My Photo

« Is This What They Call "Lacking Judicial Temperament"? | Main | Could It Be ... Satan??? »

April 29, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d834cbba0b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Everything They Touch Turns To Dross:

Comments

There are moments when mass violence seems very appealing. This is one of them. I'll remember, in due season, why I don't do it, or try to incite it, but it'll take some time. This is evil.

I'm getting more and more comfortable with the idea that the Executive Branch of our government, as we have known it, has largely ceased to exist under the Bush regime. The people who are being hired to fill vacancies in Executive departments are being hired to fulfill the main purpose of the Bush Administration, which is to increase the power of the Bush Administration. They're not being hired to actually do anything constructive.

Most if not all of the people who occupy offices, and who carry titles, in the Bush Administration have very little interest in carrying out the functions of their offices, since those functions are meaningful only to the extent that they allow them to keep up appearances. And with a populace as ignorant, and a press as craven, as ours, those appearances require almost no upkeep at all. Our government is basically being run by interns at this point.

The Bush Administration wins big, daily. They get to take care of their people with fancy job titles and perks, at the same time that the Governmental agencies they despise, which were put in place to serve people they despise, are being steadily, and ruthlessly, dismantled from within by those very political appointees. We are living through the reversal of the New Deal.

"(and yes, I know, Gary saw it first)"

Without a link, this heartfelt confession does me no good. ;-) ;-)

(Besides, rightfully few are reading me own blog at present because I've been stuffed with the depression thing, and hardly posting, for months; arguing here is pretty much a trying-to-work-up-the-energy thing, which unfortunately tends to only work kinda minimally at present. But anyway.)

I hadn't yet read the WaPo piece, btw, and so thanks for that. Excellent post, in general, as almost always.

I should also say that I'd never before now realized that anyone, let alone one of George W. Bush's historically closest advisors, had ever seriously and officially used, in an official governmental communication, the title "Echo-Chamber Message."

I remain naive at times, and this is one; I had previously thought this was only a metaphor, or the like.

Silly, silly, silly me.

As a friend of mine once pointed out, "What's wrong with all these people who would rather have a beer with a recovering alcoholic?"

Good point, McMartin!

But actually we've been way beyond who we'd rather have a beer with. In 2004 our nation graduated to, "Who makes me feel all macho and studly about taking it to terr'ists?" That's the common thread in a whole bunch of lousy policies, the two biggest being widespread torture and invasions of arbitrary unrelated countries.

Sadly, I don't think the public is really mature enough to go through the soul-searching that would lead to, you know, making decisions based on facts or something. Oh, people are mad at the Republicans now, and my generation may never vote for the GOP nationwide again. But once the Dems have been in power for eight to 12 years, they'll need checks on their power too (Vote Libertarian!). And if the Dems should ever give us a President remotely as bad as GWB, granted, a tall order, I don't think the public will be savvy enough to have learned from this mess and insist on checks and balances.

As for refusing the aid -- well, duh! How's Halliburton going to profit? Our allies aren't going to let us use the donations to give Halliburton a huge grant for flood prevention, so why bother?

I would argue that the public is a long ways from learning this lesson, as witness the ongoing jockeying for the 2008 nominations. Most of the popular candidates have as their greatest strength nothing more than name recognition: Senators Clinton and Obama and Fred Thompson all have no real business running for President, yet they're all likelier nominees than people like Governor Richardson, whose resume seems tailor-made for the White House. Why isn't Richardson a major candidate? Because he's not a celebrity, and that's what Americans want to elect President these days.

Let me step up for a moment to defend the American people.

The 2006 election results, Bush's crashing poll numbers, the public turning against the war -- this is a sea change that happened almost entirely without direction from any recognized elite. Most Americans have turned against the Bush Administration and against the war *on their own*, despite the constant drum of propaganda.

It's Lincoln's Law: you can't fool all the people all the time. Really, you can't.

I confess to being on tenterhooks as to where one might have found pro-war propaganda regarding Iraq outside the White House Press Room over the past two or three years, because just about everything I've seen in the news has been far from pro-war if not outright anti-war.

G'Kar:

Presumably you aren't counting Fox as "news". But look at the punditocracy: Friedman, Broder, ::voice of extreme loathing:: Krauthammer all take up extremely valuable Op-Ed page real estate, all are pro-war or on their more moderate days pro-"serious people", and the "serious people" say you have to support the war & the President.

Bruce Baugh:

"There are moments when mass violence seems very appealing."

I've believed since the mid 1990s that a virulent tax revolt (as in, no Republican government at any level is permitted to collect taxes) on a national scale, from the Left, would introduce a sexy new element into one of the radical Right's long-juiced wet dreams.

Further, arming this citizen tax revolt with the guns and the lusty rhetoric about guns thrown around by the unAmerican cowardly Right like Viagra to their testosterone caucus would satisfy their other masturbatory fantasy.

Can you imagine Sean Hannity and Tom Delay and Dick Cheney and Wayne LaPierre (the dickless poodle of lock and load) and Grover Norquist and Erick Erickson and a cast of thousands huddled in the FOX studios letting the spittle fly at their last working microphone as the government they hate is destroyed by the very tools they lovingly and so determinedly demagogued for so long and by their most hated enemies.

It would be like being inside Robepierre's head as he took that last look into the basket below.

"Robepierre" would probably be thinking "Can't they at least spell my name correctly at a time like this?"

In an alternate reality:

The truth is that the Bush administration has been extraordinarily scandal-free. Not a single instance of corruption has been unearthed. Only one significant member of the executive branch, Scooter Libby, has been convicted of anything. Whether the jury's verdict was right or wrong, that case was an individual tragedy unrelated to any underlying wrongdoing by Libby or anyone else.

I’m trying to get my mind around the fact that these guys are supposedly on “my” side…

The people who are being hired to fill vacancies in Executive departments are being hired to fulfill the main purpose of the Bush Administration, which is to increase the power of the Bush Administration.

The organs of the State exist to serve the Party, because of the Party's unique role as the Vanguard of the Revolution.

All correctly-oriented cadres know this.

And sailing the seas depends on the Helmsman.

I expect Bush to swim the Potomac any day now.

Our government is run by frickin' Maoists.

This is the respect and dignity crowd, the ones who think you can run a government like a business. At what point does that segment of the population between the 28% dead-enders and a clear majority realize these clowns couldn't organize a drinking contest in a brewery?

OCSteve:

Is that for real? My sarcasm-o-meter seems to be spinning wildly ...

OCSteve: yet another example of the problem with 'sides' ;)

"Is that for real? My sarcasm-o-meter seems to be spinning wildly ..."

From Powerline? The question need never be asked.

Doctor Science: Is that for real? My sarcasm-o-meter seems to be spinning wildly

Sadly, yes. Any scandals are just made up by the press.

The purpose of these faux "investigations" of faux "scandals" is to further sully the image of President Bush, and to allow liberal reporters and pundits like Eleanor Clift to write that the White House is "consumed by scandals." The fact that there isn't a genuine scandal in the bunch goes unremarked.

Denial is a coping mechanism. The force is strong in this one.

Hil:yet another example of the problem with 'sides'

Ain’t that the truth.

That's kind of what I figured. As one of the usual humorists at DailyKos said last year: "I quit. Their reality has lapped my parody."

Could we have predicted the Bush administration's failure based on GWB's governance in Texas? I know the situation differs - the Texas Governor has a weaker roll than the US President. Can we predict this kind of shitty president tho? Do other current candidates have what it takes to fuck up on this level?

"...the Texas Governor has a weaker roll than the US President...."

A bialy, I think. Note also the posting rules.

Sorry. Please substitute 'role' and 'screw'.

OCSteve, what you don't realize is that you are one of the few (though the number is growing) that have the courage to say "I was wrong about these guys."

Even many who are now against the war say it is only because of the execution. And I know you are right at that line. And I think Powerline, is thimnking in terms of legally culpable scandals. Of corse he is probably wrong there too, but if he doesn't include things like Katrina, the mess in Iraq, the misplacement of 9 billion dollars, the things pointed out in this article, the insufficient services for the wounded veterans, etc., as scandals,then he really does live in an alternate reality.

Of course, to him it is just a large left-wing conspiracy.

G'Kar, although the media has not necessarily been as hawkish in the past two years, they still continue to avoid really challenging the things this administration says. They still tend to be in a he said/she said mode. I was actually shcoked this morning when Stephenopolous (sp?) actually challenged Rice and said that something she said back in 2003 was untrue.

That hasn't happened very much. And administration mouthpieces still get a lot more press and air time (AFAICT) then the opposition. (Again, it is slowly changing.

Oh, and in terms of refusing aid from other countries, this is necessary to maintian one of the conservative talkiong points. After the tsunami, when the entire world was giving relief aid, and some were saying the US was being a miser, many conservatives (including the standards such as Limbaugh) were talking about how no countries come to our aid when we have a disaster so why should we give that much.

To publicly acknowledge and then wisely use foreign aid coming to this countr, that no longer becomes a talking point.

"Stephenopolous (sp?)"

Tip: if you are unsure of the spelling of a name or a word, you can drop it into your Google search bar, and it will respond "Did you mean: 'Stephanopoulos'"

This enables one to spell properly on a nearly-real-time basis (that is, it takes literally a fraction of a second to check any word one is doubtful about, save for those you are so wrong about that you have to try a couple of variants, in which case your time has been even better spent in keeping you from going so badly wrong).

john miller: Even many who are now against the war say it is only because of the execution. And I know you are right at that line.

I won’t deny that categorization – as it has too much truth to it. I thought it was the right thing to do at the time, and I supported it up to the surge. I would still be supporting the surge if Nell had not brought to my attention (in a way no one had previously been able to) how over extended our troops are. To me it is somewhat amazing how I was able to dismiss hundreds of news reports and blog conversations etc, and then one comment from Nell causes me to re-evaluate my entire world view. So I kind of know where the Powerline guys are coming from…

As I type this the radio is playing a National Guard recruitment commercial.

Bless the Nell. Can you point to her comment that changed your mind? I'm curious to see what did it.

"As I type this the radio is playing a National Guard recruitment commercial."

I've seen several Army and Air Force recruitment tv commercials, both for the active force, and the reserves, in the past month.

Incidentally, as a trivial point, does the "surge," do you think, have a time-definition for it to remain a "surge," rather than an "escalation"? Is it best said to be the latter after 3 months, 6, 9, 12, 16, 32, or when? How long is a surge a surge?

I'm tired of hearing behavior like this attributed to "incompetence." Re-read that paragraph: THE MONEY WAS "TURNED DOWN." The administration DIDN'T WANT it. They have never wanted to rebuild NO, because they want its black Democrats scattered among red states, and thus rendered powerless. LA now is a much redder state than it was prior to Katrina. John Breaux just decided not to run for governor, because the GOP candidate has already raised $5 million. This isn't incompetence at work, it's deliberate malevolence with a clear political goal.

Can you imagine Sean Hannity and Tom Delay and Dick Cheney and Wayne LaPierre (the dickless poodle of lock and load) and Grover Norquist and Erick Erickson and a cast of thousands huddled in the FOX studios letting the spittle fly at their last working microphone as the government they hate is destroyed by the very tools they lovingly and so determinedly demagogued for so long and by their most hated enemies.

Despite the run on sentence I think you're on to something JT. What's left of the GOP is on a road to a very dark place - their cartoonish worldview that they have carefully been building in the last 15 years lies in ruins. And now they are angry and looking for someone to blame, but are too afraid to look in the mirror.

OCSteve, your side is going psycho trying to defend the indefensible. Low taxes, strong defense, light regulation, wide gun availability, antiabortion, etc. are all defensible. The Bush administration is not, but your side is trying, and that's making you look crazy. I'm not really sure why your side has such a hard time dropping somebody so bad - the other side almost dropped Clinton for a lousy blowjob. Had Clinton done even one of Bush's great public misdeeds - Iraq, Plame, fiddling during Katrina - the Dems would have been *introducing* articles of impeachment to try to cut him loose.

Curt, I honestly don't think it helps or is valid to talk about those folks as OCSteve's side. For several years a bunch of us were going "So where are the honest conservatives willing to separate themselves from this particular administration and its bunch?" Well, here he is. He's hewed a hard, honest road, asking, learning, explaining, genuinely debating. He is exactly what the administration isn't, and I for one want to encourage him to think that the effort's worth making, on his part and any others who may feel similarly. They are the folks who will save the REpublican Party, if it can be saved, or at least help build a new American conservatism to fill the void left by this collapsing kleptocratic, theocratic monstrosity.

I agree with Bruce, and will go him one further: on those issues as to which the shoe is on the other foot -- and we shouldn't delude ourselves about our own infallibility -- I would hope that I would be as open-minded.

It seems that we should take Bush Republicans at their word. If they say that government should be run like a business, we need to examine how their businesses have been run. George W. had an ample history (disclosed, e.g., by Molly Ivans RIP) of running his into the ground or running from the clean up when the going got tough.

Bruce and Charley: Thirded, with enthusiasm.

The republicans brought this on themselves. If it wasn't for all the sanctimonious pontificating on moral issues it would not be so delightful to see them squirm.

It must be horrible to consider oneself part of superior race and a superior superstition, and then have his or her leaders exposed as common criminals.

Self-righteousness is an intoxicating deceit that hypocrites find irresistible. It's the apple thing that hurts conservatives. But when have conservatives ever sought knowledge? Their main concerns are with the best methods to betray, to steal from, and to escape responsibility to America, which must leave them with very little time for fund-raising.

Where do they find the time to do the people's business? They do not. They trust the lawyers of major corporations to write legislation for them. All that is required of them is to show up occasionally to vote as they have been told to. They are paid over $160,000.00/yr. and have the best health care benefits in the world for this - amazing.

Bruce, Charley and hilzoy. I fourth the statements about OCSteve. (And I am sure he is blushing from all this praise. And likewise, I hope I can be as openminded when need be.

OCSteve and my brother-in-law are examples of conservatives that can help this country a great deal. And, quite honestly, they are about the only two I can think of. Oh, except Seb, Slarti, von, and a few others.

Curt : The Bush administration is not, but your side is trying, and that's making you look crazy.

I agree – stupid posts like that detract from any sane debate I may want to engage in. They are the equivalent of DU on your (I assume) side. I have no use for them. I’d pull their pundit license if I could. And I denounce it. I highlighted it. I lamented that these guys are supposedly on “my side”.

GF: Bless the Nell. Can you point to her comment that changed your mind? I'm curious to see what did it.

Feb. 18:
I have been a supporter of the surge from the start. I’d really like to continue to support it, there are signs it is having a positive impact in Baghdad, even if only temporary. But I can’t get past Nell’s comment from yesterday: “A friend's son is due to come home this spring from his fifth tour (he's an Army National Guard medic).”
I guess I knew it was possible for that to be the case, after all it has been over five years. But I had not been confronted with the reality of it until yesterday. The thought that we have asked people to do not 2 or even 3 but FIVE combat tours is staggering, and I can’t get past it.

That pretty much knocked the wind out of my sails. As I said, it is amazing how much you can filter out. But then one blog comment by someone I don’t even know just floored me and caused me to re-evaluate a lot of “stuff”.

If they say that government should be run like a business, we need to examine how their businesses have been run. George W. had an ample history (disclosed, e.g., by Molly Ivans RIP) of running his into the ground or running from the clean up when the going got tough.

Not like it matters these days -- the way businesses are run these days is to compensate the CEO out of all proportion not only to the hourly employees but to any actual contribution he makes, then reward him with outrageous bonuses even after he runs the stock price into the crapper. So, looked at in that light, they are running the country the way they want businesses to be run.

Actually, there's another parallel: They oppose efforts to give stockholders a word, even symbolically, in determining board composition and executive compensation. Because, you know, the actual owners of the company shouldn't get to decide that stuff. Just so, the administration believes that actual citizens and voters shouldn't get to decide how the country gets run.

Bruce, CharleyCarp, hilzoy, John (and many others here who I have learned a lot from): As they say, the first step is admitting you have a problem – and that first step is the toughest one. Actually that first step sucks more than I can say.

Gary: How long is a surge a surge?

I think “escalation” is a loaded term with some bad baggage attached.

But at this point I don’t even believe it is a true “surge” much less an escalation. I agree now with those who say too little too late. Sending back troops who just got back home 8 months ago, extending others – unbelievable. It is not a surge of fresh troops – it is recycling those we have already asked too much of.

This is what happens when a government is taken over by people who just don't care about the most basic levels of competence.

I'll make you a wager: if the Democrats take over the reigns of power and there's a disaster comparable to Katrina, they'll screw up as badly. The reason is obvious: this generation of Americans of governing age is the most dysfunctionally incompetent one in our history. After WWI we had the Lost Generation. Now we have the "Loser Generation." Or to paraphrase John Kennedy Toole, a Generation of Dunces.


The decline of American capability was inevitable. The children and grandchild of the rich are almost always ineffectual. And that's who's running the nation now: first and second generation Yuppies; people with more disposable income then common-sense. They're like the dotty air-headed socialites and playboys in 1930s and 40s screwball comedies: spoiled, self-centered, over-dressed and discombobulated.

With Democrats in charge, it won't be any different. All the government agencies -- FEMA and DOD and DOJ and ETC -- will still be saturated with graduates from the same colleges, inculcated with the same values, the same views, the same way of talking, writing, gossiping, emailing, and covering their ass when they screw up. In other words, the same ole you know what.

Jay, I think it's easier to assert an essential equivalence than it is to back it up. What, for instance, in the behavior of the current Democratic groups in Congress to you find indistinguishable from what the Republicans did in the sessions right before them?

Addendum: I have some hefty substantial criticisms of things the Democrats are doing, and there are things where I think they need to stop listening ot the damn pundits already and get some courage. This is not a blanket endorsement. But the very fact that they're interested in how people are doing their work is a major break all by itself.

With Democrats in charge, it won't be any different. All the government agencies -- FEMA and DOD and DOJ and ETC -- will still be saturated with graduates from the same colleges, inculcated with the same values

That's demonstrably not true as afar as the Justice Department is concerned.

spoiled, self-centered, over-dressed and discombobulated.

As among the very oldest of baby boomers, I have to partially agree with that sentiment. Bush and Clinton, both just about the same age as I, certainly have done nothing for my generation to be proud of. My main concern is how much more spoiled etc. the generations behind me are. And to build on the self-centered aspect, I'm wondering just who is gonna take care of my sorry butt when I'm in a nursing home

CW: There are a lot of poor people who experienced a real rise in their quality of life during the Clinton administration. There was also a lot of good unheralded work on tracking down Al Qaeda. To grab just two.

"With Democrats in charge, it won't be any different. All the government agencies -- FEMA and DOD and DOJ and ETC -- will still be saturated with graduates from the same colleges, inculcated with the same values

That's demonstrably not true as afar as the Justice Department is concerned."

Nor was it true with respect to FEMA. FEMA had been throughout the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations considered barely competent. Under Clinton and James Lee Witt it was exceptional. It more a matter of caring whether the job is done right, as opposed to believing that government is incapable of doing a job correctly, and making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BB: As I got older, I was curious to see how the first leaders of my generation would do. While Clinton made an ok president, I never really trusted him; never knew what he stood for, other than being a masterful politician. In short, not someone to be proud of. Perhaps he's the best we could have hoped for. Almost needless to say, Bush has been unspeakable.

@Jay Jerome: I reject brushstrokes that wide. Dantheman is completely correct, making a point that was made repeatedly highlighted during the Katrina aftermath.

Perhaps it escaped your attention that Bill Clinton did not grow up a yuppie. I'm an odd candidate to defend the man, having voted for him only the first time and being a severe critic from the left -- but he had a hundred times the brains of the current dim princeling. Not to mention a belief in government and respect for expertise and competence.

ABout Clinton, a few things. First, I always thought Clinton got a bad rap on the triangulation stuff. To hear people talk, you'd think he never did anything unpopular, like raising taxes as soon as he got into office, or supporting NAFTA against the majority of his own party. Whatever you think of either or both of these things, they were not things he did to be popular.

Second, he did some very, very good things. Putting us in good fiscal shape and passing the Earned Income Tax Credit are not to be sneezed at.

Third, I really think that the things he did in the way of promoting good governance were incredibly important. The whole Reinventing Government thing wasn't completely successful across the board, but it had really good results in (iirc) something like half the departments, and decent results in most. He cut federal jobs and improved efficiency. He made a lot of agencies a lot better -- not just FEMA but, for instance, the VA.

And that matters a lot. -- I would much rather have a President who does a really good job at actually running the country without communicating a grand vision than someone who does the grand vision thing without doing a good job of running the country. I can inspire myself -- this is one of those points when I go all conservative and start thinking that I should rely on myself for inspiration, not the government -- but only the President can transform the VA, thereby helping a lot of veterans to get a fair shake.

I mean: at bottom, the President is the CEO of a very large organization. I want him to run it well. And Clinton largely did, whatever his issues n other areas.

Sorry my comments (apparently) came off as derogatory to OCSteve. I had no intent whatsoever to insult him and appreciate his posts here.

Curt: Come home, all is forgiven, we can get you the Auckland chocolate bunnies now that it's not Sunday anymore.

Curt: No offense taken on my part.

Once upon a time, we had stars for things that didn't matter: entertainment and sports. Now, we apply the same vapid standards to our CEOs, politicians and appointed government officials, where it really matters.

Our star obsession has managed to fall over into places that make no sense. CEO's are paid as if they are entrepeneuers, even though they aren't even giving their investors a good return on investment. Incompetents with the right connections are given positions of power and then given excuses when they fail. Certain colleges get ever harder to get into because they are stars, yet they spend millions persuading even more high school students to apply to them, guaranteeing that they will disappoint even more students -- but look good on the USNews list.

Of course we've always had some people who were stars in business and government for no good reason, we've always had some powerful people with more connections than wisdom, we've always steered some of the best students in the country to a small number of premier colleges, but our country felt more egalitarian 40 years ago.

I'll point to Al Dunlop as the perfect example of what is wrong with America: he was repeatedly hired to destroy the company that hired him. It was his job to make the company look good for purchase, even if the company could not possibly continue as a going concern if they could not find a buyer.

Who were the Neocons planning to sell the US government to?

Earlier this year while vacationing in Mexico I met and had a number of interesting conversations with a 70 year old gentleman from New England. When he first introduced American politics into one discussion I pegged him as a raging "liberal" as he referred to Mr.Bush as a moron and heaped scorn on him and his administration. I had to quickly revise my assumption however, as he said something along the lines of:
"He's a moron running a clown show but I voted for him. Twice!! What does that make me? I can't believe what a blind idiot I was!"

He told me he has been a rock-solid conservative and Republican all his life, and had never voted for a Democrat for any position in the nearly 50 years he'd been voting. In 2006 however, he voted a straight Democratic ticket, from dog-catcher on up and vowed that he would continue to do so until the Republican party cleaned itself up or he died.

When I asked what had caused this abrupt about face he told me it was the Terri Schiavo case in 2005. He had struggled with his own very difficult end of life issues for a family member and he was enraged at the president and congress trying to meddle in such a situation. This rage led him to re-examine many other issues, from the borrow and spend congress to domestic wiretapping to the demonization of gays, that he had brushed aside for years.

I've read versions of this story on the blogs (I think John Cole is an example) but was interested to hear it first hand. It makes me wonder just how widespread this sort of thing is. And, to me, it is a true indictement of the Republican party when it has managed to utterly alienate such a solid life-long conservative.

I'll make you a wager: if the Democrats take over the reigns of power and there's a disaster comparable to Katrina, they'll screw up as badly.

You could be right. Nobody's perfect.

But they won't screw up in the same way. They will, at least, try to help.

The Democrats might screw up, but they assuredly won't do it in the same way as the GOP has. The two parties have a fundamental difference of belief in the role government should play.

Even the most corrupt Democrats (Toricelli comes to mind) at least have a "ward heeler" mentality: they take care of their constituents' needs, because that's what politicians do. The corruption is a job perk, not the job itself.

The GOP comes in at a completely different angle: a basic distaste for government itself. The private sector is "always" better; therefore, their job is to enable the private sector and disable the public one.

When a GOP politician goes corrupt, there's no 'floor,' so to speak, protecting the public's interests and needs, because the GOP never saw government as something useful to society at large in the first place. Corruption in the GOP has no compensatory ward heeler-ism, and so becomes the whole job rather than a perk of it.

When and if Democrats screw up, it'll be due to errors in decision making, rather than a fundamental disbelief in their own mission.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast