This chick is on fire.

All she says is the obvious. But noting the obvious seems verbotten for our "smart, tough" press corps.

Note the liberal douchebag responds to her criticism by confirming it down the line. She says we're not talking about the national security question, choosing instead to carry liberals' water in Bush-bashing, he immediately chimes in with a single-minded devotion to Bush-bashing.

Note she wasn't defending Bush. She was saying the press corps seems concerned with doing an end-zone celebration around Bush's lifeless, sacked body to the exclusion of all else. And he immediately offers a modified Icky Shuffle.

Some of us want to beat Al Qaeda first and foremost. Some of us want to beat Republicans first and foremost. So they can respond proudly when their children ask, "Daddy, what did you do in the War Against Bush?"

Our "serious" press corps of "experts without portfolio" in action.

You want to write dozens of stories on Bush the Fuck-Up? Fine. How about an occasional story about the actual war itself, and the consequences of losing it?

Nah. That would be "carrying Bush's water."

No problem with carrying Nancy Pelosi's, though.

Nuance.

Headline Change: Changed it so you nitwits wouldn't just keep commenting on whether you'd tap that or not.

Posted by: Ace at 05:29 PM | Comments (249)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny, and yet sad. But mostly fuckin' funny.

The members of this confessional "club" are not your usual victims. This isn't a group for alcoholics, drug addicts or survivors of childhood abuse; the people connecting on the call are self-described victims of mind control -- people who believe they have been targeted by a secret government program that tracks them around the clock, using technology to probe and control their minds.

The callers frequently refer to themselves as TIs, which is short for Targeted Individuals, and talk about V2K -- the official military abbreviation stands for "voice to skull" and denotes weapons that beam voices or sounds into the head. In their esoteric lexicon, "gang stalking" refers to the belief that they are being followed and harassed: by neighbors, strangers or colleagues who are agents for the government.

THE IDEA OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE CONVINCED THEY ARE TARGETED BY WEAPONS that can invade their minds has become a cultural joke, shorthanded by the image of solitary lunatics wearing tinfoil hats to deflect invisible mind beams. "Tinfoil hat," says Wikipedia, has become "a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and is associated with conspiracy theorists."

In 2005, a group of MIT students conducted a formal study using aluminum foil and radio signals. Their surprising finding: Tinfoil hats may actually amplify radio frequency signals. Of course, the tech students meant the study as a joke.

But during the Saturday conference call, the subject of aluminum foil is deadly serious. The MIT study had prompted renewed debate; while a few TIs realized it was a joke at their expense, some saw the findings as an explanation for why tinfoil didn't seem to stop the voices. Others vouched for the material.

"Tinfoil helps tremendously," reports one conference call participant, who describes wrapping it around her body underneath her clothing.

"Where do you put the tinfoil?" a man asks.

"Anywhere, everywhere," she replies. "I even put it in a hat."

A TI in an online mind-control forum recommends a Web site called "Block EMF" (as in electromagnetic frequencies), which advertises a full line of clothing, including aluminum-lined boxer shorts described as a "sheer, comfortable undergarment you can wear over your regular one to shield yourself from power lines and computer electric fields, and microwave, radar, and TV radiation." Similarly, a tinfoil hat disguised as a regular baseball cap is "smart and subtle."

Can you think of any politician so dependent on support from the certifiably-schizophrenic fringe as to be willing to actually pander to them by proposing federal legislation to stop "V2K" mindweapons?

Sure you can.

The biggest hurdle for TIs is getting people to take their concerns seriously. A proposal made in 2001 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to ban "psychotronic weapons" (another common term for mind-control technology) was hailed by TIs as a great step forward. But the bill was widely derided by bloggers and columnists and quickly dropped.

You, Sir, are a goofball.

Thanks to Jack M.'s new blog, All You Need Is Jack.

That Website: Is just www.blockemf.com.

Here's the "RF Safe Baseball cap." I don't see the "smart and subtle" quote, maybe it's elsewhere.

Fifty smackers.

Guys, I have a business proposition for you...

Sick... Just thinking about how wildly insane, or wildly cynical, Dennis Kucinich would have to be to deliberately reinforce the delusions of the mentally ill.

Conference call moderator Robinson, who says his gang stalking began when he worked at the National Security Agency in the 1980s, offers his assessment of the group's prospects: Maybe this rally wouldn't produce much press, but it's a first step. "I see this as a movement," he says. "We're picking up people all the time."

I'll bet.

Thanks, Dennis!

Posted by: Ace at 04:24 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 645 words, total size 4 kb.

Hollywood and left-wing university types are to blame for Muslim rage and, therefore, 9/11.

It's somewhat unfair to deem a book a cynical attempt at troglodytic pandering without reading it, but I'm comfortable making that call.

D'Souza's thesis is really no different than lefties who claim we must bow and prostrate to Allah -- and oh yeah, let the Muslims kill six million more Jews while we're at it -- and subcontract our foreign policy to Islamists in the interests of "peace."

I also would prefer not to submit our culture to a Wahabbist ratings board for their approval.

I would prefer, strangely enough, to get to choose to make these decisions on my own, in consultation with my fellow Americans, and not really give a wet shit about what some primitive screwhead in Ridyah thinks about it.

I may not like a lot of Hollywood types or university pinheads, but they're my fellow countrymen, and if there's a correction to be made in our culture, we Americans will do so ourselves, thank you very much. I don't like the implication that our culture, as vapid and boorish as it frequently may be, should be modified to appease the Mullahs.

We Ourselves. Who knew at this point we'd have to begin using Sinn Fein slogans to remind ourselves of the virtue of self-determination? I'd rather that decisions about this country be made by Americans, voluntarily, without the coercion of a scimitar at our throats.

Thanks to Instapundit.

An Overdetermined Impulse To Commit Mass-Murder: Entropy thinks that cultural depravity does at least encourage radical Muslim rage, and Bob notes that Abu Ghraib incensed radical Muslims as an example of a Western sin that created more terrorism.

Fair enough.

But I tthink the key word in this discussion is "overdetermined:"

Main Entry: over·de·ter·mined

Pronunciation: -di-'t&r-m&nd

Function: adjective

1 : excessively determined

2 : having more than one determining psychological factor

Is it true that radical Muslims don't like the fact that the west is awash in pornography and loose women? Sure. Does anyone believe if we suddenly became puritans they would stop committing acts of terrorism?

Doubtful, especially given their preferred response to porn and revealing clothing is to commit gang rape on a mass scale.

Were the cultures reversed in terms of sexual modesty -- the West, more puritan, the Muslim world, showing lots of skin (as Allah believes a man should be able to see the goods before he purchases) -- does anyone doubt radical Islamists would be incensed by the fact we cover women up?

Sexual excess makes Islamicists want to kill Christians and Jews (and Hindus, and Buddhists, and atheists, and insufficiently strident Muslims). Here's an incomplete list of other things that make Islamists want to kill:

"Fighting terrorism"

"Not fighting terrorism"

Captialism

Democracy

Freedom

Rejecting Islamists' demands (makes them "angry")

Acceding to Islamists' demands (makes them believe we're weak, and makes them even more "angry" that we're not giving in to the rest)

and most importantly:

Western prosperity and success, which is, no matter how nice we try to be about it, an utter repudiation of "Allah's law" and "Allah's demand" that Muslims shall rule the world

Their religion dictates that Allah's servants impose Allah's will by force on the nonbelievers. So does the fundamental psychology of the Arab/Muslim world -- one of deep insecurity and feelings of inadequacy and relevancy. History has forgotten them, as they have made no technological, medical, social, etc. advances in a thousand years.

They can't cure polio, invent the Internet, or send men to the moon, but they can confirm their importance to themselves by murdering those who do such things. As the mighty west is forced to take account of them due to their barbarity, they "matter" in some way. They can write themselves into the history books only by making themselves a murderous nuisance to those about whom the history books are written.

So I think complaints like D'Souza's proceed from the wrong spirit. The only two ways to truly stop radical Islam is to totally capitulate to "Allah's will," or totally humiliate and defeat them by rejecting each and every demand they make.

Which of the Islamists' demands shall we accede to, and which shall we reject? They have quite a few, you know.

So I'm inclined to reject them all, out of hand, and even do the precise opposite.

As the American commander responded at the Battle of the Bulge when the Germans asked if he was prepared to surrender:

"Nuts."

Actually, he said "Fuck you." Which is the appropriate response here.

Posted by: Ace at 07:15 PM | Comments (163)
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm not calling them cowards because they won't support the war. They're liberals -- they don't believe in war. They believe in "aggressive, take-no-prisoners diplomacy."

I'm calling them moral cowards, consigning hundreds of men to die for a "lie," because they believe (they say) the war is unwinnable and yet will not actually act to spare any of these men.

They'd like Bush to do their cutting and running for them -- so they don't get blamed for a loss. But if Bush won't oblige them, well then, those several hundred new US casualties will just have to die for nothing at all in order to vindicate the greater cause of electing a Democratic president in '08.

Goldberg wrote about this last night.

Kristol today.

It's good to know that there are some causes Democrats are willing to see American soldiers die for.

Winning crucial wars isn't, alas, one of them.

It's breathtaking. They are accomplices in what they often kill the "murdering" of soldiers in order to prove they're "tough" on foreign policy.

Bush believes it's worth losing American lives to take a last stab at winning a vital war, the consequnces for the loss of which would be, it is nearly universally agreed, would be disasterous.

Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi believe it's worth losing American lives to better their chances of winning an election in 2008, the consequences for the loss of which would be, by their lights, personally and professionally disasterous.

Want to talk cowardice? Want to talk chickenhawk?

The Democrats are now actually trading American lives for votes.

The Democratic Party

No blood for oil. Blood for political positioning, however, seems a fair exchange.

Posted by: Ace at 06:35 PM | Comments (115)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

True enough, they can always make trouble again the moment they decide to (or, rather, their Iranian masters order them to).

But the fact that they're abandoning their black masks, their weapons, and their anti-US checkpoints, apparently by order of Maliki to knock off the shit, and also, perhaps, out of simple survival instict with 17,000 fresh US soldiers on the way, seems a step forward, and a tangible confidence-builder regarding Maliki's desire to, and ability to, act to reduce violence in Iraq.

Allah's got it in an update.

They're not surrendering, they're not disbanding, and they're not suddenly won over by the righteousness of the democratic cause. However, it does seem they are adjusting to new facts on the ground, and new boots too.

Posted by: Ace at 05:50 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

I didn't see this one coming.

Oh wait, yes I did, I've been saying it for years: The Sunnis are attacking the only military force in Iraq protecting them from an ethnic cleansing that might turn into a full-blown genocide.

Were saving the Sunnis the only thing we're fighting for in Iraq, I'd say: Pull up sticks and let them be slaughtered.

But it's not.

Kaus has slammed Andrew Sullivan for suggesting that a bloody cleansing of mass ethnic slaughter might be just what is needed to stabilize Iraq.

I don't think he should be mocked for this particular random thought popping into his thick skull. It may be true -- it has long been the case since the dawn of man that wars are only truly settled when death and misery of such horrific magnitude are inflicted on one (or both) sides as to provoke a true surrender and armistice.

However, I would also caution that we would probably like to avoid this outcome if possible.

Because a lot of bad will happen during this period of wondrously cleansing mass slaughter Andrew Sullivan now favors.

For one thing, Saudi Arabia will begin working more closely, and openly, with Al Qaeda to suppor their Sunni correligionists in the war. Iran of course will side with the Shias, and the Iraqi Shias will become a client of Iran, a pawn in their larger religious war.

So this mass slaughter will empower both Al Qaeda and Iran. Hardly an optimal outcome for the US.

True enough, the Al Qaeda supporting Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia and Iran will be fighting each other, which has an obvious upside. But they will be fighting each other in a proxy war, not in a true war. The battlefield will be Iraq and the combatants will be (largely) Iraqis. The damage to to the Saudi Arabian Al Qaeda faction and to Iran itself will be minimal. Perhaps it would spiral into a true shooting war between the two, but I doubt it (Muslims seem to prefer their wars to be conducted via terrorism, not full national total war), and, further, for those who clamor for "stability" -- well, it would be a very unstable situation.

Those who believe such an outcome is inevitable anyway -- truly inevitable, not a damn thing anyone could conceivably do about it -- may in good conscience agitate for an immediate and full withdrawal from Iraq. After all, if this terrible outcome is predestined anyhow, there's hardly any good reason to waste more American lives delaying the fated.

But I don't hear a lot of clamoring for immediate and full withdrawal and surrender from the actual Democratic politicians in positions of responsibility (and I use that term advisedly). They seem to favor a 4-6 month timetable for withdrawal. With all due respect -- why the delay? What will the troops be doing during this 4-6 month period? Patrolling? Hunting for Al Qaeda? Why? If it truly is inevitable we cannot stabilize Iraq, why on earth would a politician suggest we waste more American lives for up to a half a year for no reason?

But of course there is a reason-- a political one. Democrats do not want to be "blamed" for losing the war, for calling for immediate withdrawal and surrender, and so they refuse to follow the logical consequences of their claims. They're willing to see another 500 or 1000 Americans die in order to avoid paying any sort of political price in arranging the surrender in Iraq.

Now, to be sure, there is a political calculation in Bush's (and my) position as well: I'd like to try to actually win the war, and victory, if acheived, would indeed be helpful to "my side." So, to grudgingly examine my position (and Bush's) through a cynical lens, I too am willing to see American soldiers die for political purposes.

But the two positions are not quite equivalent. For, between victory and slow-motion surrender, only one of the two outcomes is actually in the national interest. In America's interest, you know, the American interest the rootin'-tootin' super-patriots of the left claim to cherish above all else.

If Democrats want to be grown ups on the war, then they should immediately attempt to cut off all funding for the war. If they truly believe it's unwinnable, and if they really care about the US troops they always claim to be so concerned about, what possible logic is there in keeping our boys in harm's way for another half-year?

What possible reason, apart from political advantage? This is how Barbara Boxer chooses to "speak truth to power" -- by demanding more US troops die in a cause she believes is hopeless, just so no mean conservatives can say she helped lose the war in her next election?

On the other hand, if the surge -- and surge strategy, which seems to be more of an aggressive, no-holds-barred, and no-excuses-from-Maliki strategy -- actually has a chance to work, it would, in fact, be worth paying an additional cost in lives, to redeem those lives already lost, and to prevent further loss of life in years to come.

Does the Democratic position -- "let more troops die for no reason, jus so we won't be left holding the bag" -- exchange any deaths to save any lives, apart from some Democrats' political lives?

I don't think so. I'd like Ultimate Warrior Glenn Greenwald and the rest of the Task Force Bravo Channel to explain to me how the Democrats' current symbolic concern for the lives of American soldiers is not a monstrously, well-nigh murderously cynical calculation.

Allah Points Out... That Greenwald and the rest of the soon-to-be-patrolling-Kandahar nutroots don't support a slow-motion surrender, but rather an immediate one. Well, of course I know that. I'm asking for them to call a spade a spade and condemn their craven Democrat leaders for being far more monstrously cynical, and far more blithely willing to kill more American soldiers, not in hopes of an American victory, but only in hopes for a Democratic victor in '08.

The email exchange, if you care:

Allah: I don't think Greenwald and co. support the Democratic position, though

that's the hole in the conclusion

me: no
but
neither are they willing to admit the monsrous cynicism of it
If bush is cynical for trying to win a war, what of Democrats trying to lose a war-- albeit over a course of six months with additional casualties?
do we need six months to surrender?

Can't we emulate the French and do this more speedily?

Allah: so your point is about phased withdrawal versus immediate withdrawal
6:53 PM me: yes, and it's about the Dems' willingness to sacrifice Americans for a cause they claim is lost, in order to aid a more importnat cause, i.e., winning the White house in 2008

Whereas Bush is willing to sacrifice Americans for a cause he doesn't believe is lost, and, if he turns out to be right, will in fact accrue to the American interest

The Fightin' Fightin' Nutroots of course doesn't want to fight in Iraq at all. Fair enough -- that's a permissible position (though, I think, influenced greatly by their desire that the US cannot be permitted to win in Iraq, because such a victory would aid Bush as well as the despised American militaristic bloodlust).

But fine.

But please explain what possible benefit the US gets out of following the mainline, compromise Democratic position and killing more US soldiers in a doomed cause.

It's rather obvious what good comes from a US victory, should such a thing be possible.

But what possible good does it do to waste more lives in a war you've already decided to abandon?

Greenwald and the rest of the leftwing CyOps brigade don't favor the slow-motion surrender, but they seem to be willing to acquiesce in additional unnecessary deaths so long as it gets them the prize, the repudiation of Bush and the repudiation of further uses of American military force.

Reality check: Whether we attempt to win this war, or go along with the Democrats 4-6 month slow-motion surrender, we have, at most, 4-6 months of active warfare remaining anyhow. The public will not permit any more warfare than that (except if the new plan actually shows some success, but in that case, the assumption underlying the calls for withdrawal -- "defeat is inevitable" -- will ahve been demonstrated to be false).

So it seems that we're all agreed we will spend 4-6 months in Iraq either way, 4-6 months of US troops in harm's way.

The only live question, it seems to me, is whether we will spend that 4-6 months, and the 500 or so American lives lost during that period, trying to win the war or simply playing the farce of Mystery Surrender Theater 3000.

Beth Asks:

1tk)
2 So, to grudgingly examine my position (and Bush's) through a cynical lens, I too am willing to see American soldiers die for political purposes.

OK, that's not really what you meant, is it?

I really couldn't care less about which political side "wins" the issue of Iraq. I want America to win, regardless of who sets the policy that enables victory (stability).

No, I meant to admit that I would benefit, in political terms, from a victory. I'm just trying to be upfront that I have an agenda here too that may influence my thinking. In noting that the other side had a vested political interest in failure, it would be willfully blind not to concede that I, too, have a vested political interest in victory.

Of course, my vested political interest happens to, felicitously enough, coincide with the American political interest.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 1646 words, total size 10 kb.

Bam!

One incident is particularly suggestive. By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one he was given in pencil on the back of the document. When one of them--No. 217--was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According to the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy "under his portfolio also." In other words, he stole the same document twice.

This gives the lie to Mr. Berger's story that he was taking the documents for his own convenience, to assist with his preparation for testimony to the commission. If that were the whole story, one copy of document 217 would surely have been sufficient. That document was an email pertaining to a draft of the Millennium After-Action Report on the attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. The episode suggests that Mr. Berger had some other motive for removing No. 217, even if he was ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. But neither his April 2005 plea agreement, nor the Congressional report, nor the report of the Archives' Inspector General shed any light on what that motive might have been.

And there's a bit more. But of course I've stolen the bestest part.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Various reactions at Durham in Wonderland, and lots of other stuff, like a Democratic (federal) congressman joining in the calls for a federal investigation into Nifong's possible criminal violations of the defendants' civil rights. Just keep scrolling.

Here's a further rundown of incongruities, inconsistencies, and impossibilities in the New Improved Testimony of the victim, including the oddity that, according to the new timeline, the victim was raped around 11:40 for a brief period but didn't get around to leaving the party until 12:45 or 12:50 (according to two witenesses, including a neighbor who despises the lacrosse player and the other dancer, and also, it seems, time-stamped photos).

And then she went back inside to fetch a lost shoe.

Sweet quote here:

Critics, such as Duke law professor James Coleman, said the new document was a blatant attempt to fix a flawed case and called for a criminal investigation of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his staff.

"Who would believe that a witness, nine months later, suddenly recalls facts that coincidentally negate evidence produced by the defense?" said Coleman, who led a Duke committee that investigated the lacrosse team's culture and has criticized Nifong's handling of the case for months.

"These people are almost criminal. It's making a mockery of the system. It's like Nifong is mooning the system. It's contemptuous."

The NYT includes this passage, which only seems to track in the minds of passionate liberals:

Mr. Nifong prided himself on integrity, having been a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, yet the laboratory directorÂ’s testimony and his acknowledgment of the error undercut his reputation.

Hmm. Maybe having been a conscientious objector isn't quite the guarantor of personal integrity that NYT reporters imagine it to be.

Wendy Murphy: Liar? I never had much of an opinion on the ubiquitous cable news go-to talking head for sex crimes. This post by DIW makes a pretty persuasive case that a supposed "expert" and licensed attorney who's supposed to be generally honest as regards the law and cases is simply making up an awful lot of "facts" out of whole cloth.

Speculation is one thing, but simply claiming "facts" which are demonstrably untrue is entirely another.

Wendy Murphy: Nifong Accomplice: Liestoppers rips a Wendy Murphy Op-Ed. Here, however, Murphy seems to have been correct.

Murphy: “For nine months, we've heard only from defense attorneys in the Duke case, and they've refused to release certain evidence."

The defense did not release all exonerating evidence, true enough. They held some things back.

Why?

Perhaps because they had a sneaking suspicion that if they offered more detailed evidence about proof of their actions and whereabouts that night, right down to the date-stamp, the "victim" and her coaches would create New Improved Testimony specifically to avoid those inconvenient facts.

And it's a good thing they did. The defense had offered evidence that Reade Seligmann had ATM receipts and time-stamped photos putting him out of the house at the time of the supposed rape. Shockingly, the New Improved Testimony now moves the rape's time around to avoid that exonerating evidence.

But the defense had held something back -- Seligmann has proof he was on the phone with his girlfriend during the night. At a time, it turns out, which the New Improved Testimony claims he was supposedly raping the "victim."

Does anyone doubt that if he had released this information earlier, the victim and her coaches/suborners would simply have constructed an adjusted timeline to have the rape ending mere minutes before this call?

Of course not. Anytime the defense makes public evidence like this, the prosecution just uses it as a jumping-off point to construct a new false timeline avoiding the times the defendants were provably unable to be participating in a rape.

It's an unending adjustment where the prosecution keeps saying, "Please tell me when it is not physically impossible for you to have conducted this rape. Oh? Five minutes between 11:50 and 11:55? Well then, that's when we're now saying the rape could have occurred. Wait-- you say you can prove one of the defendants wasn't there at 11:53? Oh, well then we meant the rape occurred for three minutes between 11:54 and 11:57."

With a different prosecutor, and a different "victim," maybe a defendant would feel more comfortable releasing all exonerating evidence right up front. Because a normal prosecutor and normal "victim" might have some shame about eternally revising their claims to avoid exonerating evidence.

But not these two. The claims will just keep shifting and changing and adapting to "new facts" up through the trial, or, more likely, the dismissal of all charges Tuesday afternoon.

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

I keep forgetting there's playoff football on Saturday. First game at 4 or so, so there's still time. Pool name hammerslice, password dickcheney.

Congrats to those who went 4-0 last week: mesablue, M'RoomTattoos (?), and, winning the points tiebreaker... me.

Whoops: Sorry, I had the link botched. It's at tailgatepools.com as usual.

Sorry.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Kind of an open thread format.

Another band of difficult weather is predicted for next week. When electrical losses and freezing temps coincide, we hear a lot of bad stories.

About people not venting their generators to the outdoors, for example. Or people bringing their Smoky Joe charcoal grill in the house for a little heat n' smoke poisoning.

There are some good techniques for making a Winter storm more tolerable, though. Good things to have on hand ahead of time. Ways to keep perishable food safe longer.

We generally keep a battery-powered radio and scanner at hand, lots of candles, a good powerful camp lantern, beer, three kinds of psychotropic drugs, and of course, Komodo Dragon venom and extra syringes.

I know to avoid opening the fridge or the cellar freezer to help keep the perishables cold, but really because the leftovers frighten me with their terrible gibberish-whispering.

In our suburban area, we haven't had any days- long outages in years and years. We don't have a generator. We're ill-prepared for a serious extended emergency. Particularly if we couldn't leave the house.

Please share your tips and suggestions.

Posted by: LauraW. at 09:19 AM | Comments (115)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.