2015 - 1:48 pm

            I have never said anything against Latinos.

            I call people racist for criticizing Obama and Holder only because Cliff, Glendy and every other lefty has accused me of being a racist for no other reason than criticizing Obama’s policies and competence.

            It is called mocking you all.

          • #13 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 2:41 pm

            Come on! You are constantly going on and on about our immigrants from the south, and not in a positive way.

            To be honest, I’ve always worried about over-population here and everywhere, but I don’t see it as their fault they were forced to come here for work. Listen to me talking; they were here before my ancestors immigrated here and took over.

            It doesn’t help anybody to divide any culture except for those who do it purposefully for gain. They are hurting all of us.

          • #14 by brewski on March 19, 2015 - 3:40 pm

            It has nothing to do their Latinoness. It only has to do with their illegalness. They could be Swedish for all I care. That and not learning English. If I moved to Sweden and didn’t learn Swedish I am sure they would be annoyed too.

            Then whose “fault” is it if not theirs? Is it the “fault” of the people who send their kids to school and are told by their teachers that they don’t have time to teach their kids because all of the non-English speakers are so far behind that the legal kids are just going to have to wait? Is it their fault?

          • #15 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 4:23 pm

            Language barriers are a huge problem, but flippantly labeling people as illegals is a huge problem also. I can’t fathom why anybody would come here in the first place if they had any reason to believe we would call them that. There has to be a deeper, serious problem which brought them here and I would guess it has to do with corporate profit here, or a completely unlivable situation there.

            I’m sure there are some drug pushers coming from there out of greed, but I’ll bet you every one of them knows how to speak English. There are probably some drug dealers coming here just to make a living too, but they are a tiny fraction. Besides, all we would have to do is to, at least, make Marijuana legal to solve the some of that problem.

          • #16 by brewski on March 19, 2015 - 5:30 pm

            There is nothing flippant about calling people who are here illegally as illegal. They are illegal as a matter of fact and law so they are indeed illegal. If I moved to Sweden illegally then I would be illegal. I don’t know what your problem is with calling something what it actually is.

            ICE released back into the US population illegal aliens who have been convicted of heinous crimes. They are illegal and they are also ex-cons. And they are still here and they commit more crimes.

            Do black lives matter to you?

          • #17 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 7:30 pm

            What do you mean,”do black lives matter to me”? What do you think this post is about. Did you see the pictures on page two? There is no denying that white people are to blame on that one. The blacks didn’t come here by themselves, we stole them, literally treated them as slaves and then have the audacity to mock them with a restaurant as hideous as the one in this post.

            I’m sure glad I didn’t have to grow up here picking tomatoes for next to nothing, aren’t you.

            About your video: It’s a good thing no white people are criminals who kill people. 🙂 Obama has no intention of setting dangerous Latinos out on the streets. Those are probably the ones he sent back.

          • #18 by brewski on March 19, 2015 - 10:37 pm

            So if a black criminal is killed by a white police officer who was defending himself, as Eric Holder confirmed, then we need to have a month of rioting, protest and breathless guilty analysis by Rachel Maddow. But if a black child is murdered by an illegal alien, then were are the protests? where is Al Sharpton? Where is Obama? Where are you?

          • #19 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 11:21 pm

            I’m for justice in each, individual case. I don’t watch any cable news because I don’t have cable, but I doubt Maddow has ever purposefully fomented division. I hope I haven’t with this post. I just believe we need to know the truth.

            The Salt Lake Tribune didn’t show a picture or even mention the name of the restaurant in the title of their article.

          • #20 by brewski on March 20, 2015 - 12:29 pm

            You still have not explained how your feeling of white supremacy has anything to do with me.

          • #21 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2015 - 2:03 pm

            I never said you were going around in a white hood, but you should be more careful how you view people who’ve had to go through great struggles to survive.

          • #22 by brewski on March 20, 2015 - 4:10 pm

            Your post #6 has nothing to do with me.
            I have enormous respect for people who struggle and overcome. I do not have respect for people who opportunistically race-bait for their own purposes and when it doesn’t fit their purposes, the people who struggle are ignored.

            Where is the march for Mr. Shaw’s son?

          • #23 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2015 - 4:38 pm

            If you want to organized a march against some guy who killed someone and hold a sign against illegal immigrants, go for it.

          • #24 by brewski on March 20, 2015 - 5:37 pm

            So why was there a month of marches and protests for a case of a policeman that Eric Holder found did nothing wrong and in the case where the murderer is a convicted murderer you people just shrug it off?

          • #25 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2015 - 6:08 pm

            Racism is institutionalized in the ruling class white establishment. Even white people are fed up with it.

          • #26 by brewski on March 20, 2015 - 6:31 pm

            “I’m for justice in each, individual case”

            Larry Bergan

            So much for individual cases when you start going off on about the “ruling class white establishment”

          • #27 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2015 - 7:44 pm

            You would put every single illegal alien in prison, regardless of circumstances. I would give every ruling white class member a trial.

          • #28 by brewski on March 20, 2015 - 10:13 pm

            False about me.

            You would put yourself on trial?

          • #29 by brewski on March 20, 2015 - 10:25 pm

            Can we agree that we should deport every single one of these convicted criminals?

            According to weekly detention and departure reports from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, there were 167,527 non-detained convicted criminal aliens in the United States as of Jan. 26 of this year, a congressional hearing revealed Thursday.

          • #30 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2015 - 11:19 pm

            Get Karl Rove off the street and it’s a deal!

  7. #31 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2015 - 8:58 pm

    I saw the restored version of “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) at the Villa Theatre, the way the film was meant to be seen.

  8. #32 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 9:42 pm

    What a coincidence, Richard. You wouldn’t believe it, but I’m watching the “Lawrence or Arabia” DVD I bought many years ago right now. What a great film! It’s amazing to see what used to be called a “sprawling epic” again. Literally hundreds of camels and thousands of people in a single scene with no CGI. Amazing!

    And Anthony Quinn to boot.

    Unfortunately I didn’t get to see it in Cinerama, but the DVD looks remarkably good.

    Got 99% on “Rotten Tomatoes”.

  9. #33 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2015 - 9:57 pm

    That’s interesting though. I was wondering why a 1962 film had to be restored in 1962.

    • #34 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2015 - 9:54 am

      I saw the 1988 restored version of “Lawrence of Arabia” in Cinerama at the Villa Theatre. Now there is an even better digitally-restored version. Except for IMAX, nobody shoots films in 70mm anymore.

      • #35 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 12:30 pm

        That was a very interesting article. A new 4K version, huh? That’s funny to me because when I got my first DVD player “Lawrence” was the first movie I bought. I had never seen it before, but heard it was good. I was in angst because the DVD was only in widescreen format which didn’t translate too well on my 21 inch television. Not exactly Cinerama. 🙂 Watching it now, on my 46 incher was like seeing it for the first time. I love the desert, and like I said, it looks pretty darn good.

        The new big screens out now are amazing. They use a fraction of the energy they used to. You can’t feel any heat coming off of them and they are a lot cheaper too. I recommend Sony; they’ve always had the best picture.

        I did notice the vertical lines caused by heat damage that the article talked about. I was thinking it may have been a camera lens flare of some sort. Interesting that it took them longer to restore the movie then to make it. I’m going to have to upgrade to the Blu-ray for the next viewing.

        I think the thing that makes the film so good is that you get the story from both the command side and the soldier side. Definitely a thumbs up.

      • #36 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 12:32 pm

        Sort of nice to be talking about movies instead of how much Republicans have ruined our future, but now I have to reply to brewski. 🙁

      • #37 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2015 - 4:31 pm

        Movies are awesome. Hope you get a chance to see “Lawrence of Arabia” on a giant screen someday. There are scenes of vast desert landscapes (shot mostly in Jordan) with tiny people and camels almost lost in the distance.

        I think this movie remains relevant today. Message: Middle Eastern wars and foreign policy are not for beginners, however smart and knowledgeable. It’s all summed up in the next-to-last scene:

        Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness): “You, I suspect, are chief architect of this compromise. What do you think?”

        Mr. Dryden (the ever-droll Claude Rains): “Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I’d stayed in Tunbridge Wells.”

        BTW Claude Rains also played Captain Louis Renault in “Casablanca” (1942), where he got most of the best lines in a very well-written movie that had Humphrey Bogart in it.

      • #38 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2015 - 7:46 pm

        Claude Rains was also excellent in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, which I saw this year. Also a stunningly relevant movie today, exploring the complicit media in Washington corruption. Amazing, how things don’t seem to change.

        The only part of the article you linked to that I thought was laughable was the part that said Bush Jr. found out how hard it was to bring democracy to Iraq. We were there for more than one reason, but that sure wasn’t one of them.

  10. #39 by brewski on March 21, 2015 - 7:14 am

    • #40 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2015 - 12:17 pm

      Look at the testimony. There were 16 witnesses who said Brown had his hands up when Officer Wilson shot him. If they “blatantly lied,” then why were they not charged with perjury? Two said no. And 15 said Wilson fired on Brown when he was running away (which is against the law). Five said no.

      IMHO even Wilson testified that Brown had his hands up or was raising his hands when he was killed. “The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked. He comes back towards me again with his hands up.”

      It seems to me that anger is a normal emotion for a person who is being shot at. Perhaps Officer Wilson was too agitated himself to realize that Brown was trying to surrender?

      • #41 by brewski on March 21, 2015 - 1:51 pm

        People blatantly lie all the time and not get charged with perjury. If the state charged everyone with perjury who lies then the courts would be gridlocked.

        You don’t like evidence to get in the way of your predetermined conclusion, do you?

        • #42 by Richard Warnick on March 21, 2015 - 4:47 pm

          Did Officer Wilson tell the truth in his testimony?

          “He comes back towards me again with his hands up.”

          • #43 by brewski on March 21, 2015 - 5:28 pm

            witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.


          • #44 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2015 - 10:19 am

            Human beings don’t “charge” someone who is shooting at them. Maybe a grizzly would do that, but Mike Brown was human according to all reliable sources.

            Jonathan Capehart has been roundly and justly criticized for cherry-picking witness statements and not looking at the totality of the evidence.

          • #45 by brewski on March 22, 2015 - 6:55 pm

            People shoot someone who is charging at them.

            You have your timing backwards, as usual. You want to change the facts to fit your feelings. That is what you people do.

          • #46 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2015 - 9:15 pm

            I have the facts and the sequence of events according the vast majority of the eyewitnesses who saw Mike Brown killed. Jonathan Capehart does not.

            Did Michael Brown charge? Eyewitnesses paint a muddled picture

            Only 4 witnesses claimed Brown “charged” (including Officer Wilson). Most saw a guy who was attempting to surrender after being shot at multiple times.

            Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of “you people”?

          • #47 by brewski on March 22, 2015 - 9:44 pm

            They blatantly lied. Why don’t you get that?

          • #48 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2015 - 9:05 am

            I’m looking at the established facts. You ought to do the same.

            Who is “you people”?

          • #49 by brewski on March 23, 2015 - 10:42 am

            You people are the people who have predetermined feelings about something, then make up their minds about something, and then change the facts to fit your feelings and then ignore anything which contradicts your predetermined feelings.

            No, you are listening to blatant liars.

            Holder got it right, for once.

          • #50 by Larry Bergan on March 23, 2015 - 11:05 am

            Interesting to see brewski standing up for Eric Holder. I don’t have a big opinion about this incident because I wasn’t there. There have been liars on both sides. As I’ve said before, I don’t think Brown is any kind of hero and I don’t think it serves the anti-racism cause to keep focusing on Brown.

          • #51 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2015 - 11:09 am

            The only thing I have predetermined is that I want the truth (and yes, I can handle the truth!). The truth is Officer Wilson opened fire on an unarmed, fleeing suspect. That is supposed to be against the law.

            Eric Holder’s DOJ also let CIA torturers off the hook while sending John Kiriakou to prison. And they couldn’t find any fraud on Wall Street when everybody else could.

          • #52 by brewski on March 23, 2015 - 11:26 am

            No, what you said is just false. You are ignoring the evidence.

            I am not standing up for Holder. I am standing up for facts.

          • #53 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2015 - 12:07 pm

            When is it legal for a cop to kill you? (Emphasis added)

            Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect’s committed a serious violent felony.

            Ferguson: Did Darren Wilson Shoot at a Fleeing Michael Brown?

            Some of the physical evidence (e.g. a shell casing and a bullet hole) can only be explained if Officer Wilson fired at Mike Brown when he was running away.

            Brewski, you claim the facts are on your side, but you haven’t presented anything except cherry-picked selected witness statements.

          • #54 by brewski on March 23, 2015 - 7:52 pm

            I don’t need to present any facts because Eric Holder already has. No purpose in retyping the United States Department of Justice findings of fact.

          • #55 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2015 - 8:58 pm

            The DOJ is wrong. They were just as reluctant to enforce accountability on the police as they were on Wall Street and the CIA.

            The 1 Percent and their minions won again.

          • #56 by brewski on March 23, 2015 - 9:46 pm

            Well then, that settles it. Richard Warnick declares it so it must be so.

            Glad we have The Prophet to tell us what is True.

          • #57 by brewski on March 24, 2015 - 3:09 pm

            You are a funny man.

            No one is required to prove they didn’t do something. The DOJ needs to prove that Wilson did do something criminal.

          • #58 by brewski on March 24, 2015 - 3:57 pm

            Two things did:
            1. The evidence.
            2. The law.

            “witnesses who have suggested that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender have either recanted their statements, such as Witnesses 119 and 125, provided inconsistent statements, such as Witness 124, or have provided accounts that are verifiably untrue, such as Witnesses 121, 139, and 132. Witness 122 recanted significant portions of his statement by acknowledging that he was not in a position to see what either Brown or Wilson were doing”

            “Again, all of these statements are contradicted by the physical and forensic evidence, which also undermines the credibility of their accounts of other aspects of the incident, including their assertion that Brown had his hands up in a surrender position when Wilson shot him.”

            “The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.”

            “assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. Wilson could thus present evidence that he reasonably feared that, if left unimpeded, Brown would again assault Wilson, again attempt to overpower him, and again attempt to take his gun. Under the law, Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. Even if, with hindsight, Wilson could have done something other than shoot Brown, the Fourth Amendment does not second-guess a law enforcement officer’s decision on how to respond to an advancing threat.”

            “Even if federal prosecutors determined there were sufficient evidence to convince twelve jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson used unreasonable force, federal law requires that the government must also prove that the officer acted willfully, that is, with the purpose to violate the law.”

            “Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. “

          • #59 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2015 - 11:30 am

            Source, please.

            FYI “Hands up, don’t shoot” was a protest slogan in Ferguson. None of the grand jury witnesses testified that Mike Brown said “Don’t shoot.” I don’t know if there were any media reports to this effect, but if so they would have been wrong. By the time Brown put his hands up, Officer Wilson had already shot at him multiple times.

            I assign no credibility to the argument that a wounded, unarmed Brown could “overpower” Wilson. Brown possessed no magical powers that we know of. Brown wasn’t bullet proof. Wilson is 6 foot 4 inches, and weighs 210 lbs.

            The law says you can’t use deadly force on a fleeing, unarmed suspect. The Ferguson grand jury was deliberately misinformed on this point by prosecutors.

          • #61 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2015 - 4:18 pm

            If you’re quoting the DOJ report, that’s an incredibly biased report. How could the DOJ conclude that “Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence”? Officer Wilson says he didn’t open fire on a fleeing suspect. The physical evidence (shell casings and a bullet hole in a building) indicates that he did.

            We have a real problem in this country with law enforcement investigating malfeasance committed by law enforcement.

          • #62 by brewski on March 25, 2015 - 9:57 pm

            “Incredibly biased” meaning it doesn’t parrot back to you your low-information prejudice?

          • #63 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2015 - 12:44 am

            Seems like the DOJ bent over backwards to dismiss the overwhelming majority of eyewitness testimony, and ignored physical evidence in order to cover up a criminal act. If you or I had murdered Mike Brown, we would be serving time. And if you or I had described Brown as a “demon” (i.e. subhuman) to be killed, the DOJ would probably hit us with a civil rights charge. THAT’s what I mean by “incredibly biased.”

          • #64 by brewski on March 26, 2015 - 8:25 am

            No, it only “seems” that way if you believe in an answer before looking at the evidence. If you look at the evidence and the law first, then you come to the opposite answer.

          • #65 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2015 - 10:31 am

            I can’t say it too many times. The law prohibits using deadly force on unarmed, fleeing suspects. Period and end of story.

          • #66 by brewski on March 26, 2015 - 11:49 am

            You can say it all you want, but that is not what happened. You are making up a scenario which did not exist:

            “Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop,”

          • #67 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2015 - 2:57 pm

            According to the most credible accounts and the physical evidence, Officer Wilson (1) shot at an unarmed, fleeing suspect, and (2) killed an unarmed man who was already wounded and attempting to surrender.

          • #68 by brewski on March 26, 2015 - 3:08 pm


        • #69 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2015 - 7:51 am

          You didn’t even try to defend the DOJ report. You could have said that their only leverage in the killing of Mike Brown would have been a civil rights violation, and the facts of the case didn’t support that enough for a conviction.

          • #70 by brewski on March 24, 2015 - 9:09 am

            Why would I need to defend it. Michael Brown attacked officer Wilson. He tried to grab his gun. He struck the officer. The surrender story was a lie which the DOJ said was a lie. That’s it. Get over it. You are wrong and have always been wrong.

          • #71 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2015 - 2:10 pm

            Can you quote where the DOJ said that they have proof Brown didn’t try to surrender?

          • #72 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2015 - 3:27 pm

            You seem convinced that the vast majority of eyewitnesses to the killing of Mike Brown lied to the media and the Ferguson grand jury. I’m curious about what convinced you.

  11. #73 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2015 - 10:24 am

    The conventional wisdom is now cast in concrete. The white guy is squeaky clean; black people are liars. 🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: