The "full sovereignty" Iraqis are waiting for keeps evading them. With a message that more or less translates into, "we'll let you vote, but we're still in control indefinitely," today Bush announced that Iraqi troops are not ready to take over.
President Bush pointedly acknowledged Monday that U.S.-trained Iraqi troops are not ready to take over their country's security, and cautioned that next month's elections there are only the beginning of a long process toward democracy.
I'm no political science scholar, but when a country openly elects its own government, doesn't that suggest they are already at democracy? I mean, there are variations on the theme, but what does "long process toward democracy" mean in this context if not actually "long process toward sovereignty"?
In other words, Bush is saying we're going to continue to occupy Iraq officially for as long as we wish, despite whatever government Iraq has in place. And before anyone suggests a simple reality check makes this less ominous than I'm painting it here, let's backtrack just a moment. Back before the first partial restoration of "full sovereignty", Powell said it would be up to the interim Iraqi government and its people to decide "whether the troops stay or not":
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that if the interim Iraqi government scheduled to take power in six weeks asks the United States and its coalition partners to pull its troops out of Iraq, "we would leave."
So we went from saying the interim government could ask us to leave to saying the fully elected government cannot ask us to leave. We're not marching Iraq "toward democracy" in any meaningful sense here.
I'm no political science scholar, but when a country openly elects its own government, doesn't that suggest they are already at democracy?
Not if the wrong side wins the election! As I've said in other threads, to support democracy you have to accept that, once a free and open election has been run, you have to accept the results as the will of the people of that country. If you fail to do so because you don't like the results (as when Bush II supported a military coup in Venezuela, or Reagan supported terrorism in Nicaragua, or Nixon supported assassination in Chile, all with the intention of putting into place an unelected government to replace an elected government) you plainly are not a supporter of democracy, and shouldn't try to claim you are. What I object to among current Bush supporters is their claim that they do support democracy - with the caveat "so long as the right people win the election" - and that caveat means they do not support democracy at all.
In Iraq, it's been obvious since the occupation began: a free and open election wouldn't stand a chance of electing a government that would slavishly allow the US do whatever it wanted with Iraq. Hence the Bush administration's refusal to allow elections to take place in 2003, or 2004: now that they can no longer be postponed, it seems unlikely that they will be any more effective than the much-touted elections in Afghanistan.
We're not marching Iraq "toward democracy" in any meaningful sense here.
No surprise. The Bush administration lied about every reason for invading and occupying Iraq: the claim that they wanted to march Iraq toward democracy was just another lie, no more convincing than the rest. Had they truly wanted to support Iraqi democracy, they could have proved that 18 months ago.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 20, 2004 at 12:53 PM
"I'm no political science scholar, but when a country openly elects its own government, doesn't that suggest they are already at democracy?"
Not really. It could be one of the one vote, one time situations where a democratic process is used to cement a long term dictatorship.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | December 20, 2004 at 01:06 PM
Sebastian: Not really. It could be one of the one vote, one time situations where a democratic process is used to cement a long term dictatorship.
As with the recent "referendum" in Pakistan, you mean? cite
About which Bush said, apparently, that Pakistan can be a model for other Muslim countries, as they seek to move toward democracy.
Like I said: Bush is no supporter of democracy, except in airy speeches that mean nothing.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 20, 2004 at 01:15 PM
Turkey is probably the closest to a good model of bringing democracy to a Muslim country, and making it a democracy involved a lot of supressing Islamist elements.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | December 20, 2004 at 01:25 PM
Turkey is probably the closest to a good model of bringing democracy to a Muslim country, and making it a democracy involved a lot of supressing Islamist elements.
How is Turkey only close to a good model? It's an excellent model. There's a misnomer that the only good democracy is one that looks like ours. This is based mostly on human rights issues, which is fair to some degree, but if we give ourselves leeway for not getting it all 100% correct right out of the gate, why don't we give it to others as well?
In other words, it's feasible for a very "good" democracy to exist in a nation with relgious fundamentalism driving much of the human rights agenda. It's not likely, but it is feasible.
Careful...that's a trap...
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 01:33 PM
making it a democracy involved a lot of supressing Islamist elements
...suppression which was designed and accomplished by secular forces within the Turkish population, led by Ataturk and his ilk, not by occupation forces from the Christian West. Had the suppression been instituted by, say, the British (positing better luck at Gallipoli), I imagine it would have been, er, somewhat less successful.
Posted by: st | December 20, 2004 at 01:36 PM
Turkey is probably the closest to a good model of bringing democracy to a Muslim country, and making it a democracy involved a lot of supressing Islamist elements.
Seems to me you've made a case as to why Saddam should have remained in power.
As for Turkey being a "good model"--not really. Let's remember that Ataturk was much more enamored of Mussolini than of Jefferson or Washington.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 20, 2004 at 01:38 PM
And yet, the Turkish military pulled of a (stealthy) coup as recently as, what, 1997 with Erbakan? Three military coups before that, in 1980 being the previous example. It's a very strange case of a military representing the best hope for liberalism within a country.
"I'm no political science scholar, but when a country openly elects its own government, doesn't that suggest they are already at democracy?"
Nope. Electoral democracy is not the same thing as constitutional democracy, which is all about rights and limits and checks and balances and whatnot. Iraq won't have a constitutional government until quite some time. The most important test of a decent government, IMHO, is whether it has an independent judiciary. That's why, incidentally, this "power to set aside the laws is inherent in the Preznit" nonsense is so fundamentally disturbing.
Posted by: praktike | December 20, 2004 at 01:40 PM
As for Turkey being a "good model"--not really.
Too much focus on the means here, rather than the end. Ataturk is long gone and his legacy with regard to the secular military running things is waning.
Today, Turkey is in a very good place, and in my opinion a very good example to other Muslim nations with regard to why democracy can work for them.
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 01:40 PM
Nope. Electoral democracy is not the same thing as constitutional democracy,
I knew that line would get too much focus, I really meant it to serve solely as transition into the next idea: what does "long process toward democracy" mean in this context if not actually "long process toward sovereignty"?
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 01:42 PM
Too much focus on the means here, rather than the end.
Means matter; our friends on the right (Dinesh D'Souza and Ann Coulter) are fond of repeating blacks in the US enjoy a higher standard of living than African blacks, thanks to slavery.
Look, democracy can work anywhere; it's a myth that Islam is incompatible with democracy.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 20, 2004 at 01:49 PM
"so long as the right people win the election"
The bridge from "Send the Marines!", by Tom Lehrer:
Posted by: kenB | December 20, 2004 at 01:52 PM
Means matter
Yes, of course they do (can I dig this hole any deeper? let's see).
My point is simply that taking a snapshot of Turkey today, I'd argue that it's a good model for other Muslim nations. It's not perfect, far from it, but neither was/is the US. A good model for democracy is one that inspires other nations to adopt the same measures/laws/attitudes, etc. I believe Turkey is poised to have a major impact on its neighbors.
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 01:53 PM
I'm not 100% certain that democracy can be exported to nations that have no abiding value for it to begin with, whether they follow Islam or not.
It hasn't been a bang-up success in Russia. Some would argue that attempts to democratize the Phillipines has been a failure also.
Posted by: Roxanne | December 20, 2004 at 02:03 PM
Roxanne,
I would tend to agree that there's a horse/cart formula at play, sort of that a populace will demand/fight/revolt to get democracy when they are ready for it. I'll let Timmy (if he's still lurking) correct my history here, but my understanding is that Germany and Japan both had democracies before their facist governments took over, so there's no clear example of a major democracy being succesfully delivered via the barrel of a gun that I know of.
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 02:08 PM
Actually, Indonesia might be a better model as it didn't have to involve the suppression Sebastain seems so fond of.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 20, 2004 at 02:13 PM
Japan had the Diet and an existing bureaucracy when MacArthur took over as Supreme Commander. It's interesting to compare Japan and Iraq because MacArthur was smart enough to use the existing infrastructure to govern. He didn't fly in Japanese-American puppets from the US to govern.
Mac set the rules, goals and objectives and the Japanese government did the execution however they saw fit. That's why it worked.
Posted by: Roxanne | December 20, 2004 at 02:18 PM
Indonesia might be a better model as it didn't have to involve the suppression Sebastain seems so fond of.
Just itching for a brawl, aren't ya? ;-)
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 02:18 PM
Some would argue that attempts to democratize the Phillipines has been a failure also.
Ah, it's a work in progress. Stay tuned. Another 50 years and it might be in beta-testing stage.
And it's not the "abiding values" that the stumbling block, it's the poverty. Poverty = corruption.
(P.S. Philippines, not Phillipines.)
Posted by: votermom | December 20, 2004 at 02:26 PM
Ah, it's a work in progress.
As is Turkey, which is why I don't understand so many people's aversion to it.
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 02:28 PM
just to tweak Sebastian a little, it's worth noting that one of the biggest factors in Turkey's political structure becoming more westernized is Turkey's desire to join the EU. Carrots, apparently, do work better than sticks.
Francis
Posted by: fdl | December 20, 2004 at 02:35 PM
"Actually, Indonesia might be a better model as it didn't have to involve the suppression Sebastain seems so fond of."
You think Indonesia has avoided the supression issue? Really? I'm surprised you would say so. Dealings with the Aceh haven't been particularly rosey--as recently as two months ago there were reports of forced confessions, beatings and electro-torture. And the repression has gone on for decades. There is also the matter of Eastern Timor. Further there have been issues with the ethnic Chinese minority.
Indonesia isn't a horrible model for an emerging democracy, but it hasn't avoided repression of anti-democratic forces in doing so.
And that is why I think it is perfectly appropriate to say that the road to democracy is not ended at the first election.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | December 20, 2004 at 02:36 PM
it is perfectly appropriate to say that the road to democracy is not ended at the first election
What about the road to sovereignty?
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 02:38 PM
One thing that I think is interesting is that neither Germany, nor Japan, nor Turkey had ever been colonies (at least not in the modern sense). Turkey was the seat of the Ottoman empire for many years, and then Turkish nationalists under Attaturk stepped up and violently reject the Treaty of Sevres. So I suspect that this, in addition to other factors, has something to do with Turkey's success.
Posted by: praktike | December 20, 2004 at 02:38 PM
"In other words, it's feasible for a very "good" democracy to exist in a nation with relgious fundamentalism driving much of the human rights agenda."
Given the amount of religious fundamentalism in the US and its effects on the human rights agenda, I'm very much hoping that this is true. (There, did I spring your trap?)
Posted by: Dianne | December 20, 2004 at 03:30 PM
(There, did I spring your trap?)
That was one of the conclusions coiled up there, yes... ;-)
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 03:33 PM
I wonder if all religious fundamentalists are the same with respect to human rights...
I suspect there are some discernable differences between Christian fundamentalists in Texas and Islamic fundamentalists in the Taliban.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | December 20, 2004 at 03:55 PM
I suspect there are some discernable differences between Christian fundamentalists in Texas and Islamic fundamentalists in the Taliban.
Clearly. The Texans won't admit to wanting to kill you to your face until they're drunk. Most of 'em anyway.
;-)
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 03:58 PM
You think Indonesia has avoided the supression issue?
I don't think any nation has avoided 'suppression' in its particular history. But I think you caught my drift.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 20, 2004 at 04:35 PM
Look, democracy can work anywhere; it's a myth that Islam is incompatible with democracy.
Nevertheless, it is also true that many sects, and not just Islamic ones, hold beliefs that are not compatible with a modern liberal democracy. Women are not property. It is not appropriate to restrict the vote to those who own land, or can post a bond of sufficient size. Maiming or disfigurement are never allowable punishments for crimes. Will the U.S. accept an Iraqi constitution which incorporates such beliefs? Should the U.S. accept such a constitution?
Posted by: Michael Cain | December 21, 2004 at 12:19 AM
MichaelCain: Nevertheless, it is also true that many sects, and not just Islamic ones, hold beliefs that are not compatible with a modern liberal democracy.
True, but the US manages under those circumstances.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 21, 2004 at 04:08 AM
And once again, the failure to make meaningful distinctions is going to cloud your ability to make helpful criticisms.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | December 21, 2004 at 11:10 AM
Sebastian: And once again, the failure to make meaningful distinctions is going to cloud your ability to make helpful criticisms.
Are you arguing that the US has no religious sects that hold beliefs not compatible with a modern liberal democracy? Further, they're sufficiently powerful for their nutty beliefs about gays, abortion, and Islam to be a factor in the recent Presidential elections.
People who oppose full civil rights for gays, or who oppose safe legal abortion for women, or who think that Muslims worship an idol called Allah and black marks on a slide of an Islamic city represent evil rising from it, or who think that children in public schools ought to be taught Christian religious beliefs as if they were factual, hold beliefs not compatible with modern liberal democracy. And these groups of Christians currently wield considerable political power within the US. Nevertheless, the US is a modern liberal democracy - despite the presence in the political system of these powerful Christian sects.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 21, 2004 at 02:37 PM
As opposed to the rather larger Muslim sects who believe that it is appropriate to kill girls for unchastity after their parents sell them into prostitution.
Distinctions.
Also, I suspect the 'black marks from slides' interpretation is a rather restricted set of beliefs even in Texas.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | December 21, 2004 at 02:49 PM
Sebastian: As opposed to the rather larger Muslim sects who believe that it is appropriate to kill girls for unchastity after their parents sell them into prostitution.
I don't see any opposition between the people who believe it is appropriate to have women die or become sterile because women should not have access to safe legal abortion, and the people who believe that Qu'ranic law requires a woman who is raped should die for being unchaste. The two groups are clearly operating on the same basic system of belief - that women should not be allowed to have control over their own sexuality or their own bodies. It's a matter of degree, not of kind. Both groups are fundamentally anathema to modern liberal democracy.
Also, I suspect the 'black marks from slides' interpretation is a rather restricted set of beliefs even in Texas.
However, Boykin, who believes this, is deputy undersecretary of defense, and Rumsfeld (among others) has defended Boykin's right to maintain those beliefs openly and remain in his position of authority. Which means those beliefs, so far from being "restricted", are rather powerful.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 22, 2004 at 10:03 AM
Jes: I don't see any opposition between the people who believe it is appropriate to have women die or become sterile because women should not have access to safe legal abortion, and the people who believe that Qu'ranic law requires a woman who is raped should die for being unchaste."
Of course you don't. That's what makes you so sick also.
Posted by: gaylon | December 22, 2004 at 10:24 AM
It's a matter of degree, not of kind.
My word. The same could be said of the difference between killing in self defense ad killing in cold blood. Both are homicides, after all -- whether one is justified and the other not is merely a matter of degree.
Posted by: von | December 22, 2004 at 10:41 AM
Gaylon,
This is your one warning. Tone it down or be banned.
Posted by: Edward | December 22, 2004 at 10:43 AM
As opposed to the rather larger Muslim sects who believe that it is appropriate to kill girls for unchastity after their parents sell them into prostitution.
Sebastian, you do realize that there are quite a number of places in the world where people feel as repelled by countries that kill minors (China, Congo, Iran, Pakistan and the United States are the only 5 countries that execute minors)? Or execute mentally handicapped people? Or send people to the death chamber knowing that quite a number are innocent 'because the system still works' (and probabely because quite a lot are poor people with lawyers appointed to them who do a really bad job but they cannot afford a better one)?
You realize that sentencing people to a prison where they have a hugh change of getting raped is not really considered a display of civilization in my part of the world? Nor is jailing people without a system that will try (not always adequate, but at least the idea is there) to help them become better citizens afterwards?
Not to mention the detaining of people for undetermined periodes of time without telling them or a court of law what they are accused of and what proof there is. Or torturing them/sending them to countries that torture them for you.
Yes, the case you refer to was awfull. And yes, that should also be said by more muslims to emphasis that this is not generally accepted. But if civilized application of justice is really very near to your heart there are quite a number of things you can do closer to home, where your changes of having an impact are bigger too.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | December 23, 2004 at 02:33 PM
dutchmarbel, as sympathetic as I am to your statement, I don't think it really applies to Sebastian's comment. He was simply pointing out the difference (at least in degree) between prominent Christian fundamentalist tenets and prominent Islamic fundamentalist tenets (in response to Jesurgislac's equation of the two), not suggesting that the US is perfect in any way.
When some lefties see a rightie criticizing another country or culture, they tend to assume that that rightie is therefore exhibiting cultural arrogance and is blind to or is downplaying the faults of his/her own country or culture. When some righties see a leftie criticizing America/Christianity, they tend to assume that that leftie is an "America-hater" or "anti-Christian" and is blind to or is downplaying the faults of the other country/culture. These assumptions lead to a lot of pointless bickering, and are in all likelihood quite false as applied to the regulars here. Maybe we can all take it as given that folks here are aware of the faults both of their own country and of others, and thus we don't have to preface every criticism of the one with an acknowledgement of imperfection in the other?
Posted by: kenB | December 23, 2004 at 03:06 PM
As opposed to the rather larger Muslim sects who believe that it is appropriate to kill girls for unchastity after their parents sell them into prostitution.
In this country, the House Majority Leader is the mack daddy of prostitution. Consider what he's doing in the Mariana Islands--a US protectorate.
DeLay has allowed the Marianas to become a legal sweat shop. Guest workers--usually from the Philippines and China are essentially indentured servants earning about $3 an hour. The sweat shop companies docked workers' pay for housing, food, medical treatments and other charges. The low wages and high deductions made it nearly impossible for workers to save enough money to return home.
As a result, many of the guest workers now moonlight as prostitutes; the Marianas are an attractive haven for Japanese golfers--the Marianas have beautiful courses that are inexpensive.
BTW, doesn't DeLay like to tell everyone just how Christian he is?
Posted by: Jadegold | December 23, 2004 at 03:49 PM
KenB: dutchmarbel, as sympathetic as I am to your statement, I don't think it really applies to Sebastian's comment. He was simply pointing out the difference (at least in degree) between prominent Christian fundamentalist tenets and prominent Islamic fundamentalist tenets (in response to Jesurgislac's equation of the two), not suggesting that the US is perfect in any way.
The discussion was about how there are "sects holding believes that are not compatible with liberal democracy".
Jes stated that that did NOT prevent the US from being a working democracy.
Sebastian made a comment where he said that she did not make meaningfull distinctions and thus her comment was not helpfull.
She came with examples of influences in US politics by groups that held "believes that are not compatible with liberal democracy".
Sebastians counterargument was a referral to to one case, recently in the news, of an undeserved deathpenalty given by people who felt their religion justified that. Seeing how the discussion is about wether you can have a working democracy I assume he means that in countries/cultures where that happends you can not have a working democracy - why else make the comment?
My comment was intended to show how the US has an awfull record in the same area Sebastian refers to (since Jes' examples did not convince him) and still is a working democracy. Larger American groups believe it is appropriate to execute people, even though 73% believes that at least one innocent person has been executed in the last five years. Government has an influence there too: Ashcroft has overruled local U.S. attorneys and demanded they ask for capital punishment regularly since assuming office.
It still has not stopped the US from being a working democracy.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | December 23, 2004 at 07:55 PM
Von: The same could be said of the difference between killing in self defense ad killing in cold blood.
Could it? Well, obviously it could, since you just said it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 23, 2004 at 09:09 PM
dutchmarbel, as far as I could tell, Sebastian himself never denied that there were antidemocratic aspects to US Christian fundamentalism, or even in US society as a whole; he was simply objecting to the equation of ME Islamic and US Christian fundamentalism, when there are obvious differences (if also some similarities). And while I find both the widespread support for the death penalty and the general lack of concern for the fate of the accused and convicted very distressing, it's still not at the same level of horribleness as a society that supports sentencing a girl to death for the "crime" of being raped.
I'm just tired of seeing conversations go off the rails because of the dynamic I mentioned in my previous post.
Posted by: kenB | December 23, 2004 at 11:39 PM
kenB: he was simply objecting to the equation of ME Islamic and US Christian fundamentalism
Yes: I noticed that. The problem is that in American political/public discourse, the rhetoric of the US Christian fundamentalists has become too normal to register. George W. Bush's first act as President was to reinstate the rule that says women in countries receiving aid from the US ought to die in unsafe abortions if their countries want to continue to receive aid for family planning clinics. It's not expressed in those terms, of course: Bush has never spoken about the 75,000 women who die each year of complications related to unsafe abortions: he's claimed "every life is precious" - but these women who die, worldwide, are not included in that rhetoric. Most "pro-lifers" don't want to think about the women they are condemning to death, and they don't. They don't want to think about the rather larger number of women they are condemning to sterility, and they don't. Those who simply do not want to think about the consequences of the political views they espouse are, well, human - it's human not to want to think things through if thinking things through leads you to revise your beliefs.
But there exist Christian religious fanatics who know that making abortion illegal would lead to more women dying, and they think this is a good thing. (To my disgust, I have encountered two, years apart, in brief but singularly unpleasant encounters: one in the UK, one in the US. And I've read this rhetoric on several online discussions, though the moderators tend to delete the comments of people actively calling for women to die: understandably so.) Because, they said, women ought to know that if they do such an evil thing as have an abortion, they risk death or sterility.
No, I see no opposition between these people and the people who stone women to death for being unchaste. The means differ: the anger and disgust at sexually active women, couched in religious rhetoric, is the same.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 24, 2004 at 05:19 AM
kenB: it's still not at the same level of horribleness as a society that supports sentencing a girl to death for the "crime" of being raped.
Ken, my point is that someone who believes that no woman, not even a girl who is pregnant as a result of rape, ought to have access to safe legal abortion, is supporting the sentence of death on a girl for "crime" of being raped: that person thinks that it's appropriate and right for teenage girls to die in illegal abortions because they are pregnant as a result of rape. This culture is not widespread in the US (access to safe legal abortion has majority support), but it exists, and the mindset that makes it perfectly acceptable for a public figure to say they don't support abortion being legal under any circumstances is widespread. The concept that teenage girls deserve death for rape is horrible. But it's not confined to Islamic fundamentalism: it's also a Christian fundamentalist attitude. And there are many decent Muslims, and many decent Christians, who abhor this murderous rhetoric in their name.
But we got on to this because someone upthread asserted that Islamic fundamentalism didn't fit in to a modern liberal democracy. Rather than getting into yet another argument about abortion and choice, I was making the point that Christian fundamentalism holds ideas that are utterly opposed to modern liberal democracy - yet the US functions as a modern liberal democracy even though the Christian fundamentalists are currently politically very powerful. Middle Eastern countries are frequently anti-democratic for reasons that do not correlate to the majority religion in that area. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both fundamentalist Islamic countries: but Iran is decidedly closer to democracy than Saudi Arabia.
France and the US are both basically Christian countries, despite a large proportion of non-Christians who live there, and Christianity is politically very powerful in both countries: but culturally France and the US are very different, politically they are very different, and though historically France and US are traditional allies (despite trivial blips and anti-French rhetoric) it would be foolish to lump them both together as "Christian countries", even though they both are.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 24, 2004 at 05:34 AM
And while I find both the widespread support for the death penalty and the general lack of concern for the fate of the accused and convicted very distressing, it's still not at the same level of horribleness as a society that supports sentencing a girl to death for the "crime" of being raped.
As I said to Sebastian: that is a horrendous case.
But I wanted to express two things (and blame me if I didn't do that properly, it is hard to find the right words).
The first point is that killing innocents is horrendous, but happends in the US too and still is supported by a majority. You may argue that this execution is worse than what happends in the State because of victimhood, or age, or the crime she is convicted off - and I would agree. But from where I stand this is comparing horrible with more horrible, wrong with more wrong.
The second is that apprearently having horrible convictions taking place seems NOT to be an indication of wether you can function as a democracy.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | December 24, 2004 at 05:38 AM
Marbel: The second is that apprearently having horrible convictions taking place seems NOT to be an indication of wether you can function as a democracy.
Quite.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 24, 2004 at 07:37 AM