|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU... AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory... Man v. Nature Spicy Predictable Consequences not why, but why not Tea Party Zombies Squishy Mice Pumpkin Star Trek Pumpkin Star Trek Follow Up Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
10.26.2005
A short nifty guide on how to screw our employees (and the rest of the country) for our own benefit - by Wal-Mart The NYTimes has published a memo from Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits outlining ways in which they can save money, by forcing out long tenured employees, employing more part timers, and healthy people that will require less cost for their health care plans. In short - more cost shifting. Some pearls of wisdom: "Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits, the cost of an Assocuate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an Associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity (Exhibit 2). Morever, because we pay an Associate more in salary and benfits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that Associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart." In other words, they need to increase turnover and keep people from thinking of Wal-mart as a long term employment opportunity. Wal-Mart comes to the obvious conclusion (people get payed to think this up?) that employing an army of young, part time, healthy employees with no intention of working for Wal-Mart long term, should be their ultimate low cost solution to their benefits "problems". Suffice it to say that other employers have come to the same conclusion. Let someone else employ the "undesirables". "The so-called "low utilizers" are the most attractive Associate segment because they cost Wal-Mart less in terms of healthcare expenses and are more productive in their jobs." We find that Wal-Mart is also very concerned about their public reputation, as they should, because people might just stop shopping there if they only knew how the company plans to treat present and future employees "Wal-Mart's critics, however, hold it to a "large company" standard, not a retailer standard. Despite the difference in industry economics, critics believe we should behave more like a GM or a Microsoft than a Target or a Sears." Considering that Wal-Mart may end up being the largest employer in a small community I don't think it too unrealistic for people to think of their jobs there as being worthy of a living wage; with pay and benefits generous enough to raise a family. Wal-Mart thinks otherwise, the problem, in their eyes, is one of perception. People need to stop thinking about Wal-Mart as a responsible employer. Its ok for your kids to work at Wal-Mart for a year or so, but they don't want all you old people working there, expecting to make a living. Despite the heavy losses of high-paying, unionized jobs in the manufacturing, don't expect Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in the nation, to take up the slack. from the NYTimes article: Ms. Chambers said she was focusing not on cutting costs, but on serving employees better by giving them more choices on their benefits But.... somehow they plan on saving more than $1 billion over the next 6 years? Wal-Mart also plans on playing a bigger role in shaping the national healthcare debate, so that they might "help shape the outcome of the public debate about the healthcare crisis in a way that is at least somewhat advantageous to our interests." Oh goodie, national healthcare, Wal-Mart style! What can the United States do to attract healthier, more productive, less costly citizens, and discourage older, "high utilizers" from staying here? Message: don't get old, don't get sick, we don't have a place for you. (via eshaton, and Labor Blog with special mention to Jib Jab) | 10.24.2005
Went to Petsmart to get some dog food. There should be a wall down the middle of Petsmart with two separate entrances, one for Dogsmart and one for Catsmart. I'm just saying... And am I the only one that thinks that "checking out" should go fast? I'm not just talking about Petsmart, where I stood behind a cat lady filling out a card with her personal info for the privilege of saving three dollars, I'm talking about everywhere. Its not a secret how to make the checkout process go faster. You make sure there are more than enough checkout people and you keep it simple. That means no special offers, or cards that require filling out lengthy forms. | 10.20.2005
I've said it here before, that I don't really consider myself a partisan Democrat. I find writers that spend a considerable portion of their time trying to imagine ways to revive the Democratic party a bit tedious. While I understand that living in a two party system means you end up supporting the least offensive party, I also think that breaking up the two party system (and adapting a proportional voting, or coalition system) is in our best long term interests. (I think we're in denial about why so many people don't find it worthwhile to vote; they just don't see candidates that are addressing real issues to them.) But to say that I would be just as hard on the Democrats if they were in power is not quite accurate. After some consideration, I would like to add something to that. I would be just as hard on the Democrats if they were in power and willfully trying to drag our country back into the 19th century as I feel the Republicans are doing. They'd also have to be just as dishonest, corrupt, and against the interests of the majority of ordinary working Americans as the modern Republican party. That's a tall order. The Democrats just haven't reached that level of threat yet. They've been horribly ineffective as an opposition party, paying lip service to some of the worst policies of the Bush administration, especially their lukewarm support for the invasion of Iraq. But aside from a valiant effort put forth by the DLC Democrats, they just haven't hit upon the genius idea (as the Republicans have) that destroying the middle/working class in America would be best for all (campaign donors) involved. Personally, I would like to see more varied parties in America. Then we might have one party for the Theocrats, who could vote for whichever whacko candidate claimed he talked to God the most, and one party for the Feudalists, who could vote for whichever candidate promised to bring back the good ol' days of Lords and Serfs (which was a very profitable system for the landowners...). So, if you think that I'm a partisan Democrat because I simply feel that the Republicans are a greater threat to my freedom and ability to live my life the way I wish, then so bit, you can use that as your definition. Whatever. | 10.18.2005
Ok, here's what I said in a previous post: "You lose because an army of paid shills sit around all day blaming everything on the Democrats." To which reader Dan Paden responded: "But still, I find the initial notion, that the Democrats' losses can be blamed on right-wing media to be the most interesting. For years, conservatives griped about a leftist media, and the leftists and Democrats, more or less, said, "Quit whining!" Now, talk radio is largely dominated by conservatives, paid for by advertising, which is purchased by people who know that millions of people like to listen to those conservatives, and Bruce sees those conservatives as being "...an army of paid shills." Silly of me, I guess its all those vitamin commercials that are fueling the right wing movement, not the millions and millions of dollars donated every year to conservative based think tanks whose mission on Earth is to promote a wealthy-friendly agenda in American politics? But I'm not just talking about radio, which to some degree, after you get past the fact that most were started by individuals for ideological reasons, does indeed generate its own revenue. I'm talking about the legions of opinion makers who stand at the ready to "comment" on the daily goings on in the political world. And oh my golly molly there are a ton of "conservatives" ready and willing to push their GOP talking points. Heritage Institute has thirty-three "fellows" on hand American Enterprise Institute lists twenty-nine "scholars" who can "Comment on Katrina and Rita", they have seventy people listed as fellows or scholars in total. Cato has thirty-seven "scholars" on the payroll. So that means there are at least one hundred and forty people drawing paychecks for the sole purpose of promoting a "conservative" agenda in American media. These think tanks were started for this very purpose. From Heritage's own website: 1973: The Heritage Foundation opens its doors. The Heritage Foundation is founded on February 16, 1973 with backing from Joseph Coors, Richard Scaife and Edward Noble in order to deliver compelling and persuasive research to Congress providing facts, data, and sound arguments on behalf of conservative principles. So yeah, rich people decided to start a think tank to promote *gasp!!* ideas that will help make them richer; tax cuts, reduced government spending on poor people, and more spending on military contracts. Sheesh people, is it really so hard a concept to grasp? Paying a little to create a political climate that promotes a "conservative" agenda pays off in a big way. According to Heritage's Annual Report their "...analysts appeared on National Television 98 times in 2004" influencing the debate on everything from taxes to public education, all with a heavily right wing bent. In 2004 Heritage raked in $32,544,251 in donations from individuals, corporations and foundation. Quite a hefty chunk of change if you ask me. Most of those contributions come from many of the same sources. The names Scaife, Bradley, Olin etc. just keep popping up. You see, its not a secret people. Heritage itself admits that part of its mission is to put people with their message in front of your eyeballs so that you can consume their ideology. They claim that they get 6.5 radio and television interviews a day on the world's most watched media outlets. You see why I say paid shills? That's what they are. They take a bunch of rich people's money to promote an agenda that will further enhance the wealthy's ability to make and retain more wealth. Put it this way: Just one think tank, Heritage, takes in over 30 million dollars each year to promote the conservative agenda by paying people to appear on major media outlets. I'm sorry, I just can't see how my characterization is off base? | 10.15.2005
Boortz: Faced with an impending national disast ... [Media Matters]: "You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor?" First off, yes, its offensive to base people's worth on their income. But sadly, in this society that is precisely what we do day after day. What I wanted to take issue with is the whole notion that the rich are the drivers of the economy. Boortz, and people who agree with him, seem to think that working people are disposable. This is a convenient way of thinking, especially if you need dirt cheap labor. They also seem to think that all rich people are a product of hard work. The reality is a little more complex than that. Sure there are people that don't contribute much to society. But its also true that there are millions of working poor who, despite sometimes working two jobs, still live in poverty. It is also true that there are rich people who earned their money the hard way; by putting in long hours, educating themselves, and making sacrifices. But it is also true that there are scores of rich people who did nothing more than pop out of a rich womb. Boortz's comments exemplifies his poor grasp of economic realities. Work creates wealth. Consider what would happen if you had a man with hundreds of acres of fertile land but only his own two hands with which to work that land. Now consider that same land with fifty workers on it. Which is going to create more wealth? The first situation is what lead to American slavery. You had people from Europe claiming huge tracts of land in the "new world", but with only their own two hands there was only the potential for wealth, because you can't escape the economic reality: Wealth is the extraction and transformation of a raw material into a marketable commodity. That requires work. No way around it. Even the basic act of extracting raw materials takes work. The only real way to get something for nothing is if you just stumble upon some gold or diamonds just sitting on the ground somewhere. Minimal work required there, but otherwise its going to require some labor to become wealthy. You also have to realize the hierarchy of needs. In the larger scheme of things, those well paid professional jobs are the first on the chopping block. Which is more essential to survival, a marketing director, or a guy who picks crops? You know the answer, we can't eat marketing campaigns. If you had to pick a team to survive out in the wild, would you take a guy who knows how to pick food and build shelter, or a guy that can whip up a glossy ad campaign? The marketing guy might turn out to be one heck of a survivalist, but what I'm trying to say is that sometimes we fail to recognize that the skills needed to become rich and successful in this society are very much geared to a very specific time and place. Given different circumstances there might be a completely different set of winners and losers. The very existence of a well paid, highly skilled professional class of people is very dependent on ample (even excess) supplies of food, water, shelter etc... Which leads to my next point. Wealth loses its value pretty quick if it can't be used. The reason we seek wealth is for the material goods and services that it buys for us. If I had millions of dollars I could buy nice cars, take long trips, build a fancy house and deck it out in the latest in technological goodies, among other things. But all that is very dependent on workers who make cars, workers who build houses, workers who pilot planes and workers who put together all those tech goodies. Without that infrastructure of working people wealth becomes less valuable. If in Boortz's world a huge tidal wave comes and washes away everyone but a small group of wealthy people who were herded up to the highest mountain tops for safety, they could stand there and wave their money all day long, but unless someone wants to start working not much is going to get done. His assumption, which is flat wrong in my opinion, is that we live in a society that rewards hard work with wealth and punishes sloth with poverty, and that there is a direct correlation between a person's net worth and their work ethic. I feel this confuses an economic argument for a moral one. I've known many hard working people that never get rich, and we've witnessed many rich people that posses none of the virtues that we claim to value. While there might be a correlation between wealth and work ethic, its by no means a strong one. The mythology that we accept in this country is useful for many reasons. By devaluing the worth of essential work we can get people to perform those tasks for little compensation, without this work we would all starve and have nothing. If we can get the working class to create wealth with little to no compensation it leaves more for the rest of us; a very desirable thing in a profit driven society. By assigning moral values to the type of work a person performs we can justify low wages for what we call menial labor and defend inequality in a society. Boortz's comments were based on the conventional wisdom among most conservatives. Which explains why conservatives have such problems with immigration issues. On one hand they have the undesirables that they want to keep out of the country, but on the hand, the corporate funders realize the value of an influx of cheap labor. Just consider that. | 10.13.2005
Rob says: But it’s more than aesthetics; environmental infrastructure also has a cost component. The millions it would have cost to preserve the wetlands and bayous of coastal Louisiana would have been repaid a hundred-fold for their value in mitigating the damage of Hurricane Katrina. Stricter building codes and land-use regulations could have reduced the death toll from the Kashmir earthquake and other disasters that strike the Third World by orders of magnitude. The future economic prospects of large tracts of the industrialized Third World, including China, Russia, India and Brazil, are clouded by the environmental blight of poorly-regulated manufacturing and extraction industries. The list goes on. In fact, nearly every aspect of environmental regulation can be shown to have a strong economic justification that redounds to American competitiveness and outweighs its short-term costs. wow, I was actually just thinking about this very thing today. Here in the States we seem to take it for granted that the effects of large scale disasters will be moderated by the technology and regulations that we've put in place. We take the stance that preventative measures should be taken to prevent large scale death. Here in Tulsa we've taken steps to prevent flooding. In the 80's we had some serious flooding probems and the city took pains to address these problems. From the City of Tulsa website: Tulsa's flooding problems also mirror many other towns. Our community was founded a hundred years ago on a major river and has a long history of floods, compounded by post-war growth, floodplain development, and frequent rainstorms. I remember the 1984 flood. I also recall how the city decided to built a bunch of new parks and flood management areas to try to prevent another flood like that again. And that, is the difference between good governance and no governance. I seriously doubt that the private sector would have been able to address such a large issue. Traditionally, this supporting role by government in dealing with larger community issues has been beneficial to the American economy. Effective action by the part of our leaders can mean reduced cost of doing business and greater opportunites for small businesses. The anti-government movement would like us to believe that ineffective leadership means we should simply throw up our hands, demand our money back and hope for the best. That, is not a good idea. | Kevin, a commenter at Streak's Blog recently made this comment:: "Christianity (real Christianity - not the domesticated, ideological brand touted by the Religious Right, which is not Christianity at all) for all it's historic and contemporary flaws, has, at its core, a fundamental love for the world and has, on the whole, been a force for good in the world." Which illicited a few thoughts. 1) Christianity, of the variety that is practiced by Streak and Kevin is in the minority amongst religious believers. There are, in fact, many christians in the world that are tolerant of other faiths, respectful of other people's rights and mindful of their place in this world, but the trend seems to tilt in the other direction. Reading through their remarks I can't help but feel that their Christian faith is just one of many factors that they consider when deciding what is right. While religious faith may be important, it never overrides common sense or other equally influential ideas. It is this moderation of faith, putting it on equal footing with other beliefs, that some religious people consider "lukewarm", or not sufficiently religious at all. Fundamentalism will always appeal to people that wish to ascend the pecking order of religiousity. 2) Christianity, as a religious faith, still suffers from the fundamental flaws of all religious faiths, in particular, a reliance on irrational beliefs. As long as a believer limits their willingness to believe in that which can neither be proven or seen to a basic belief in a divine entity, things can stay relatively sane. But all too often, once they've crossed that treshhold into accepting that which must be taken on faith, people can and will be manipulated into them believing a whole host of irrational things. Thus, religious faith becomes the small opening through which the larger institution of religion enters. In the modern age, it has been other institutions, government, law etc.. that has kept the more dangerous tendencies of religion in check. 3) Christianity is the dominant religious faith of most of the advanced countries in the world. But I have to wonder whether Christianity has been a contributer to modern progress, or whether it has benefited from merely being in the right place at the right time? Has Christianity been, in Kevin's words "a force for good" or has it just been less of an impedment than other religions? The religious right in America likes to argue that Christianity plays a crucial role in our society in terms of maintaining civility and morality; that without a strong Christian tradition a whole host of evils would pervade our culture. I wonder what a nation like Japan, with less than 1% Christian population, thinks of this argument? It would seem to me at least that Christinity has not ben the determinant factor in a country's success, other institutions, such as representative government, free markets, etc have been more influential by far. Just some thoughts. | 10.11.2005
Daily Kos: State of the Nation: Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) (from Roll Call) "'Democrats fell short in '02 and '04 because we didn't make a compelling case of how Republican policies have allowed American families to lose ground,' he said. 'We have to make that case.'" Nope. You lose because an army of paid shills sit around all day blaming everything on the Democrats. Our radio and TV friends tell us how Democrats will creep into our homes at night, turn ours wife/girlfriends into man-hating feminists, steal our guns, give our jobs to a dirty immigrants and stick us with a tax bill that will leave us penniless. "They will emasculate you!" Its an emotional argument; not one that can be easily countered with facts. Because let's face it, only the most brainwashed amongst us actually believe that George Bush is better suited to run this country than either Gore or Kerry. It was never an issue of competency. Bush had little to no credentials for running for President. And even aside from that, he never showed the capacity to figure it out on the job. He still hasn't done the legwork when it comes to talking about issues of the most pressing concern to Americans. Its all still talking points and scripted remarks. The Democrats have but a few chances to win this next election. The first depends on a complete and utter meltdown of the Not Democrat Party. This, it seems is the Democrat's best opportunity, as the Not Democrats play out their hand, showing us just how corrupt and wrongheaded they are on most issues of importance. We've elected a niwit and his band of corrupt businessmen to run our country, and the only thing keeping them in office is the illusion that the alternative would be much worse. They are working hard to prove to us that any alternative would be preferable. The second relies on the Democrats borrowing a page from the Not Democrat's playbook and running a campaign in 2008 that focuses heavily on character assassination and myth-building. Each party will focus their energies on making their candidate seem like the tough "You Can Trust Me!" man to beat. The Democrats will still gets their asses handed to them, because the Not Democrats simply have more shills on the payroll. Their only hope lies in a candidate that has enough personal charisma to deflect the inevitable "pointing and laughing" that will come his/her way. Right now I can't see how focusing on the issues will be a winning strategy for the Democrats. Its like always playing "paper" in a game of Rock Paper Scissors. The Not Democrats know how to beat that hand. They get their shills to attack the candidate's electibility and trustworthiness. No matter who the Democrats run, and no matter what issues they decide to bring forward, the Not Democrats will run the same strategy. | 10.07.2005
...is connected to a sewage, water and electrical system and accessible by well paved roads and bridges. Rob at Emphasis Added says this well: The current conservative position on most of those things seems to be that they’re not important problems. Indeed, a lot of conservative anger at Bush has less to do with his ham-fisted attempts to solve them with poorly-crafted, pork-larded and ill-conceived legislation, and more to do with his attempts to solve them at all. In the minds of hard-core corporate-Right libertarian fanatics, there is no such thing as the public good, and any attempt to solve public problems through collective investment is considered socialism. The right wing libertarian dream, in theory, looks like a hidden mountain refuge of utopian wealth, but in practice, looks more like the third world. People voting for Bush and the Not Democrats because they are for limited government and more personal freedom are a bit like people that would vote for a serial killer because they support population control. I can "sort of" see it, but there are better and more effective ways to go about it. I'm not against some ideas of limited government spending. Heck, everyone except the most hard core communists think that government should be limited in scope. That debate, which the right continues to argue with its myriad of phantom enemies, is over, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that we have to go the way of the poorest countries of the world who seem to perpetually suffer from bad governance. The real debate, which sensible people are having, is over how we should direct the formidable power of the government for the benefit of its citizens. The right lib's contribution? "Fuck the government!" That's why we ignore them. Companies that fail to invest - die, countries that fail to invest - fall behind. It really is that simple. Look at the rising powerhouses in Asia. While they are simultaneously opening up their economies, they are also spending vast amounts positioning their economies so that they can trample the shit out of America and other countries that are standing around trying to decide whether it would be ok to force our old people to eat dirt as they drive to Canada for drugs. There is a mantra amongst the right libs: "Government cannot create wealth". Which has always puzzled me, because I can't help but wonder just how much wealth has been created by the existence of the interstate highway system, or the internet, both creations of the federal government? Immense amounts of wealth have been created by individuals and companies through the use of public infrastructure, and to deny this is insane, but people still do it. Money spent wisely, and in the service of a overall goal, can be tremendously beneficial to a nation. Every leading economy of the world has a government that is active in economic matters. But somehow the debate has shifted from WHERE and HOW MUCH we should invest in our future, to WHETHER we should at all. And its not as if the people that are arguing for less government are actually getting what they want from the people they vote for. What they ARE getting is less government that benefits everyone, and the SAME AMOUNT of government that benefits the well connected. This spending, the corporate welfare system, is conveniently absent from the debate. I can truly understand why people would choose not to pay taxes when the government itself has turned its back on the task of public investment. Seriously, why pay for something that you're never going to get? We're in this weird place, where we still pay taxes, but it goes into the pockets of the well connected, our infrastructure is crumbling and in need of improvement, and we're starting to wonder why we even need to pay taxes at all. The corporate crony's answer is that we just need to pay less taxes and expect less from the government, but that we should still pay enough in so that the government that can line the pockets of its best donors. (That's where we're heading now!) So, we can either say "fuck it!", demand our money back and enjoy what we have until we sink into a third world mess, or we can demand that the money that we pay into the government gets used for the benefit of the people paying and not just for the benefit of the people who can afford to give to campaigns. So sure, money spent by the government may not be as powerful to an economy as private investment, but its just as silly to assume, as some do, that that money gets buried in a hole somewhere, lost forever. No, it usually goes into some worker's pocket, or to pay some company to perform a task. In turn that money goes back into the economy in the form of spent wages, or used by the company to pay its bills. | 10.06.2005
on the media: "The advertising of products, of course, is the real purpose of television. And it is difficult to overstate the extent to which modern pervasive electronic advertising has reshaped our society. In the 1950s, John Kenneth Galbraith first described the way in which advertising has altered the classical relationship by which supply and demand are balanced over time by the invisible hand of the marketplace. According to Galbraith, modern advertising campaigns were beginning to create high levels of demand for products that consumers never knew they wanted, much less needed. Try to imagine just for a second these words coming out of the mouth of our current president without the help of a speechwriter? Wouldn't it be nice to have a leader of this country that could talk about real issues with ideas actually formulated through his own thoughts? I think so. And of course it wasn't Bush who said the above, I'll leave you to discover the identity of the speaker by following the link. But needless to say, I seriously doubt that Bush, a product of this very dysfunctional system, could recognize the effect it is having on our society. Not only would Bush and his operatives not recognize this current distortion in communications as deleterious, he might even see it as advantageous to their cause. After all, in a medium wherein funding matters more than relevancy, a message that has very little grassroots support but offers tremendous benefits to people in power can easily be pushed to the forefront ahead of popular ideas that cannot find a suitable big money supporter. | 10.04.2005
 1:00 p.m - leave denver, co 6:00 p.m. - pass thru hays, ks 9:00 p.m. - pass thru wichita, ks midnight - pull into driveway, broken arrow, ok. the picture above gives you a pretty accurate idea of what you see for most of kansas; flat roads and signs preaching against abortion. for what its worth, i did what I could to depopulate the region of large juicy flying bugs. | the other night I was watching the chris mathews show and they had a poll that asked whether the republicans would lose control in the next election cycle. My answer, no. Why? Because of thinking like this: (from an anonymous post at Streak's Blog.) As a conservative who supports George Bush and Bill Bennett (whose comments were laughably taken out of context), I can tell you that my reasoning is that they are not Democrats, and thusly, not advocating collectivism. yes, indeed, the mind control is steep here. filthy rich republicans have spent loads of money making sure that you hear their message. And many have taken that message to heart. Democrats are evil and seek to make our dear democracy into a communist hellhole. is this true? ha... most laughable. The democrats are nothing more than a warmed-over version of the republicans with no connection to their real base. support for the iraq debacle? support for the bankruptcy bill? support for the GTA witch hunt? puhleeze!!! but, they're not nearly as corrupt as the not democrats. there's somwthing to be said about being incompetant. Just ask Tom Dely, who was indicted this week. about friggin' time! if you're reading this political blog, you shouldn't be surprised that delay is corrupt, it was simply a question of whether the not democrats would be wounded enough to be vulnerable? I guess so, but I still think enough people bamboozled by the not democrats media machine will turn out to elect god fearing not democrats in the next election. i wouldn't be nearly so cynical if it didn't work so well. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
