Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 06, 2006

Sowing Tribulation

sowing tribulation - detail
by anna missed
paint on wood,38"x27", 2005
full, uncompressed (140kb)

Coalition aircraft flew 52 close air support missions Jan. 3 for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to Coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities, and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.

Royal Air Force GR-4s provided close air support to Coalition troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of Bayji.
Centcom, Air Componant Data


BAIJI - A U.S. air strike killed up to 14 members of a single family and wounded at least two people in an attack on a house in Baiji, 180 km (112 miles) north of Baghdad, on Monday night, an Iraqi security force spokesman said. Police in nearby Tikrit put the death toll at six. The U.S. military, responding to an inquiry, said aircraft had targeted a house after three men suspected of planting a roadside bomb were seen entering the building. They gave no death toll.
Reuters, Security incidents in Iraq, Jan. 3


The U.S. military on Friday announced the deaths of six more American troops killed in the recent barrage of violence that has swept Iraq, bringing to 11 the number of troops killed on the same day.
AP, 11 U.S. Troops Killed in One Day in Iraq, Jan. 6

Posted by b on January 6, 2006 at 14:20 UTC | Permalink


Juxtaposition spot on. The more you look, the stronger the image becomes. Nice one anna missed and b.

Posted by: beq | Jan 6 2006 15:55 utc | 1

Some paranoid intriguing tessellations (if cheesy) weekend reading that some but not all may be interested in:
President of the world

I suggest reading it for the information, not the prose or the editing.

Posted by: | Jan 6 2006 16:58 utc | 2

infrastructure protection

They really didn't give a shit about that during the sanction and subsequent invasion years.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 6 2006 17:12 utc | 3

Funny how the war in [on] Iraq/terror has a convert component. A two fold developmental mechanism if you will, that hardly gets the container needed to scrutinize it's beneficial or detrimental effects on us all. Moreover, it's a shell game, with (power) money, companies and corporate brands switching in a blur of buy-outs and bogus fronts. It's a sinkhole, where mobbed-up operators, paid-off public servants, crazed Christian fascists, CIADIANSA shadow-jobbers, war-pimping arms dealers - and presidential family members - lie down together in the slime. It's a hacker's dream, with pork-funded, half-finished, secretly-programmed computer systems installed without basic security standards by politically-partisan private firms, and protected by law from public scrutiny. It's how the United States, the "world's greatest democracy," casts its votes and runs it's republic.

Welcome to the machine:(of course by passing this on I realize I'm doing their work for them)

*Jpen: The Military is using NSA intercepts to spy on Americans*

Posted by: | Jan 6 2006 17:32 utc | 4

Ok, we got our jj back,(Welcome back jj) cloned poster is checking in, where is outraged?
Also, the above two post were mine.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 6 2006 17:52 utc | 5

Cloned Poster aka Friendly Fire

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 6 2006 18:14 utc | 6

Of course I know preview is my friend, however my browser often times is not: 'Like A Duck In A Noose'

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 6 2006 18:43 utc | 7

@ Uncle $cam

Everything's connected, dontcha know?

Microsoft shuts down Chinese blog

Posted by: Security blanket | Jan 6 2006 18:46 utc | 8

Three out of four middle-managers are theives.
Mr. Derren Brown , psycho-illusionist, gives a business-motivational seminar. Or so it seems. Really, he's using techniques of suggestion to 'program' his marks so that when presented with the opportunity (and a toy gun) they will commit armed robbery. Not everyone thinks its funny. Less grisly than his previous stunts. Nifty flash website he's got.

'Like A Duck In A Noose'



Seems something funky going on as I posted this and later went back and it was not there...yes I drinks a bit...and can't afford my meds, but remember "reality is what you can get away with"

Posted by: | Jan 6 2006 18:52 utc | 9

So the WMD's were a bit of an exaggeration, as were the terrorist links. But Iraq is a stable, functioning democracy, isn't it? It will serve as a shining beacon to other nations in the Middle East. And the path to democracy will be lit by the glow of burned-out wrecks of suicide car bombs.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 6 2006 19:07 utc | 10

Hiya Uncle $cam I hope you feel better after writing the rant above:
"mobbed-up operators, paid-off public servants, crazed Christian fascists, CIADIANSA shadow-jobbers, war-pimping arms dealers - and presidential family members - lie down together in the slime"

I certainly feel better after reading it.

The weird thing about JPEN which appears to be some sort of quick knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 which has been allowed to go bad, is that if it was done properly ie limits on access, audit trails so that any abusive access could be traced and of course regular purging, it is sort of the way most people imagine computers can be used to assist investigations without being too intrusive and/or indiscreet.

That is if the information was just stuff collected by base security in the normal course of their duties, rather than going undercover to quaker groups and all the other Austin Powers' lame false moustache crap they pull which costs an arm and a leg and inevitably gets the wrong end of the stick.

I've got a feeling though that because the system has been allowed to run wild that it's potential hasn't been realised and in fact it has become so cumbersome that front line security staff rarely access it for assistance and therefore are probably remiss in feeding it.

I wonder how many of the gate staff know how to interrogate database? I'm sure that the pointy heads will have created a whole bunch of 'stock' data filters eg number plates, make and model of vehicle and racial and gender data about people but in a real time situation where these guards are having to do situational assessments quickly those filters won't cut it. It won't be the person's car or make and model that has them worried or their race or gender it is more likely to be some sort of personal characteristic that raises the antennae and I betcha that even if that data is in JPEN it won't be stored in an ordered fashion that would make filtering easy.

I don't mean this as any sort of support for JPEN, which if it is being used, will almost certainly be misused or abused, rather it is a general comment on the way that organisations tend to have information technology resources work in conflict with the objectives of the organisation.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 6 2006 19:21 utc | 11

@anna missed - thanks for the great picture.

I think you have carved the black line. I like the way they connect the sky and the earth and how the eye follows them down.

Then, after a while the object constructed by the black lines is ligh through a weapon sight of some RPG or Stinger.

Posted by: b | Jan 6 2006 19:30 utc | 12

It's a shell game, with money, companies and corporate brands switching in a blur of buy-outs and bogus fronts. It's a sinkhole, where mobbed-up operators, paid-off public servants, crazed Christian fascists, CIA shadow-jobbers, war-pimping arms dealers--and presidential family members--lie down together in the slime. It's a hacker's dream, with pork-funded, half-finished, secretly-programmed computer systems installed without basic security standards by politically-partisan private firms, and protected by law from public scrutiny.

The above is by * * Chris Floyd * * on Counter Punch.>Counterpunch

Posted by: Noisette | Jan 6 2006 19:55 utc | 13

lots of hurt in that one, anna missed. reminds me of post-traumatic stress.

for some reason, a story from 2003 is one of the most read from the guardian. it's about the link that some believe exists between Jesus' life and miracles and cannabis.

Carl Ruck, prof. of classics at Boston University claims linguistic evidence, which is, of course, refuted...cinnamon or cannabis? Was this oil used on the eyes so that the blind see?

The crippled walk.

Taking the drug [btw, why is it a drug? I thought it was an herb?]- which it is still illegal for doctors to prescribe - has allowed a man previously so crippled with pain that he was impotent to become a father; a woman paralysed by multiple sclerosis to ride a horse for the first time in years; and a man who couldn't sit up in a chair on his own to live without a carer.

Until now claims of the benefits of the drug for certain conditions have been anecdotal. But the preliminary results of the UK government trial, started last year, suggest that 80 per cent of those taking part have derived more benefit from cannabis than from any other drug, with many describing it as 'miraculous'.

The results make it almost inevitable that the Government will bow to public pressure and legalise the cultivation of cannabis for medical purposes by 2002. Scientists now predict that cannabis - first used for medicinal reasons 5,000 years ago - will follow aspirin and penicillin and become a 'wonder drug' prescribed for a wide range of conditions.

(this author was obviously not a prophet...)

Was Jesus anointing with oil to drive out demons --a manifestation of trauma?

Residues of cannabis, moreover, have been detected in vessels from Judea and Egypt in a context indicating its medicinal, as well as visionary, use. Jesus is described by the apostle Mark as casting out demons and healing by the use of this holy chrism. Earlier, from the time of Moses until the later prophet Samuel, holy anointing oil was used by the shamanic Levite priesthood to receive the "revelations of the Lord". The chosen ones were drenched in this potent cannabis oil.

wiki-cannabis--if you can trust wiki--

Canada studies the issue-- and if you go to the home link at the top of the page, there are more papers.

somehow your picture inspired me, anna missed, to look beyond the pain.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 6 2006 20:32 utc | 14

correct it is Chris Floyd, I knew I stole it from somewhere, but had forgotten where as I often cut and paste kick ass rant snippets.God/dess knows, I could never write like that.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 6 2006 20:47 utc | 15


exactly, a natural & organic growth of resistance, be that it may, its own & unique
(specific) iconographical manifestation -- where there is a will there is a way.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 6 2006 21:03 utc | 16

Zawahri says US defeated in Iraq: Jazeera TV

Osama is obviously dead. Welcome back, jj. (Sorry for the juxtaposition) Didn't know cloned poster and friendly fire were one and the same, believe loose shanks and tante aime are the same, though missing as of late. Hope r'giap is OK. Sometimes confuse b and b real. Who else is a body double? Sometimes I forget my real name. TGIF. LOL. AWOL. Sharon back in office would still be brighter than Bush, just as Wilson after his stroke was still brighter than McKinley. Sentience is vastly overrated; especially in leaders.

You can write like that Uncle, you can soar. Chris Floyd is Noam Chomsky on a speedball; Hunter Thompson and Alex Cockburn, shaken, not stirred.

previous thread:I've never understood Chomsky's lack of profile here. there is the occasional thing in the New Yorker or some other such publication, but in the MSM he's pretty much unknown, I remember Hannity spouting off one day about some anti-american MIT professor he said he'd like to debate (ha-ha), and saw him once on the Rose show once (in which at one point in the interview, Charlie stood up from his chair waving his arms all over the place exclaiming "do you know everything!?") but thats pretty much it. It is suprising that givin his stature, and massive publication record (a few years ago I think he had 3 books on the best seller list at the same time) you'd think he would have been trotted out for ritual demonization by the mainstream yak-yaks -- but not a peep -- ever (except maybe Brooks, who occasionally whines about him). Even in scholarship, I'm only aware of one ( some austrailian guy) major and public critic.

So he either does'nt like to indulge in such media things, or he gets no takers. I do'nt know which

anna missed

Thirty five years ago he was a regular on the media criticizing the Vietnam War. But, he knew too much, the media couldn't slide their lies past him like they do on NPR these days, and he became too effective a debater. NPR has lurched to the right, they will not interview anyone to the left of "dead center" as defined by power discourse (CSIS and Brookings), and even there will follow it up with three times as much wingnuts (AEI, Hoover, AIPAC, yadda, yaddda, yadda...stick with Stink Tanks, stay away from independent agendaed academics). They have learned to keep their interviews short and sweet, so they sound intellectual, but there is no room for historical context or depth, just the same 4 talking points for every argument, drilled into your consciousness like Orwell gone manic at Home Depot. The rest of the media, actually NPR too, made a conscious decision to shut him out of the discourse. After all, you can't have someone talk about Vietnam and start with American actions in 1945 and 1954, we're not suppossed to know that anything was happening then; or talk about Free Trade and begin with Adam Smith and David Ricardo and Mercantilism and the history of India's forced de-industrialization at the hands of the British, and present day government support for(libertarian)high tech and bio tech, the actual function and historical results of the IMF and WTO and GATT, and the history of socializing risk and privatising profit: WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS, it is not part of the American Enterprise Institute's talking points.Far more dangerous to have him talk about Thought Control in Democratic societies, Manufacturing Consent, the five filter propaganda model for defining news, worthy and unworthy victims, the history of American professional journalism, etc. Yikes, you can't have people hearing how political candidates are packaged and marketed exactly like soap or cars, and the history behind it, from Edward Bernays, etc. You can't have people realizing that all so-called "debate" in political campaigns is pre-agreed upon by the parties, the few items the elite want up for discussion, to inflame emotions, and distract from the real agenda that the elite does agree upon: transfering wealth from the poor to the wealthy, keeping the people scared. We can't have the sheeple on DKOS wondering why, despite clear majorities of the population in favor, issues like National Health Insurance, or exiting Iraq, or sustainable energy policies, or regulation of industry, or defering to the United Nations. No, we can't have people dropping their blinders and thinking about these things. So-called Civilized "discourse" must be channelled in the interests of the elite.

So because of all all this, Noam is not asked to do extended interviews (who is, in this dumb society), and now refuses to do 30 second media spots, where editing can make anyone look ridiculous, and, most specifically, where all questions are setups and there is no time for historical context. For example, "Do you think President Bush's aggresive prosecution of the War on Terror will diminish Muslim aggression, or do you think that they will still engage in terrorism because they hate our freedoms?" I mean, where do you start on a question like that? You have to deconstruct the so-called "War on Terror", you have to define "freedom" and compare its application country by country, and first and foremost, you have to encapsulate a mini-history of the middle east as the sheeple know nothing about western hegemonic actions in shaping that region, then you have to introduce the concept of "state terorism", then you need to discuss resource wars and trade policy, why the Arab countries have not developed their own oil support infrastructure (not accidental, but western mediated), but must rely on Slumberger and Halliburton and Koch Industries, etc. etc ........ That's like reseving a table at the Four Seasons, bringing in your favorite sheep (not so outlandish when I lived in the Virgin Islands), finagling it into a chair, and force feeding it the whole prix fixe meal, from soup to nuts. If you take your eyes off the sheep for one moment it will be wandering off the graze on the tassels of the rug. It's just too much for them! Far better to interview Kerry or Clinton, or Biden or Lieberman or even Gary Hart, so I hear, and have them answer the previous question with the canned non-sensical non-response, which people have heard so often that it goes down like Vicks cough syrup to a 15 year old craving his first hangover, "The President should have sent more troops in so we can win this the right way." I mean, faced with this shit for forty years, I'm surprised Noam hasn't committed suicide yet.

Charlie Rose did some of the same shit with Noam: asked leading questions and then interupted him every time Noam tried to historically contextualize the situation. When he declared that Noam "knows everything", there was more than a touch of facetiousness, as everyone knows that Charlie Rose believes that he, himself, knows more than anyone. Noam was interviewed for a full hour about a year ago by the BBC, (You should be able to find it on a search) I believe they were reasonably respectful.

Noam speaks about a dozen times a year in the Boston area. He is incredibly generous in donating his time, always for free, speaking to support local progressive causes (past year: Dollars and Sense mag, Homeless project, Cispes, AFSC, among others). He generally stays, patiently anwering individuals questions, until the last person leaves, or is kicked out, or occaisionally, until his wife arrives to drag him out. I have recorded him over half a dozen times in that interval. Some of it ends up on Democracy Now, some on (If you like progressive radio, and can listen to mp3s, this is the world's most valuable resource. If you are loaded, money-wise, please give them some. Their unparalled archive, free for downloading, can be a major force for informing the world and changing opinion--I have seen it here in Boston.) We also have a Boston Community Reporters Archive where we post things, but that is not open to the public, unfortunately. If there is any interest I could post a few of his recordings, or Howard Zinn, or Chip Berlet or others from Boston. There is also the Cambridge Forum and the Ford Forum for more mainstream recordings: Krugman, Jared Diamond, etc.

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 6 2006 23:24 utc | 17

anna missed.. blowing us away once again.

have house guest, no time, only reading smidgins of the thread,
but had to comment on your art

Posted by: annie | Jan 7 2006 2:47 utc | 18

They Only Thought They Were Free

Private Mail--Not. ...Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal. ...the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary. ...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 7 2006 4:39 utc | 19


This is sort of a personal note to Malooga, so I apologize beforehand to other posters, all of whom I admire. I'm generally a lurker at moonofalabama, I only occasionally visit and comment only when I think I have something to add. (And I, too, miss Billmon - come on back, GUY!)

I've been searching for a way to get more involved in stopping this nonsense for a few years now, and just recently figured out that Malooga and I are probably geographic neighbors and that he's doing work here that I'd like to support. My background is not quite as eclectic as yours Malooga, but close. Please send me an e-mail if you're so inclined - would love to chat and discuss ways I could assist.....Best regards, McGee

Posted by: McGee | Jan 7 2006 6:08 utc | 20

Thanks Malooga

for picking up the Chomsky question, and that sounds about right, unfortunately.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 7 2006 10:39 utc | 21

W/regards to my post on Homeland Security opening private mail above, Heywood Mogroot over at metafilter writes,

"one of the more bogus SCOTUS decisions was the reading of "envelope" in the 1866 revenue control statute as to include post envelopes (the Ramsey case), while the actual language of the statute was ONLY talking about bulk parcels, not the post.

Stevens' dissent:

Under the earlier practice, which had been consistently followed for 105 years, customs officials were not allowed to open foreign mail except in the presence, and with the consent, of the addressees,1 unless of course a warrant supported by probable cause had been first obtained. There are five reasons why I am convinced that Congress did not authorize the kind of secret searches of private mail that the Executive here conducted.>
Second, the legislative history of the 1866 statute unambiguously discloses that this very concern was voiced during debate by Senator Howe, and that he was assured by the sponsor of the legislation that the bill would not authorize the examination of the United States mails. This colloquy is too plain to be misunderstood:

"Mr. HOWE. The second and third sections of this bill speak of the seizure, search, and examination of all trunks, packages, and envelopes. It seems to me that language is broad enough to cover the United States mails. I suppose it is not the purpose of the bill to authorize the examination of the United States mails.
"Mr. MORRILL [sponsor of the bill]. Of course not.
"Mr. HOWE. I propose to offer an amendment to prevent such a construction.
"Mr. EDMUNDS. There is no danger of such a construction being placed upon this language. It is the language usually employed in these bills.
"Mr. HOWE. If gentlemen are perfectly confident that it will bear no such construction, and will receive no such construction, I do not care to press it.
"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin withdraws his amendment."3

"It's amazing that Stevens is still on the court, 30 years after this decision. I'm not religious, but I'm praying for his health every fricking day."

Posted by: | Jan 7 2006 11:47 utc | 22

Chomsky espouses the softie-leftie view of 9/11 - blowback for US past bad acts. The ‘they hate our actions’ rationalisation, as opposed to ‘they hate our freedoms.’ Islamic terrorism is a mirror of US state terrorism (abroad, of course...). He first compared 9/11 to Billy C’s bombing of the Sudanese ‘aspirin factory’...

And so on.

It is a special way of manufacturing consent.

Perps should have been brought to justice in international courts and ‘root causes’ need to be addressed. People lap it up.

Posted by: Noisette | Jan 7 2006 12:54 utc | 23

Terrorists don't give a f*ck about our freedoms. They would just as soon that we contine our decadent way of life. They just object to our military and political presence in their part of the world.

But our continued dependence on their resources means we'll remain there for some time, supporting friendly dictators and replacing hostile ones with ones more amenable to our needs.

There is only one way to "win" the war on terrorism and that is to disengage ourselves, both economically and politically, from this chaotic & religiously backward part of the world. Let them hassle the Chinese or something.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 7 2006 19:13 utc | 24

Ralphieboy sez "from this chaotic & religiously backward part of the world"

Have you ever wondered why it is chaotic and the Mullahs rule?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 7 2006 19:56 utc | 25

It's beyond a little odd that partisans in the Middle East would suddenly develop an aversion to "our freedoms", after all "our freedoms" have been around for a couple hundred years and I don't recall any historical anomosity toward it. Quite the contrary, actually, in that most in the ME see freedom in the West as its strongest suit.

It's a bit like the neologism "Islamofascist" being bantered around by the right. Could'nt be any description farther from accurate, at least assuming the classic definition of fascism; the collusion between corporate/elite interests and government. But, using the term in this way does serve their interest, in so much as calling them "Islamofascists" changes and distances themselves from the real meaning of fascism for which they, the right in the US, more closely fit the real definition of. But, by the same token, it would also be counterproductive (for the right) to label them by their real definition, "militant Islamic theocrats", as it would highlight the similarities between the right and bin-Laden.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 8 2006 3:07 utc | 26

Very well formulated, anna missed.


Chomsky espouses the softie-leftie view of 9/11 - blowback for US past bad acts. The ‘they hate our actions’ rationalisation...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What other view do you espouse? Can you be clear and not cryptic as to how you see things.

For the sake of argument, I will assume that you are refering to the view of 9-11 as one enacted by the shadow government, or more charitably, as a facilitated event. A view which many of us here, including myself, hold.

I have been part of two discussions with Chomsky about this and he has also addressed this on his blog. (The Official 911 Story.) In short, the guy is 75 years old, doesn't know how much longer he has left, sees the two most important threats facing mankind, as detailed in "Hegemony and Survival", as being nuclear annihilation and environmental catastrophe and wants to spend the rest of his time convincing others of these dangers. He feels that the best way for him to convince others (that is, the average bub who hasn't immersed himself in politics and activism) , especially given his prominence, whereby anything he states is gone over with a fine-toothed comb with the hope of discrediting him and therefore his whole body of work, is to stick to the commonly accepted evidentiary record to prove his case. Attempting to prove something, which will probably never be proveable, he sees as a sidetrack for him. He is not against others working on elucidating what went on behind the scenes of 9-11. But let him speak for himself:

The simple reason why I presume that the official story is probably true is that it seems to me by far the most credible one. I’ve explained why in earlier posts, and also why the whole matter is very far from high priority for me.

Since there is such a flood of letters about this matter, mostly to me personally, perhaps it is worth adding something that I’ve left out because I do not want to become embroiled in what seem to me pointless discussions, diverting energy from matters that seem to me far more important.

One of these is to focus attention on the Bush administration’s ongoing contributions to enhancing the risk of terrorism, including very serious terrorist attacks against the US. Even if the cyberspace and other conclusions about 9/11 were credible they would not begin to compare with Bush administration actions that are hardly controversial and that have or threaten far more hideous effects. In comparison with these clear cases, for which evidence is overwhelming from the most respectable mainstream sources, the involvement of the Bush administration in 9/11, if it could be supported, would amount to very little. To take an obvious example, consider the invasion of Iraq.

Quite apart from the massive crimes against Iraqis, the invasion was undertaken with the expectation, since amply confirmed, that it would increase the threat of jihadist terror of the kind that the Reaganites organized in the 1980s, as well as proliferation. Former defense secretaries (including McNamara) and prominent strategic analysts estimate the likelihood of nuclear terror in the US at about 50% in the next decade: alongside that, and its likely aftermath, 9/11 would pale into insignificance. And that’s the least of it. The policies of aggressive militarism and “transformation of the military” are, as predicted, driving potential rivals to react in ways that greatly enhance the risk of possibly terminal nuclear war, maybe by accident, maybe by leaking of WMD technology to terrorists, maybe in other ways.

All of these matters are well-established, rarely discussed, and vastly more significant that any possible Bush administration involvement in 9/11.

…I might perhaps add that this whole matter reminds of a DOD document on declassification a few years ago. It suggests that “interesting declassified material” such as information about the JFK assassination could be released and even posted on the internet as a “diversion,”
which might “reduce the unrestrained public appetite for `secrets’ by providing good faith distraction material.” The idea, according to the
(outstanding) British intelligence analyst who published the document, is that if investigators are absorbed with the grassy knoll they won’t probe into serious areas where they are unwelcome.

I can see disagreeing with his conclusion, and many of his aquaintainces do. But I see nothing " softie-leftie" about his analysis of the situation. That seems to me to be a facile and smug ad hominem, not backed up by a countervailing argument.

I am as willing as any here to acknowledge the existence of false-flag terrorist operations. But to deny attacks by muslims and arabs against western interests as "the ‘they hate our actions’ rationalisation", is ludicrous. Clearly, many people do hate our (western) actions, and are moved by them to retaliate.

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 8 2006 6:36 utc | 27

The comments to this entry are closed.