peristaltor: (Default)
You've probably heard the nugget going around lately that using your phone to search a quick tidbit of info uses enough electricity to power two refrigerators. Okay. First things first. Every time we hear a meme like this, I feel we should be immediately skeptical. Seriously, why do we as a species spread information we have not personally checked for accuracy?! Sadly, we do, so I suspect that we are just info spreaders by evolution. Sometimes, like a garden sprinkler snick-snick-snicking needed water onto a parched lawn, we spread good information; other times we spread the greenish-brown stuff that the enormous sprinklers used to spread on the pastures near my childhood home. (NB: I grew up next to a dairy farm.)

Let's look at what is being spread here. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Full disclosure: I don't have much of an opinion of Sam Harris. He had books. He was interviewed. I didn't read his work, I didn't listen to what he had to say. A lot of people were either enchanted with him or hated him. Whatever.

But now I learn he has a podcast. I've dipped a toe and heard a few. It's not bad. He's a bit arrogant, but if you're interesting, I can overlook that.

There is, however, a line between arrogant and insulting. And he crossed that.

I guess he interviewed this guy who gave his book a bad review. Again, I've read neither the book nor the review. I don't have a dog in this fight.

But he dredged up one of my most hated, condescending phrases. He told this guy, "Let me educate you." Oh, Harris, you fucking idiot.

It doesn't matter if you have greater knowledge that you could share. It doesn't matter if you teach a course on the topic, even. Unless the person to whom you are speaking approaches you and asks you to be a teacher, you cannot educate. You can only share, or inform. To assume that the person to whom you are speaking is a pupil is to demean that person, to belittle that person, to denigrate that person.

Not only that, in the podcast to which I've linked, he is actually defending his actions, reviewing an interview that he felt did not go so well. He actually played the section where he says "Let me educate you" as if he were unaware of what he was saying was so incredibly insulting. That shows a complete lack of awareness socially.

His interview guest, as everyone should expect, explodes. He's just been personally insulted.

And Harris discounts his reaction as childish.

Well, Sam, let me educate share with you a little something: You've just proven yourself worse than childish.
peristaltor: (Default)
Spent yesterday puttering about the yard listening, among other things, to Chris Martenson's Peak Prosperity podcast. In a recent one, he interviewed G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jeckyll Island. Despite the silly name, it has been cited by many in the "alternative" crowd as a major influence on them, especially those with a focus on finance's domination by private banking.

Full disclosure: they're right, at least about how finance has warped the public's understanding of banking. A lot of money has been spent covering up what banks actually do, probably because of the lesson provided by the Bank of North Dakota. If a State (or any other municipality, for that matter) can own a bank, cycling the profits involved in lending directly into the State itself, why would that municipality bother paying interest and fees to private entities? It's a good question, one a few here in Seattle are considering.

But never mind that. Let's get back to Griffin.

In the interview, he revealed something that should be better known considering Wikipedia:

Now, Wikipedia is fine on, I guess scientific information, or... Historical information. As long as it doesn’t impact on the control mechanism of this elite that we’re talking about....

Now, once you get into those areas, then Wikipedia becomes the lapdog of those forces. Because all of the major corporations, I think that’s fair to say. Have to admit though, I haven’t check all of the major corporations to see if this is true. But I believe it is, that all of the major corporations, especially those that are dealing with ideas and products that relate on this control mechanism.... I’m talking about money. I’m talking about healthcare and that kind of thing. They have full-time people contracted to monitor Wikipedia 24-7. There’s always somebody from those corporations watching it.

So, the minute any entry is made touching on their sphere of influence.... They immediately change it or correct it. And they have, because they have done that so often, and they’re paid to do it, so they can devote their lives to it. They move up in rank and become editors because they do spend time doing it. And they become the ones who are the gatekeepers for the information on Wikipedia.

(I emboldened and deleted removed Martenson's conversational noises.)

Conspiracy in private industry is not unknown, of course. What turned Griffin on to this, he says, was a whistle-blower, one who called him one day. She said,

"I’m an editor of Wikipedia."... She says, I don’t know if you know it or not, but we’ve become deeply involved in a controversy among the editors at Wikipedia. I said, really? Over what? She says, over you....

Me? Why me? She said, well, she said, we didn’t know anything about you, but we thought when we saw your biographical information, the way it was being changed, we thought it was curious. So, we started to look into it. And we thought that it was very biased on the part of a small group of other editors in our organization....

So, we started to challenge it. And she said, if you’re interested, she said, it’s all on the internet. Most people don’t know, but the challenging mechanism by which one editor challenges the other is all available if you know the codes to get into the back room.... So, she gave me the codes. And my gosh, this is a roaring fight going on.... It was like a cat and dog fight over me.

I thought, well, that’s interesting. So, anyway, they fight, she lost the battle. She and her friend were told that if they didn’t drop this line of argument, they would no longer be qualified as editors.

(I did it... again.)

This fact that there are professionals out there who do nothing but scrub new media for the benefit of their employers should come as no surprise to anyone. That these industries can afford enough people to do the job that they insinuate themselves into that new media, also not surprising. Where billions of dollars are at stake, a few tens of thousands a year makes for a worthy hedge investment.

And so, today, we have Griffin's name somewhat tarnished with the following: "G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, author, lecturer, and filmmaker." And indeed, given the bulk of his views, I would say that this description seems accurate.

For even though he is absolutely correct in describing the Federal Reserve's function, those other items of his interest? Holy crap. HIV/AIDS denial? Climate Change denial?! What the flying fuck?

And that got me to thinking. He has experienced a life changing event few get even close to witnessing: the discovery of a for-realz practice that, if broadened beyond private industry, could do wonders for our civilization.

And the blow back he got from the literally vested interests must have put the whammy-jammy on his brain, perhaps causing him to see conspiracy freakin' everywhere.

I must say, though, the interview was entertaining in Martenson's response to some of Griffin's nonsense. When he came out and started ticking off the Climate Change Denial talking points, Martenson, a phD scientist himself, got very polite. I like what commenter ParaDime had to say:

Griffin appears to be in the global warming skeptic camp. Chris handled this part of the interview in a gentle way, but did gingerly probe at the possibility that "faith-based skepticism" (my words, not his) might be putting in an appearance.

peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
I've been through a few presidential cycles in my cycles around the sun. Not as much as many, but more than a few. I know there are differences and similarities in each. But this time, this time feels ... different.

Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
I'll be the first to admit that most primary and even secondary educations are inadequate. No, scratch that: they are adequate for most things; for some things, they completely miss the point, because to come to the point they would have to address uncomfortable facts and what school wants to deal with uncomfortable stuff? That's just unnecessary.

So in school I learned almost nothing about Vietnam—how it started, reasons the country was even involved—even though many of my classmates had fathers and uncles still deployed there. We learned of old wars, and of course of the big one, WWII; but teachers shied away from even mentioning 'Nam, lest some student go home and mention the mention, leading to a shitstorm from one side of the kerfuffle or the other.

It turns out one of the biggest taboos of our history went back a bit farther to the Civil War. And these taboos, according to a fascinating article, regard the Dark Period after the Confederate Surrender, specifically how this period leads to, of all things, the Tea Party.To the Dark Age! )

X-Posted to [ profile] liberal.
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
Every time a shooter pulls a gun nowadays and uses it with lethal force, donations to political organizations dedicated to restricting firearms in some way skyrocket. No one can blame the donors; they see an out-of-control situation and seek a means to staunch the bloodshed.

Here's the kicker, though: after each of these incidents, donations to the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations also spikes. The reason is fairly simple. If the gun restriction crowd gets its way, the lifestyle of the gun rights crowd might well go away, no matter what positive benefit to society the restriction on guns might have. Which leads to the real split, as author Dan Baum puts it:

Data bout the effects of gun-control measures could be compared and contrasted. When it came to whether restrictive gun laws did good or did harm, reasonable people could disagree.

Finding reasonable people was the problem.

(Dan Baum, Gun Guys, Borzoi Books, 2013, p. 205.)

My point here is not to debate the rise or fall in gun-related violence, though, but to note that any rise in violence should be noted with equal focus. Which leads me to last Monday. )

X-Posted to [ profile] talk_politics.
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
Okay, folks, you want political correctness*? I've got political correctness.

You've undoubtedly seen this, haven't you? Good. Everyone now knows that this icon is a symbol designated by the international community to indicate wheelchair accessability (as defined by international parameters). Internationally recognized iconography is, in my most un-humble opinion, of paramount importance for encouraging the exchange of people and their ideas across the face of this fine oblate spheriod.

Others are not so certain. )

*"Political Correctness" is an oxymoron. A "political" decision is necessarily a compromise between opposing points of interest and involvement in any given subject, while a "correct" decision can only be accurate, not accommodating.

X-Posted to [ profile] talk_politics.
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
The sheer silliness of even casting a shadow of a glimmer of a sliver of blame on the Democratic Party members in Congress regarding this shutdown thing is laughable enough. There is more than enough evidence that the Tea Party has run with this ball all the way. I won't bother recounting it here.

What I found interesting was a very conservative political person suggesting why default may be the ultimate aim, not a stated consequence. Regarding the debt:

What I don’t think [the Obama administration and those on Wall Street] understand is that there has been a movement under way for some years among right-wing economists and activists not merely to default on the debt, but even to repudiate it.

Those making this argument are largely unknown to professional economists and journalists, but their research permeates the obscure Web sites where Tea Party members get their ideas. And not all are obscure.

As with most weirdnesses in our country, much of this can be traced back to the Civil War. )

X-Posted to [ profile] talk_politics.
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
Over five years ago, I wrote an LJ entry provocatively titled "The Hate Comes First". The title came from an article that I quoted regarding the psychological phenomenon called "splitting." Shall we review? )

I may have found some answers to why I feel the way I do and, perhaps more importantly, why others just a few years older than me feel the way they do. Ah, but that will have to wait for another rambling of mine at a later date.

X-Posted to [ profile] talk_politics.
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
I don't feel like thinking too hard today, so instead I'll make and defend a simple observation: Today's conservative politicians rely overly-much on visceral topics instead of intellectual arguments in order to attract the undying support of those who hold those emotional trip wires tautly. In other words, modern conservative activists and many of the elected representatives that respond to them have developed a vocabulary of dog-whistle scare tactics to simultaneously frighten their base and thus shore up support by promising to, if elected, curb the scary and icky.

Ooga booga! Scary ahead! )

X-Posted to [ profile] talk_politics.
peristaltor: (The Captain's Prop)
Just caught an episode of This American Life called "Unfit For Work: The Startling Rise Of Disability In America". It turns out those on disability don't get counted on the unemployment roles (since, of course, they are classed as unable to work). It gets interesting! )

X-posted to [ profile] talk_politics.
peristaltor: (Default)
Really, Gov. Huckabee?

David Barton introduced Mike Huckabee at the Rediscover God In America conference, praising him as the epitome of the "Black Robe Regiment" mentality of seeking to apply the Bible to every aspect of the culture.

Huckabee, in turn, repaid the compliments to Barton, calling him one of the most effective communicators in America and wishing that every American would be forced, at gunpoint, to listen to every Barton broadcast.

Mike Huckabee has a good sense of humor, one I appreciate; but really, Mike, some jokes just shouldn't be made, ever.


Such statements put us right back into "Second Amendment remedies" territory, once again raising fears that someone will indeed find a gun and a video of Mr. Barton and take care of business. Is there any wonder -- any at all -- the non-religious are feeling targeted lately?

Finder credit to [ profile] pure_agnostic.

peristaltor: (Default)
Just came across this disturbing but hardly surprising article about a religious effort to politicize evangelical pastors:

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — Hundreds of conservative pastors in Iowa received the enticing invitation. Signed by Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and 2008 presidential contender, it invited the pastors and their spouses to an expenses-paid, two-day Pastors’ Policy Briefing at a Sheraton hotel.

Nearly 400 Iowa ministers and many of their spouses accepted, filling a ballroom here on March 24 and 25. Through an evening banquet and long sessions, they heard speakers deplore a secular assault on evangelical Christian verities like the sanctity of male-female marriage, the humanity of the unborn and the divine right to limited government.

That last sentence, of course, is rife with irony, perhaps even an irony intended by the reporter. How can the "limited government" to which we seem to have a right enforce both sanctity on marriage standards and unborn humanity? Wouldn't such a limited government avoid such personal life meddling?

What got me, though, was not the standard tropes trotted out by the un-Christian right (as judged by comparing their message to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament). No, I found a little detail buried near the end far more disturbing:

The audience heard how to push their flocks to register and vote along “biblical principles” without running afoul of tax laws against endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

(I testified boldly.)

This, folks, is how Dubya got to be president for two terms. (The probable election shenanigans and the Supreme Court didn't help, I know.) I remember flipping through the channels and seeing mega-church pastors imploring their flock to avoid the sins of the homos and the baby killers by electing the "right" candidates. Not a word about giving your money to the poor. No mention of the Good Samaritan or how to treat the least amongst you.

And since these seminars are all-expense paid, this single example points out the danger of letting money coagulate in high places where it can be used as it is here, to perpetuate the further future coagulation of wealth far from where Jesus himself would recommended it should go.
peristaltor: (Default)
Last week I mentioned UW-Madison Professor Cronon's seeming harassment by the state's Republican party. Today, UW-Madison announced it would comply with the request . . . with, of course, some caveats:

We are excluding records involving students because they are protected under FERPA. We are excluding exchanges that fall outside the realm of the faculty member's job responsibilities and that could be considered personal pursuant to Wisconsin Supreme Court case law. We are also excluding what we consider to be the private email exchanges among scholars that fall within the orbit of academic freedom and all that is entailed by it.

So, no emails a college professor might have on his system that include exchanges with students or other professors or researchers, and no non-relevant private exchanges. I wonder how much is left. Enough, it seems, for the author of this memo to point out:

We have dutifully reviewed Professor Cronon's records for any legal or policy violations, such as improper uses of state or university resources for partisan political activity. There are none.

Furthermore, the Chancellor felt the need to point out that no one at the university should feel their correspondence could be made public:

Without a zone of privacy within which to conduct and protect their work, scholars would not be able to produce new knowledge or make life-enhancing discoveries. Lively, even heated and acrimonious debates over policy, campus and otherwise, as well as more narrowly defined disciplinary matters are essential elements of an intellectual environment and such debates are the very definition of the Wisconsin Idea.

When faculty members use email or any other medium to develop and share their thoughts with one another, they must be able to assume a right to the privacy of those exchanges, barring violations of state law or university policy. Having every exchange of ideas subject to public exposure puts academic freedom in peril and threatens the processes by which knowledge is created. The consequence for our state will be the loss of the most talented and creative faculty who will choose to leave for universities where collegial exchange and the development of ideas can be undertaken without fear of premature exposure or reprisal for unpopular positions.

So, Republicans, feel free to suck on that.
peristaltor: (Default)
By now, you've probably heard about the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a group founded in 1973 that helps conservative legislators with pre-drafted legislation they can handily introduce into their houses and senates. It seems ALEC drafted the anti-collective bargaining bills in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio, and had a hand in the 2010 anti-immigration law in Arizona. This is exactly the kind of organization I described in Confused on the Left, Blinded by the Right (Part II, Blinded) over a year and a half ago, and contains many of the same characters. ALEC was, after all, founded by Paul Weyrich, the same fellow that founded the Heritage Foundation (and in the same year).

I mention ALEC because ALEC's little droogies in office in Wisconsin are unhappy about Professor Cronon's guide to the organization and his New York Times history of conservative politics through the ages. In response -- and most likely in retaliation -- they have started legal proceedings to obtain all of his (pertinent) emails that happen to use his UW-Madison email address. The professor explains:

My little ALEC study guide succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Within two days, the blog had received over half a million hits, had been read by tens of thousands of people, had been linked by newspapers all over the United States, and had been visited by people from more than two dozen foreign countries. . . .

What I did not anticipate—though I guess I should have seen it coming, given everything else that has happened in Wisconsin over the past couple months—was the communication that the University of Wisconsin-Madison received on Thursday afternoon, March 17—less than two days after I posted my blog—formally requesting under the state’s Open Records Law copies of all emails sent from or received by my University of Wisconsin—Madison email address pertaining to matters raised in my blog.

The professor has good reasons not to release everything the Wisconsin Republican Party wants, reasons like student and professional confidentiality. The courts should definitely weigh in on which emails seem even pertinent to the file request . . . or even whether the file request is a legitimate use of the Open Records Law. He points out, though, that this is not really the main point:

It doesn’t take a great leap of logic to infer that Mr. Thompson and his colleagues aren’t particularly eager to have a state university professor asking awkward questions about the dealings of state Republicans with the American Legislative Exchange Council. This open records request apparently seemed to Mr. Thompson to be a good way to discourage me from sticking my nose in places he doesn’t think it belongs.

I confess that I’m surprised to find myself in this strange position, since (as I said in my earlier blog post) my professional interest as a historian has always been to research and understand the full spectrum of American political opinion. I often spend as much time defending Republican and conservative points of view to my liberal friends as vice versa. (For what it’s worth, I have never belonged to either party.) But Mr. Thompson obviously read my blog post as an all-out attack on the interests of his party, and his open records request seems designed to give him what he hopes will be ammunition he can use to embarrass, undermine, and ultimately silence me.

One obvious conclusion I draw is that my study guide about the role of ALEC in Wisconsin politics must come pretty close to hitting a bull’s-eye. Why else would the Republican Party of Wisconsin feel the need to single out a lone university professor for such uncomfortable attention?

The professor's posts are long, but well worth the read. I hope to read or hear of this in my local main-stream media news, but in the meantime I'll not be holding my breath.

Kerfuffle via Pharyngula.
peristaltor: (Default)
By now, everyone has heard about what is happening seemingly all at once in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. Republican governors are trying to ram "emergency" legislation through their senates and houses that would strip the most robust union demographic, public employees, of their collective bargaining rights.

Here's a question: Why now?

I haven't seen this point raised by anyone, but I think it has everything -- and I mean everything -- to do with the baby boom generation.

Hear me out. )

X-posted to [ profile] the_recession.
peristaltor: (Default)
I'm not one to harp in endless postings about the political and the current, but this Tuscon shooting and the froth and blather it has prompted is lacking, as far as I can tell, in one telling literary parallel. So far, no one in the mainstream media has compared Jarod Loughner to Lord Exton from William Shakespeare's Richard II.

Oh, damn it, not a Shakespeare post! What has he got to do with those of us who speak English?!? )
peristaltor: (Default)
One of the most underrated Heinlein novels, Podkayne of Mars, had a brief interaction with a character that perfectly described the role of politicians. They talk and talk, yes, but that's their job: when people stop talking to each other, they start shooting.

That italicized proviso proves critical. People who agree with each other talk to each other all the time. When they stop talking to people with whom they have disagreements and divergence in philosophies and world views, the character notes, things turn ugly.

This has happened. Hate speech is rampant. Outright falsehoods are spewed as fact. I'm sorry, folks, but if what you fervently believe is demonstrably incorrect, you fail, and get to be quiet for a while. Ridicule should be reserved for people who act in ways unsupported by reality.

Ridicule. Humor. Not the language of eliminationism, as Dave Neiwert points out

The critical components that distinguish irresponsible free speech from responsible are interworking pieces: whether it is intended to harm by scapegoating or demonizing, and whether or not it is provably false. . . .

This is true of so much far-right wingnuttery -- the "Birther" conspiracy theories, the FEMA-camp claims, the "constitutionalist" theories about taxation and the Federal Reserve, to list just a few examples -- and yet people believe them anyway.

This rhetoric also acts as a kind of wedge between the people who absorb it and the real world. There is always a kind of cognitive dissonance that arises from believing things that are provably untrue, and people who begin to fanatically cling to beliefs that do not comport with reality find themselves increasingly willing to buy into other similarly unhinged beliefs. For those who are already unhinged, the effects are particularly toxic.

(I emphasized that bit.)

And I emphasized it for a reason: I personally suspect that this rhetoric is deliberate, and that this Arizona shooting is the intended result. The rhetoric is simply too stark to be mistaken for anything but a call to action:

An actual Palin web graphic, since removed.
Note the fourth target name in the left column.

You can see other examples here.

The hate speakers can distance themselves from these incidents all they want, but it won't wash for me. Whoever shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater is responsible for those trampled near the exits.
peristaltor: (Default)
In my very early twenties -- the first year, in fact -- I was (as they say in the vernacular) shooting the shit with a friend over cheap beers. (Muscles, if you're curious, [ profile] bleaknemesis, and near the Sprinker Rock.) My friend had made a tired joke. Though I try to avoid tired jokes myself, it was giddy enough or late enough or I had consumed beers enough to respond with a tired reply to a tired joke. I said, "That's as old as my grandma, and she farts dust." Wracking my brains, it might have been the second or third time in my life I used that line. For reasons that should become clear, it was definitely the last.

My friend responded with some correction. "Parts the dust," he said.


"My grandma parts the dust. That's the saying."

This was getting a bit bizarre, even for me. I repeated with greater emphasis, "What?!?"

My friend explained, as if to a child, "That's as old as my grandma, and she parts the dust."

If I recall correctly, I just stared. If grandma is dead, he reasoned, her body would lie in the ground, thus separating, or parting, the dust. The comeback was therefore a poetic reference to age as represented by death and burial.

I sincerely expressed my reservations about the veracity of his correction. The expression refers to a woman so old that she passes not gas but, well, dust. I asked him where he got his version.

Now less sure of himself, he explained that he had heard that rejoinder when he was about six from a slightly older kid, probably nine years of age. As a quirky six-year-old, he completely debunked his later nickname of Muscles by trying to reconstruct a mis-heard juvenile rejoinder with one fraught with poetic and philosophical imagery.

I was by this time more than a bit incredulous. Using again the vernacular, I called bullshit. While possibly true, I explained, how many nine-year-olds reflect on the cycles of life and death with enough mental reflection and depth to poetically remember, let alone create, such a non-childish return? I then imitated said juvenile, intoning with a sniveling whine the first "That's as old as my grandma," then deepening my voice into a Shakespearean basso profundo and raising a Yoric-skull-holding claw for the final "and she . . . parts . . . the dust."

Muscles had to accept the likelihood of my explanation. In fact, I think my explanation caused him to briefly and sharply snort Rainier through his nose.

So what does Muscle's brainy reconstruction of a witticism have to do with reality? )
peristaltor: (Default)
The comic? The watermelon smashing guy who liked props? Ever wonder what happened to him?

The answer might not amuse you at all. He's become a right-wing nut job. An angry, racist, homophobic, hate-spewing asshole, from the look of it. Check out this review of a recent live show -- and I apologize in advance about his words, but they must be read to be appreciated for the dip-shittery they represent:

Gallagher is upset about a lot of things. Young people with their sagging pants (in faintly coded racist terms, he explains that this is why the jails are overcrowded—because "their" baggy pants make it too hard for "them" to run from the cops). Tattoos: "That ink goes through to your soul—if you read your Bible, your body is a sacred temple, YOU DIPSHIT." People naming their girl-children Sam and Toni instead of acceptable names like Evelyn and Betty: "Just give her some little lesbian tendencies!" Guantánamo Bay: "We weren't even allowed to torture all the way. We had to half-torture—that's nothin' compared to what Saddam and his two sons OOFAY and GOOFAY did." Lesbians: "There's two types—the ugly ones and the pretty ones." (Um, like all people?) Obama again: "If Obama was really black, he'd act like a black guy and get a white wife." Michael Vick: "Poor Michael Vick." Women's lib: "These women told you they wanna be equal—they DON'T." Trans people: "People like Cher's daughter—figure that out. She wants a penis, but she has a big belly. If you can't see your dick, you don't get one." The Rice Krispies elves: "All three of those guys are gay. Look at 'em!" The Mexicans: "Look around—see any Mexicans? Nope. They'll be here later for the cleanup." The French: "They ruin our language with their faggy words."

Just fucking sad. Worse, he appears a bit megolomaniacal about his slide into obscurity:

"This is why I'm not on TV," he keeps repeating. "I am powerful. They can tell. I'm an American and I'm gonna speak my mind." He tells the truth, the truth, the truth, the truth, and everyone else is afraid.

Or disgusted. It could be just disgust. It really could, Mr. G. It really could just be.


peristaltor: (Default)

July 2017

2 345678
91011 12131415


RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 02:31 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios