Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Of course we're "winning", Rand. We've been "winning" the entire term; we can continue "winning" for 40 years if we please. The problem is not whether we're winning, it's what we're winning. No sane leaders are happy with what we're winning, and they never will be. Every year there will be some new idea --- a surge, federalism, Iraqification, Americanization, whatever --- but when each such push winds down, Washington will still be unsatisfied with the results. "Victory" will forever be "fragile".

To understand the truth, you should look at the intended purpose of the entire adventure. You have said that it is (or should be) a war on Islamism. There is only one problem: Saddam Hussein wasn't Islamist, but the new Iraqi government is. Michelle Malkin is a bit more awak to the problem than Rand Simberg:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/the-malikiahmadinejad-photo-op/

There is Nouri al-Maliki, the nominal leader of Iraq, holding hands and chumming around with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She didn't even mention another thing that happened on this trip: Maliki laid flowers at the grave of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Saddam Hussein would never have done any of this, not in a million years.

Nor is that a new development; Malkin links to another article in Front Page Magazine from last year:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5E986105-EBB4-418A-8951-5E0D44DB6605

Maliki then described Iran as "a very important country, a good friend and brother."

Maliki, of course, is only one tip of one iceberg in the resurgence of Islam and Islamism in Iraq. Iraqi Christians are streaming out of the country. Women who once wore mini-skirts wear full-court abayas. Shiite pilgrimages have swollen to giant frenzies. All of the American navel-gazing --- charts of casualties or maps of safe areas or whatever --- misses the real point.

Posted by at August 21, 2007 09:49 AM

Another stellar example of the left's inability to STAY on a topic.

The problem is not whether we're winning, it's what we're winning.

Two years ago it was an utter defeat and we needed to leave. Now, it's yeah, we're winning but not winning anything good.

Every year there will be some new idea --- a surge, federalism, Iraqification, Americanization, whatever --- but when each such push winds down, Washington will still be unsatisfied with the results.

Contrasted by every defeatist idea that came from the left over the same time frame. When we start showing that we're winning, the options change. In this case though, it will be the lefties that are not satisfied. From the start the left hasn't cared a tinker's damn about Iraq or its people. They only care about power and their ability to wield it. The left's glorious UN levied sanctions against Saddam and never did anything when he ignored the UN sanctions. Rather than consider backing up the sanctions with force, the left appeases and appeases. The last set of sanctions were ignored and the US backed them up with force, as Saddam was WARNED we would do.

The only thing I can't figure out is who wants us to lose more, the fanatical AQ, or the left.

Posted by Mac at August 21, 2007 10:22 AM

Two years ago it was an utter defeat and we needed to leave. Now, it's yeah, we're winning but not winning anything good.

It's just semantics, Mac. You can call it defeat, or you can call it an inimical victory. Nothing has changed.

From the start the left hasn't cared a tinker's damn about Iraq or its people.

In these times of wildly divergent interpretations, the real proof of concern for Iraqis is who helps the refugees. In fact I agree that the American left doesn't have all that great of a record on this score, but the White House has been absolutely terrible. They have accepted fewer than a thousand Iraqi asylum seekers. Sweden, with 1/30 of the population of the US, has accepted 60,000. More than a million Iraqis, maybe millions outright, are still begging for a new homeland. Even Omar Fadhil, the zealous pro-American blogger who met Bush in the Oval Office, can't get a visa.

Posted by at August 21, 2007 10:41 AM

Hey," ", you are correct, it IS all "semantics".

Just think -- all those "refugees" you use as your sole criterion for "caring" -- who ARE they?

Amongst these refugees are Baathist murderers with a lot of money and a price on their head. They funnel cash to various thugs in Iraq. Why do you sympathize with these refugees? Shouldn't we properly consider them criminals on the run?

Amongst the refugees are the clans and tribes that want to keep fighting the duly elected, sovereign government of Iraq. Why do you sympathize with these refugees? Shouldn't we properly call them rebels?

Why do you care so LITTLE about the non-refugees in Iraq. They are the ones who seek a different path. They are the ones who seek to recover from three decades of dehumanizing treatment by the refugees you profess to care about. Why are you so heartless towards them?

Why is "caring" solely a matter of "refugees".

You are correct, " ", it IS all a matter of semantics. And since it IS all a matter of semantics, I'll call you a brave, thoughtful, and intelligent humanitarian.

Which means, of course, that you demonstrate cowardice, foolishness, stupidity, and misanthropy.

Please DO distinguish in my words the distinction between inherent attributes and behaviors. You see, for me, it is NOT merely a matter of semantics. I am no post-modernist. Facts exist, and words have specific meanings.

Posted by MG at August 21, 2007 02:34 PM

Amongst these refugees are Baathist murderers with a lot of money and a price on their head. They funnel cash to various thugs in Iraq. Why do you sympathize with these refugees?

I certainly don't sympathize with any Baathist murderers, much less those with a lot of money and a price on their head. Those refugees who truly are "criminals on the run" shouldn't get visas to the United States. The right thing to do is to sort through visa applications to see who has a legitimate to come to the US, whether as a student, a tourist, a businessman, a relative of Americans, or especially a candidate for political asylum.

But that isn't what the United States is doing. The message to Iraqis at the US Embassy in Baghdad is, "sorry, wrong office". They don't do student visas, they don't do tourist visas, and they especially don't do political asylum. Here is the fine print from the US Embassy site: "Note: At the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, we only accept applications for three types of nonimmigrant visas (Diplomatic and Government Officials, Representatives to International Organizations, and USG-funded exchange visitors). All other nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applications must be filed at another U.S. Embassy or Consulate outside of Iraq." If you are Iraqi, you can either come to the US on government or NGO business, or you can take a hike.

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/consular.html

That is why even Omar Fadhil cannot get a student visa to come to the United States. He and his brother came to the United States and shook hands with Bush personally, because his web site, iraqthemodel.com, glows with pro-American propaganda. But that was an official government visit. Now that he's just plain old Omar, invited to study at an American university, he can't come. He tried to go US Embassy in Ammann for the student visa, but after a wasted day and a wasted plane ticket, Jordan turned him back. Jordan has taken in hundreds of thousand of Iraqi refugees and their attitude towards Iraqi visitors has turned sour --- because of course a lot of them want to stay as illegal immigrants. The US knows that full well, which is why it is particularly callous for it to refuse visa applications in Baghdad.

You should realize just how bad it looks if an Iraqi who was thanked by Bush personally, and who writes pro-US stuff on his blog every week, can't get a student visa and could even be trapped in Baghdad. And Omar Fadhil is hardly in the worst shape. There are Christian Iraqis who churches have been burned down, who have been run out of their homes, and whose relatives have been dragged away by death squads, but who can't get the time of day from the US Embassy in Baghdad. They aren't even told that they could be Baathists. All they get is, "I'm sorry, we can't help you". They are told so because back in Washington, a few people at the top don't want to hear about Iraqi asylum seekers; we wouldn't be winning in Iraq if they existed.

The US has faced the problem of sorting out good refugees from bad refugees before. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978, the Cambodians who streamed out of the country then were a mix of real victims and Khmer Rouge perpetrators. But the US did not just shut the door on all of them. Instead, it looked at individual cases, as anyone with a conscience would do.

Posted by at August 21, 2007 05:39 PM

" "

I thought we were discussing semantics, and the measure of refugee treatment as the criterion for "caring".

Now you complain about the US limitations on visa applications from within Iraq? WTF? Is it all about semantics or not?

What I have observed, is that when people shift the terms of discussion, it is typically because they accept that they have lost the debate on the original topic, and are unwilling to explicitly acknowledge it. I accept your implicit acknowledgement that you have lost on the "it is all semantics" debate. I also accept your implicit acknowledgement that you have lost on the "caring" is solely a matter of "refugees".

Now I will directly address your most recent post:

What kind of refugee is it, who lives in their home country, and faces the unpleasantries that arise from the systematic depravity of a thug regime? Answer: They aren't a refugee. They are only a refugee if they actually LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY.

As for "sorting out the visa applications"...

Good luck with that. Atta and company showed how effective we Americans are with distinguishing "legitimate" applications from illegitimate ones.

Here is a thought experiment:

Person "A" misrepresents themself on a student visa application, submitted in Baghdad, and fools the system. He / she arrives in the US, joins similar persons, and then launch a series of bombings and random killings.

It turns out, after DNA tests on the remains of the killers, that they are actually from one of the "refugee" tribes.

What then? Various twits in America and elsewhere will spin such an event as "Iraqis don't appreciate everything we have done for them, so we should leave right now".

If such twits succeed, what happens to Iraqis in Iraq?

What of those visa holders already in the US? Do we deport all the "legitimate" visa recipients?

Until the US has the technical and organizational means to discriminate amongst sheep and wolves, AND has the enduring political will to do so, it makes no sense to accept applications from states that can not enforce basic state responsibilities with regard to the effective identification of their citizenry.

Iraq is getting stronger at fulfilling some of the basics requirements of a state in exerting authority over its terrain and people.

OTOH, the limitations on Iraqi visa applications arise from the State Department, and the State Department has done a poor job of convincing me that they are on the side of the American citizen. So, maybe the visa issue is yet another example of State Department bureaucratic back-stabbing.

Posted by MG at August 21, 2007 06:55 PM

Didn't the US win the war against Iraq in 2003?

Posted by Adrasteia at August 22, 2007 05:51 AM

And you should realize that those Iraqis that stayed in their homes and are helping our troops and their own ferret out the AQ members looks great for them. Perhaps those "disenfranchised" Iraqis should go home and join the push for a free Iraq. It just proves my earlier point. You've gone from "The US is the bad guy because we're attacking someone" to "We're winning, but look at all these poor people we're not helping."

So, nothing we do will ever be enough for you. At every turn, you find the worst thing happening and blame it on the administration. If we took in all the refugees, gave them homes and free food for the rest of their natural lives, you would complain that there was something else we weren't doing. We have accomplished so much, and are accomplishing much more every day and it would help support our troops and get them home sooner if you lefties weren't so anti-American. Remember, as an American, when you hate your country, you hate yourself.

Posted by Mac at August 22, 2007 05:58 AM

Remember, as an American, when you hate your country, you hate yourself.

No, Mac, I don't hate my country. America is a great country that does many good things. The Iraq war is only a government operation, and the entire federal government is only 20% of the economy.

The problem is that Iraq war is deeply stupid and anti-American. In fact it is the most anti-American thing that any American is doing. I do not mean to accuse the individual troops in this case --- for the most part they are honest folks just doing a dangerous job. But they are being exploited by dishonest narcissists, who care more about claiming victory than actually winning. In Iraq, they have no chance of winning anything that is any good for America or for Iraq. Of course, those who are obsessed with claiming victory can always find cynical, destructive ways to "win".

Posted by at August 22, 2007 08:01 AM

Not to jump in suddenly into a private bashing session, but how is the Iraqi conflict resolution (seen in worst case as the original bad guy has been evicted, and now someone only slightly less bad is taking his place) any different than the outcome of any other war?

We liberated Germany in World War II, but half the country immediately went to the soviets - to compare to Iraq, hey I hear Kurdistan is actually quite nice. When the Soviet Union fell, half of it joined the west, but the other half is arguably worse off now. When we won the Korean war, I hear the North Koreans didn't make out so hot.

A basic fact of life is that we cannot implement a perfect solution to anything - but we can make things better. The Iraq war is no different.

Think about 3 things:

1) You were arguing one month ago that this war was unwinnable - true or false? Now that a military victory seems likely you have not reversed that position, instead you chose the closest viable position to your previous position, even though it was shown to be in error - true or false?

2) Is Iraq going to be better off with al-Maliki (and however this turns out - separate countries or whatever) or with Sadaam?

3) Is the US better off with Middle Eastern leaders that fear a US invasion if they support terrorists, or is the US better off with Middle Eastern leaders that think themselves untouchable? Even if this war was good for al-Maliki, he knows that any future one (if he supported terrorists) would not be.

To me, the war appears to be going better than expected. The US is better off, the Iraqis are better off, and our soldiers are safer now than they were during subfunded peace time. Yes, I wish that the Iraqis had voted for the perfect American as their president - but I also want a pony...

Posted by David Summers at August 22, 2007 10:38 AM

No, Mac, I don't hate my country. America is a great country that does many good things.

Glad to hear it.

The problem is that Iraq war is deeply stupid and anti-American.

Stupid? So, letting Saddam blatantly snub his nose at the UN umpteen times while he rapes and murders his own people with abandon is smart?

Anti-American? Helping a nation to become free and assisting in building a democratic government in the Middle East giving a chance for their people to be free? That's the greatest thing America can do, showing how much we care for the welfare of the people of this country. Oh, that's right, they can't vote for Clinton, so they are beneath your notice.

But they are being exploited by dishonest narcissists, who care more about claiming victory than actually winning.

The explotation is from the left more than the right. As we've shown, your rhetoric has changed after progress is made. You're exploiting every setback as much as you can, so as to bury the good that occurred. As for claiming versus achieving victory, that's a matter of definition. I define winning as moving towards a self-governing, democratic, and free society in place in Iraq. The left considers pulling out the troops and letting Iraq plunge into barbarism as winning. Who's exploiting now?

Posted by Mac at August 22, 2007 11:04 AM

" ", here is a sincere question for your thoughtful reply:

Under what circumstances does US military action satisfy your idea of intelligent policy, AND upholding the finest aspects of American traditions?

Could you also distinguish between American traditions that you dislike / regret, and those that you like / laud?

You write that you love America. Patriotism is a feeling of love of country, and therefore, love of countrymen.

An essential part of love is twofold:

1. Acknowledging the weaknesses in the beloved, and being supportive in the strengthening of those weaknesses.

2. Reveling in the strengths of the beloved, and cheering the demonstration of those strengths.

My complaint about the American left is that they claim to be patriotic, yet their protests scorn the weaknesses (as they see them) of their country WITHOUT being encouraging of positive changes in those weaknesses. Furthermore, they almost NEVER revel in the strengths.

In short, their behavior is akin to an emotionally abusive parent, rather than a citizen that loves his/her country.

My questions to you seek to probe your values, and to assess whether your claim to love your country is something I can recognize. Please note: we can disagree about what is good / bad about the United States, and still regard each other as patriots and fellow citizens. That is something I revel in about the US.

Of course, if anyone else on this thread seeks to respond to my two questions, please go ahead...

Posted by MG at August 22, 2007 12:29 PM

Spot on. Sadly, but correct. Well written MG.

Posted by Mac at August 22, 2007 01:12 PM

First of all, I don't think that reasonable patriotism is a matter of "love". In politics and nationhood, only Big Brother would want "love". I respect America and I admire America. I love my family, and I love chocolate and music; and after that I draw the line on love.

What I admire about America is its honesty, efficiency, and fairness. Up to a point, I admire the tradition of capitalism and libertarianism underlying these. The American style is that people will do business with you when you want to do business with them; and they won't usually care whether you have an accent, or what church or mosque or synagogue you go to, or any other aspect of your private affairs. I certainly admire that. It's also impressive when the basic "handshake" approach is built up into a big business. Usually I like the American style of thinking big.

What I admire least is the American superiority complex, especially the idea that America is the great Santa Claus of freedom and prosperity for the rest of the world. It was partly true at the end of World War II and during the Cold War, but it was the wrong lesson to learn from that period. It's only less and less true now. It has led America to rush in where angels fear to tread and get caught up in horrible foreign entanglements. America should approach hard problems with humility, especially wars. But humility does not come easy, especially not to the White House and Congress.

You can see both the best and the worst of America on display at the Olympics. At one end you have athletes who are talented but humble, like Michael Phelps. I don't know that Phelps truly has no ego --- which would be asking too much --- but he certainly treats his competitors with respect, whether or not they are American.

At the other end you have the basketball "Dream Team". First they were sure that they would win. Then they started winning by small margins, but they acted like winning by 2 points is the same as winning by 50 points. Then when they started losing, they were still rude as sin to the foreign players. Then when they kept on losing, they decided that the Olympics is a waste of time. What is truly shameful about these guys is that they really are the stronger players; the whole problem is their bad attitude.

Posted by at August 22, 2007 05:10 PM

1) You were arguing one month ago that this war was unwinnable - true or false?

Nothing has changed. They are fighting for an inimical and ignoble victory, equivalent to defeat. That has been the problem all along.

2) Is Iraq going to be better off with al-Maliki (and however this turns out - separate countries or whatever) or with Sadaam?

Maliki is just a second-string ally for the real leaders of Iraq, which are people like Moktada al-Sadr. Beyond specific people like Sadr, new power in Iraq is Shiite theocracy. After all, several of Sadr's relatives were rubbed out, but the movement lives on. Iraq is already worse off with this than with Saddam Hussein.

3) Is the US better off with Middle Eastern leaders that fear a US invasion if they support terrorists, or is the US better off with Middle Eastern leaders that think themselves untouchable?

The US is better off with Middle Eastern leaders who are left in place if they support terrorism less than their rivals do. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism now and then; but not as much as the United Arab Emirates, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. The new leaders of Iraq like Islamic terrorism --- at least on their side of the Sunni-Shiite divide --- much, much more than Saddam Hussein did. Some of them are direct perpetrators of terrorist attacks, not just sponsors in the shadows.

Also, your analogy with Germany has bad fractions. East Germany was a fourth of Germany, not half. Meanwhile Kurdistan, which has effectively seceded from Iraq, is or was only a fifth of that country.

Posted by at August 22, 2007 06:10 PM

" ",

Thank you for your reflections. We shall have to agree to disagree about whether loving one's country is appropriate. We shall also have to agree to disagree about whether American exceptionalism is quite so arrogant as you suggest.

I expect that your love for your family would make you willing to spill (or shed) blood to protect them. Perhaps that is less true for chocolate ;-)

In all fairness to your position, you described a "rational" response to your country. Patriotism is not a rational response, although rational thought fuels it. Limiting one's emotional response to one's country to "admire" and "respect" seems unlikely to me to fuel a willingness to spill or shed blood on behalf of one's country.

Regrettably, that willingness remains essential to preserve the nation. As citizens of a republic governed of, by, and for the people, if we are unmoved to defend our nation, we will lose it. America is a concept, articulated in words on parchment, and sustained by devotion to the principles underlying those words and the confidence in each other of that shared devotion.

Ours is not a government of the strong man, the strong hand, or the nanny, but of self-governing individuals, who join together to protect a common society. Loyalty to the nation is not loyalty to "Big Brother", but loyalty to "each other".

If that spirit breathes not in your breast, should it not beat in your heart, then I pity you. If you have no love for me, a fellow American, then why should I have love for you? If you won't watch my back, why should I watch yours? If you won't kill on my behalf, why should I kill on your behalf?

If you wish, you can evade these questions, but they are omnipresent in our nation, and in our culture. These questions can be suppressed, and many do, but they remain, and re-emerge in times when the spilling and shedding of blood becomes necessary.

You have my best wishes in fulfilling the love you have for your family, and for your chocolate.

Posted by MG at August 23, 2007 01:52 AM

At the other end you have the basketball "Dream Team".

Now this started off as an almost decent argument. I'll agree with you the the Dream Team should never have happened. Their problems are not all pride though. International rules are different. Most US basketball teams rely on 'stars' to win for them and flashy hard play. International play relies a whole lot more on teamwork and finesse. The 'Dream Team' is also loosely picked group of superstars that rarely, if ever, play together as a team. International teams have played together for a while. Personally, I never liked the thought of the 'Dream Team' because they are professionals and I still believe the Olympics should be the showfront for the non-pros.

What is truly shameful about these guys is that they really are the stronger players; the whole problem is their bad attitude.

They are not the stronger players, they just have a different style. We lost badly because we had no 3 point shooting. OUr team was flawed from the outset last time. And not all the players had bad attitudes.

What I admire least is the American superiority complex

This is a problem, in that it isn't us with the complex. You have a problem with the way we live, so the complex is actually yours. Where was the rest of the civilized world when Saddam ignored UN resolutions because he knew they would never enforce them? Why is it always the US that must shoulder the burden of prosecuting those that ignore the will of their own people? Its the US, because no one else is willing to stand up for those who are oppressed. When you understand that, you understand why people think we have a superiority complex. Its hard to reach our level of compassion and understanding, its harder still to know you fall short of that mark. It harder still to continue to strive towards that goal and always find that goal a little farther up.

Posted by Mac at August 23, 2007 06:11 AM

Ours is not a government of the strong man

Except that with enough love-bombing, it can easily turn into that. There is a scene in the movie "Jesus Camp" in which a group of children get down on their knees and pray to a cut-out of George W. Bush. They say that they're just praying for him, but it's hardly different from praying to. They are taught to "love" him. That is one of the most shameful scenes on home soil that I have heard of in the past few years.

If you have no love for me, a fellow American, then why should I have love for you?

I don't want your "love". I'm too libertarian for that. If I had any dealings with you, I would want a handshake, not a valentine.

If you won't kill on my behalf, why should I kill on your behalf?

Being in the Army is just a job, like being a policeman. It's sometimes a dangerous job and a lethal job, but those are matters of last resort, they aren't the big prize. I want policemen and soldiers who follow the rules, not who "love" me.

In fact, many people I have seen who profess "love" for strangers have trouble minding their own business. If it were a policeman or a soldier who said so, then I wouldn't trust him at all.

Posted by at August 23, 2007 08:24 AM

Why is it always the US that must shoulder the burden of prosecuting those that ignore the will of their own people?

It isn't. That's the whole point. We have screwed the pooch in Iraq because we couldn't mind our own business. Most Americans can't even place Iraq on a world map. But many of them still decided that it's our destiny to remake that country.

I don't mean this as a blanket "America is bad" statement. At an individual level, most Americans do let people mind their own business; in fact that is a great strength of America. At the national level as well, America is usually reasonable enough on this score. Iraq is one of the worst exceptions. Vietnam was another one.

Posted by at August 23, 2007 08:34 AM

That's the whole point. We have screwed the pooch in Iraq because we couldn't mind our own business.

We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and helping them towards a free self-governed society...and we screwed the pooch. We should applaud the UN for issuing resolutions. We should applaud them for having no recompense to those that do not follow their resolutions. We should withdraw all our troops and let those in Iraq descend into the Stone Age. With great power comes great responsibility and the US has great power and thus the responsibility was taken by us to ENFORCE the UN resolutions as we warned Saddam we would. The pooch screwing started when the UN issued their second resolution after the first was ignored. That poor poochie was being violently raped by the time the UN got to resolution 14. So yeah, we screwed the pooch...by not taking forceful action sooner.

Posted by Mac at August 23, 2007 10:47 AM

" "

I note that you didn't actually answer my question about me killing on your behalf, or you killing on my behalf. Do you and I have any mutual obligations of citizenship?

I have no doubt your libertarian beliefs are sincere. I expect I share many of them, especially wrt overly intrusive bureaucracies.

The problem with what you wrote regarding love and sacrifice of one citizen for another, is that your position does not protect what you claim to love. Furthermore, what you wrote makes you a free rider [parasite is too harsh a term] on the non-libertarian society in which you live.

In the US that we have today, our liberties are secured by the readiness of men and women to risk their lives to preserve some pretty abstract ideas, and the common commitment we have to these ideas are what bind us to one another. We don't have the kinship ties of the tribe. We don't have the cultural ties of a common theology or religious practice. The closest thing we have to a shared history is the experience of ancestral emigration from the "Old Country".

When you reject the mutual obligations of citizenship -- filial love toward your fellow citizens, patrial love toward your country -- you reject the very cultural foundation that makes your libertarian practice possible.

The love of one citizen for another is filial (as in philos, or brotherly), and for one's country (its traditions, institutions, etc) is patria. Neither involve valentines.

This love mediates the behavior of soldiers and policemen -- neither group tends to see their work as just another "job". This love prevents soldiers and policemen from merely "following the rules" -- rules whose origins may be lost to history, or written by misanthropic bureaucrats. In short, this love fuels the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, so that the "rules" don't become tools of oppression.

If you must, reject those who protect you. Reject those who are willing to kill on your behalf, and who prepare themselves to shed blood on your behalf. If you must, reduce the status of such people to "job holders", as if they were short order cooks or table bussers.

Never forget though, that you MUST rely on those you diminish to secure your rights, your protections, and your liberties.

You can't secure those on your own, and you can't protect your family on your own.

We will always exist, and you and your family will continue to benefit from our continued dedication, even though you denigrate us.

For you and your fellow travellers, free-riding has never been so easy -- all the benefits, none of the obligations.

Posted by MG at August 23, 2007 01:17 PM

" "

Another somewhat more philosophical post from someone far more insightful than I:

http://fallbackbelmont.blog spot.com/2007/08/dinner-conversation.html

Posted by MG at August 23, 2007 01:35 PM

Post a comment