|
Kennedy Endorsement
A democracy should not cling to dynasty rule as a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton row would represent.
So there is Obama promissing Change.
But now he is endorsed by some Kennedys, Ted, Patrick and Caroline (other Kennedys, Cathleen, Robert F. and Kerry endorse Clinton) and Obama is even compared to JFK.
That is a big minus in my view.
John F. Kennedy was a mediocre President. His foreign policy record is a list of failures. He
- ordered the CIA to proceed with the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba but denied the nessessary air and naval support that would have given the project a slight chance of success.
- was outgamed by Khrushchev when he retracted U.S. missiles from Turkey in an exchange for Russian missiles retraction from Cuba.
-
didn’t response but with polite protest when the Sowjets build the wall around West Berlin in violation of the postwar Potsdam Agreements.
-
escalated the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and assisted in the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in a military coup.
- backed the Baathist coup against the anti-imperialist Iraqi government.
In domestic policies there was much hopeful talk but little done in the two years of Kennedy’s rule. He endorsed civil rights but was reluctant to act against Southern Democrats. He launched the program to put a man on the moon. A project that cost some $25 billion and had little scientific and strategic value.
So what did he achieve?
Do the U.S. people really want a president that will continue in that tradition?
To b at 27
What I meant to say (by what most astute Americans know anyhow) was that I believe 80 % of Americans don’t even know any of the foreign policy decisions JFK took and the rest knows them vaguely if at all.
The ones, who look at his Presidency in detail, know and may judge the same way you did, but these people are old. I am sixty. When Kennedy came to Berlin in 1963, I was fifteen. So the Americans, who voted for JFK consciously, are today at least 65 and older. They are an important voting constituency for the Democrats, but the younger voters are as well and it’s the group Obama is targetting with more emphasis than any other candidate.
The elderly might judge the Kennedy Presidency on the basis of facts and without a halo around him. But because of his, RK’s and MLK’s assassination nobody really wants to scrutinize his policy decisions. They wanted to know why and how he died, but not what was wrong with his policies.
Most of the voters Obama would attract belong to the younger generation. They have no idea what it means to live in a communist regime. On the hand many of the first and second immigrants generations from Asian and African or ME countries know, what it means to live under authoritarian regimes with tribal, religious and racial conflicts. I guess that Obama creates in them the hope that he might be more sensitive and knowledgable of those problems and hope they have a positive impact on his foreign policy decisions. If that kind of hope is justified or not remains to be seen, but all of these current issues have nothing to do with the JFK era and that era’s foreign policy issues.
Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama for simple reasons of lashing out against Bill Clinton, who showed his true colors lately in marginalizing and mocking Obama. Invoking JFK myths and Camelot is a rhetorical and emotional campaign tool. Obama knows it, Ted Kennedy knows it and the Kennedy children have all the right to believe in their father’s good political intentions and efforts, especially for their efforts to promote social justice for all American people. Do you want to take that away from them?
The Kennedy era is history, cold war over. There is no foreign policy tradition on which Obama could or would build, nor do I think he would launch a “man on the moon program”-style program, just for political gain.
At least so far Obama has not shown that he is a dreamer or a liar. The most one could say is that he might know what not to talk about at this point in time. That doesn’t necessarily mean, he does not understand foreign policy and national security issues.
To me it seems as if political campaigns in the US are a mixture of Hollywood and Gospel. Both are designed to make you feel good and give you strength. They are designed to make you believe that a happy end awaits you. When the movie is over, it’s over. Everybody knows it and can distinguish between fact and fiction. That doesn’t mean that much of what is said during the campaigns (or movies) isn’t inspiring and true.
The moment any of the candidates is in the White House, nobody expects them to miraculously deliver all of what everybody is just hoping for. Americans just like to forget the realities during their primary season and in the campaigns. This is the time for drama, emotions, despair and high hopes, really expensive and good entertainment. It’s also fun. They abuse their actors, ie. the presidential candidates, quite a bit, I would say.
So, the “thing” about Kennedy is that everybody can read into his life whatever he wants (he inspires your imagination). The myth around the Kennedy family is like the a local, beloved famaily saga, the stuff movies are made of, real good theater, war, love, spies, beauty, betrayals, conspiracies etc. … just that people actually died for all the wrong reasons, something nobody forgets here.
Posted by: mimi | Jan 30 2008 1:31 utc | 40
As the popular chestnut, often attributed to Emma Goldman, goes, “If voting could change anything, they would have made it illegal.”
Kudos to r’giap, b real, and monolycus for rescuing this conversation from the cob-webbed corridors of the Camelot Memorial Hair Salon For Upper Class White Men.
While candidates like TR and Wilson were the first to employ modern propaganda techniques in a national candidacy, and Harding was the first to appear on mass media, Kennedy took image manipulation techniques to a new level. After the buck-stopping, bomb-dropping haberdasher from Kansas City and poor Bess, and the avuncular General assassin and dowdy Mamie, the media, particularly the newest media, TV, were positively starving for a way to increase their ratings. One could argue that the media sold itself (to advertisers) during the campaign of 1960, as much as Kennedy sold himself to the public, and that Kennedy was the perfect acutrement to enhance and clinch that sale.
Kennedy was ever-aware of the importance of image. (November’s Vanity Fair carries reprints of the famous Avedon pre-inaugural photos of the publicly loving and glamorous family.) Kennedy, at 43, cut a fine figure despite the fact that he clearly looked gravely ill and ten years beyond the sticker date, and Jackie, at a mere 31 (imagine!), was more interested in veneer than machivellian machinations. If today the media talks about which candidate you would rather have a beer with, back then the electorate, male and female, secretly thought (and voted) for the candidate they would rather end up in the sack with. And with poverty rates hovering at 22.5% in 1960, perhaps a little fantasy was just what the ruling elite needed to burnish the charade for those who had not benefitted from the US’s unparalleled post-war economic expansion.
(Even the doting VF article is bold enough to note that “given Kennedy’s history of womanizing, was this — the photo shoot — also a way to insulate himself from public speculation?) Slick Willie should have paid better attention. Discussions of morals aside, Kennedy’s endless womanizing, particularly with mob women, put himself at extraordinary risk of blackmail.
Looking back on Camelot, one finds the issues, the spectacle, the challenges, and the image projected, remarkably relevant to today.
Yes, as noted, the Kennedy’s were a family a fascist thugs. Joe P. was a Nazi sympathizer, as most of corporate America was in those days right after the attempted US fascist coup was thwarted by Smedley Butler; but more to the point the entire family was close as crack with Senator McCarthy, who, of course, was Bobby’s original mentor. But, it is well to remember that in the spectacle of politics, for the ruling elite, labels like conservative and liberal, are no more than clothing to be fitted to the candidate so that they should cut an appropriate sharp image, and to be discarded when no longer necessary. In any event, the Kennedy’s, even then, with Joe’s bootlegging, were small peanuts compared to the Bush crime clan, who as the actual bankers, along with Harriman, to Thyssen, the industrial muscle and money behind Hitler, tried to rip off their European shareholders when the German war effort when south — a fitting start to an unparalleled stretch of financial chicanery. And the Kennedy’s did put on the cloak of aristocratic social service that the Bush’s never even bothered to pay lip service to. (The current generation — Joe, Robert Jr. — is pretty convincing, too.)
I remember a Time magazine cover in 1962, portraying the three brothers, with the dates of their respective eight year Presidencies encompassing an unbroken span, a 24 year Golden Era for America. It seemed so inevitable at that point in time… Well, Peter Phillips of Project Censored says that no more than 500 people rule the country, and hence, the world. Joe P. might have thought that he was one of them, but it seems like he was more like a number 6 or 700, a mere parvenue, and not to be welcomed to the feted table.
I was 6 1/2 at the time of the assassination, and like all others of my generation I still remember the defining day vividly. It was a grey, windy November afternoon in NYC, and I was playing on my fromt lawn with a friend. I saw the father across the street come home from work early and he was crying. I had never seen an adult cry before. He looked at me and said, “The President’s been killed. Go home now!” I saw a lot of adults cry the next few days, and I remember being very scared that we had no one to run the country, and what would happen? At that point in time, I could not yet distinguished between the puppet and the puppeteer, nor had I learned to see and follow the almost invisible strings.
Yes, I too remember the unprecedented State funeral: long, slow, and oh-so-solemn, the close-ups of the family, and every footfall and teardrop dramatically revealed to us by the empathic camera eye of the media, who had not yet aquired the ill-manners of chattering and analyzing incessantly. But when I think back upon those events now, I think immmediately of 9/11. For even the day after the asassination, the storyline we were being fed had begun to stink worse than week-old fish — and all of the adults I knew, knew it. That funeral provided the narrative which guided and beguiled the public, as surely as the instant attribution to Usama (in those days), and the miraculous identification of the nineteen hijackers less than 24 hours after the WTC was hit did for our generation.
Why he was killed and by who, I cannot say for sure. I have read the claims that he had signed an Execuive Order empowering the government to print its own money, and taking the power away from the Fed. Whether that is a canard, or not, I cannot say. I can say is that he who controls the money supply, surely controls everything else.
In any event, if one dispenses with commentary on hairstyles and lifestyles, and examines the actual record, one finds, as Chomsky points out, a remarkable continuity of policy between our regnates. As George Kennan wrote in a Policy Planning Study of 1948, “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.”
That has always been the task — to this day — and analyzing whether a Presidency is “sucessful” or not, one must identify just who it was successful for: Cui bono.
It wasn’t until 1969 that Isiah Berlin delivered his influential lecture, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” but as noted in comments above, Kennedy’s inaugural dictum, “Think not what your country…” was as clear an enunciation of the concept of positive liberty as could be, and despite Adam Curtis’s adomitions in “The Trap,” Berlin felt that such expressions always gave rise to abuses of power. A few short years later, those forced to go to Indochine found the once heroic exhortation bitter “draft” to swallow indeed. And of course, Neo-Conservatism can find no more direct expression: Look not to government to solve your problems, but you, yourself, are obligated to serve the state. Nothing noble there for me. Additionally, in his inaugural address, Kennedy made the ambitious pledge to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” In other words, we refuse to take any military option off the table in the pursuit of what we call free-trade (liberty) for our corporations. Sounds positively Obamaesque!
Kennedy — the sixties, really — represented the high point of American hegemony: The government was able to ease up the yoke on the governed a little. Kennedy, anxious to deflect attention from his Catholicism, and other divisive cultural issues, promoted a new concept: Government, not by craven ideologues, but by technocrats, “The best and the brightest,” a government we can all agree with. Nixon countered by developing his “Southern Strategy” and forever altering the course of American electioneering, where irrelevant “wedge” issues would hold center stage, allowing the South to return to its traditional role of selector of the Chief Executive.
In any event, we soon found out how nice it was not having ideologues in office: instead we got Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara, men any bombardier could agree with. And of course that stuck-up bow-tied Harvard prig, Schlesinger, who never found an imperialism that he couldn’t critique, couldn’t execute better. What a loveable gang of murderers!
Well, let’s go to the record:
Foreign affairs: If one attempts to argue that there was a slight lull in imperial adventures, one must concede that it is only because his predecessor had been so thorough in the preceeding year: Lebanon (Same as it ever was), Guatemala, El Salvador, Cuba, and the canal zone, too. Nevertheless, Kennedy did not shy away from American adventurism, either. In addition to the case of Cuba, which we are all familiar with and hence does not bear repeating, there is Brazil, where in 1962 the CIA engaged in campaign to keep João Goulart from achieving control of Congress, leading to a full blown coup, and the beginning of the miltary dictators’ reign of terror in South America in 1964. In 1963, a CIA-backed coup overthrew elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, and a far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalled elections in which “extreme leftist” Juan José Arévalo was favored to win. Also in 1963, CIA backed the military overthrow of President Jose Maria Valesco Ibarra in Ecuador. (Got to keep the backyard in shape!) Oh yes, and then there was British Guiana/Guyana where as William Blum reminds us, “Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist — more so than Sukarno or Arbenz — his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington’s greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics — from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U.S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower. One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.” So much for our own hemisphere.
In Africa there was the 1960-65 destabilization and rape of Congo/Zaire, the Eisenhower ordered 1961 assassination of Patricde Lumumba resulting in several more years of US-supported civil conflict and chaos, leading to the rise to power of kleptocrat Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA.
On the other side of the world there was the 1962 CIA-backed military coup in Laos resulting finally in a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement, the destabilization of Cambodia, The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landing with 5,000 troops in Thailand on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the “threat of Communist pressure from outside,” and of course, Vietnam.
Kennedy was determined to ‘draw a line in the sand’ and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam saying to James Reston of the New York Times, “Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.” There, Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military advisers from 800 to 16,300 to cope with rising guerrilla activity. The advisers were embedded at every level of the South Vietnamese armed forces. The Kennedy administration sought to refocus U.S. efforts on pacification (now called counter-insurgency) and “winning over the hearts and minds” of the population. The Strategic Hamlet Program had been initiated in 1961. This joint U.S.-South Vietnamese program attempted to resettle the rural population into fortified camps (ethnic cleansing and ghettos). The aim was to isolate the population from the insurgents (sic), and strengthen the government’s hold over the countryside. The Strategic Hamlets, however, were quickly infiltrated by the guerrillas. The peasants resented being uprooted from their ancestral villages (who knew?). The government refused to undertake land reform, which left farmers paying high rents to a few wealthy landlords (that’s called free enterprise). Corruption dogged the program and intensified opposition. It seems that, despite his dying before Johnson’s full-blown escalation, Kennedy, in Vietnam, was at least able to “make our power credible,” a fact the Vietnamese were unable to ignore, and doubtless endeared him to them. During the summer of 1963 U.S. officials began discussing the possibility of a regime change. President Diem was overthrown and executed, along with his brother, on November 2, 1963, less than three weeks before Kennedy himself (what goes around…). South Vietnam entered a period of extreme political instability, as one military government toppled another in quick succession. Increasingly, each new regime was viewed as a puppet of the Americans. Quite a record of accomplishment!
In the Middle East, the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine declared that the United States was “prepared to use armed forces to assist” any Middle Eastern country “requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” U.S. officials feared that the new Iraqi regime might reassert its historical claim on Kuwait (sound familiar?), a tiny country created by British fiat in order to prevent any larger state from controlling what was then the biggest oil-producing area in the Gulf. A memorandum based on an emergency meeting between Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Nathan Twining, and CIA director Allen Dulles asserted that unless the United States intervened, “the U.S. would lose influence,” its “bases” would be “threatened,” and U.S. credibility would be “brought into question throughout the world.” The U.S. was also concerned about the nationalist threat to what were very profitable oil concessions in Kuwait and Iraq.
Kennedy worked to covertly undermine the new government of Iraq by supporting anti-government Kurdish rebels (sounds familiar) and by attempting, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Iraq’s leader, Abdul Karim Qassim (Kassem), an army general who had restored relations with the Soviet Union and lifted the ban on Iraq’s Communist Party. Iraq’s formal withdrawal from the Baghdad Pact and simultaneous economic and technical aid agreement with the Soviet Union was in 1959. In quick succession Iraq withdrew from the sterling bloc, ordered British air force units out of the Habbaniya base, and cancelled the Point Four Agreement with the United States. Then in 1963, the U.S. supported a coup by the Ba’ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) to overthrow the Qassim regime, including by giving the Ba’ath names of communists to murder. “Armed with the names and whereabouts of individual communists, the national guards carried out summary executions. Communists held in detention…were dragged out of prison and shot without a hearing… [B]y the end of the rule of the Ba’ath, its terror campaign had claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 communists.” Kassem was then killed by a new coup.
Not bad for less than three years in office.
Meanwhile, in Europe Operation Gladio’s strategy of tension, begun after World War II, when the UK and the US decided to create “stay-behind” paramilitary organizations, intending to counter communists coming to power, and employing means such as internal subversion, the use of “false flag operations” (terror attacks attributed to the opposite side) continued without a hitch. “A briefing minute of June 1, 1959, reveals Gladio was built around ‘internal subversion’. It was to play ‘a determining role… not only on the general policy level of warfare, but also in the politics of emergency’. Secret cells and operations were conducted in practically every country in Europe, conducting assassinations as needed.
One should note, at this point, that America’s only Irish Catholic President did nothing about the “Troubles” in Ireland, besides shaking a few hands and posing for a few photo ops. During President Kennedy’s historic visit to Ireland in June 1963, he remarked to the people of New Ross (nice town, been there), Ireland:
“When my great grandfather left here to become a cooper in East Boston, he carried nothing with him except two things: a strong religious faith and a strong desire for liberty. I am glad to say that all of his great-grandchildren have valued that inheritance.”
Perhaps it is crass of me, but I can’t help but imagine that John Jr.s inheritance on more then $10 Million was something he valued more. I could be wrong there, though….
The lunar program, as others have mentioned, was an audaciously conceived piece of propaganda, sheer “lunacy,” one might say, convincing multitudes in the possibility of life on another planet, or the potential to mine the moon for minerals, or some such crap, while deflecting attention and concern for domestic problems like poverty, and concern for the limited resources of our own environment. Yes, it was over a decade before the Club of Rome produced “Limits to Growth” and accorded official recognication to the fragileness and finiteness of our environment, but books like “Silent Spring” (1962), and others, had been trying to get the message out to the general public for a decade by the early sixties. That money, billions upon billions of dollars, properly spent, could have saved millions of lives, changed humanity’s expectations, and eased the way for the momentous transition mankind now faces. But of course it couldn’t, since Kennedy, like Bush, ran on the “Big Lie,” in his case, that there was a “missle gap” between the US and the Soviet Union, imperiling all of our lives. Kennedy, and the entire establishment knew that was a false claim, but money was wanted for missles and to militarize space. As Chomsky often notes, that bravado brought the planet to within five minutes of complete doomsday, only saved because a Soviet officer refused to follow orders and authorize a strike. (True story.)
Kennedy’s signature international program was The Alliance for Progress initiated in 1961 to establish economic cooperation between North and South America in order to counter the perceived emerging communist threat from Cuba to U.S. interests and dominance in the region. It was chock full of arrays of handsome benchmarks and reams of fine prose and noble goals, in the best Kennedy fashion:
…we propose to complete the revolution of the Americas, to build a hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom. To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress…(Watch out, you might get neither!) Let us once again transform the American Continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts, a tribute to the power of the creative energies of free men and women, an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk hand in hand. Let us once again awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggles of people everywhere-not with an imperialism of force or fear but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future of man.
In small print were the small demand clauses of the business lobby, which committed the Latin American governments to the promotion “of conditions that will encourage the flow of foreign investments” to the region. U.S. industries lobbied Congress to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to ensure that US aid would not be furnished to any foreign business that could compete with US business “unless the country concerned agrees to limit the export of the product to the US to 20 percent of output”. In addition the industries lobbied Congress to limit all purchases of AID machinery and vehicles in the US. A 1967 study of AID showed that 90 percent of all AID commodity expenditures went to US corporations. (It’s called doing good by maintaining an industrial and developmental edge.) SSadly, the Alliance was a boat without a sail, alas…
And then there’s the Peace Corps, established by Executive Order 10924 on March 1, 1961, and authorized by Congress on September 22, 1961, with passage of the Peace Corps Act (Public Law 87-293). which declares the purpose of the Peace Corps to be:
“to promote world peace and friendship through a Peace Corps, which shall make available to interested countries and areas men and women of the United States qualified for service abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.”
In reality, this small twig hiding behind the US’s “Big Stick” was the nice face of American imperialism, with programs designed to keep “them” on the farm, dissuade them from industrializing, and introduce the “Green Revolution,” precursor to today’s GMO crops. It functions as a sort of prep school for the CIA — learn the language and the culture — before you earn. All one needs to do is place a map of the mineral resources of the world over Peace Corps postings and you get more of the idea of what “service” really means.
Kennedy’s legacy in space is twofold: One, the increasing pollution of the atmosphere with all manner of astro-debris, which will one day make any type of atmospheric launch impossible. And secondly, the PNAC’s goal of dominating all of space militarily. The US government, as Amy Worthington documents, is busy concoting all manner of energy rays and beams, and sprays — Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons In The Age Of Nuclear War — all of them lethal, in its quest for full spectrum dominance. Of course, they are all being experimented upon unwittingly, people both domestically and globally without our knowledge, because of the essential “national security” implications.
As far as the environment is concerned, The U.S. had conducted the equivalent of one nuclear weapons test every 17 days since its first test; far more than any other country. It is estimated that the total yield of all the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted is 438 megatons. That’s equivalent to 29,200 Hiroshima size bombs. In the 36 years between 1945 and 1980 when atmospheric testing was being conducted this would have been equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima size bomb in the atmosphere every 11 hours. Approximately 3,830 kilograms of plutonium has been left in the ground as a result of all underground nuclear testing and some 4,200 kilograms of plutonium has been discharged into the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing. There has also been a program of ‘Peaceful Nuclear Explosions’ conducted over the years by two of the five declared nuclear powers. The Soviet Union carried out the most extensive PNE program. Some 116 PNE’s were conducted between 1965 and 1988. The U.S. carried out 27 PNE’s between 1961 and 1973: one in Carlsbad, Colorado, one in Grand Valley, Colorado, one in Rifle, Colorado, one in Farmington, New Mexico, and 23 at the National Test Site in Nevada. Wherever nuclear weapons testing has occurred for whatever reasons there have been environmental problems. Radioactivity has leaked into the environment from underground nuclear tests, large areas of land are uninhabitable as a result of atmospheric and underground nuclear testing, and indigenous people, their children and their children’s children’s health and livelihoods have been affected by nuclear weapons tests. A visit to a map of US nuclear contamination is well worth one’s time.
And finally, at home, the Kennedy administration showed its concern for its domestic populace by continuing the ongoing Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, the code name for a CIA mind-control research program that began in 1950, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence, and which involved the use of many types of drugs, as well as other methodology, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain function. CIA documents suggest that “chemical, biological and radiological” means were investigated for the purpose of mind control as part of MKULTRA, a violation of the Nuremberg Code that the U.S. agreed to follow after WWII.
All in all, not a bad record for less than three years. But I prefer to remember the real Camelot: you know, all those touch football games on the lawn, sort of like Gore once did….
I guess it is all how you judge Presidents. If you look for something good to come from power, there is the White House redecoration, the interest in sailing, the pictures of John-John under the desk… I just don’t happen to believe that power ever serves the ordinary person, so I take my sunglasses off, clear away the mythification, and see power as it really is, stark, implacable, and evil. Its easier to oppose that way.
Posted by: Malooga | Jan 30 2008 12:30 utc | 58
|
