Monthly Archives: August 2011

The Marxist Ideal: A Static Universe

I just posted a post wit the idea of a “static universe.”

By this, I meant a political and biological philosophy where things are expected to continue as usual, and that change indicates that something has gone wrong.

I thought that I had posted on this already, so I googled “static universe,” and “democrat.” Well, I cannot find anything yet. I may have drafts  never posted sitting on a hard drive somewhere.

Anyway, if you have this idea in mind, it helps you recognize when the marxists are trying to manipulate you by your own values.

Lamp-lighters have not been subsidized or protected, or their unions have not been allowed to reign, so their families are starving and suffering in misery.

Same with cobblers.

Things change. That is one of the basics of funadmental introductory economics, and one of the funadamentals of population biology.

Change happens.

So, it is wrong to claim that terrible things are transpiring MERELY by documenting normal change,

Climate changes. Job markets change. A population’s geographically defined habitat changes. NSEW.

When I googled, I found this book:

So, maybe I got the phrase “the static universe” from a formal or informal study of astronomy. Their use indicates that the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, and is not expected to do either. So, my use is different: the polemical rhetorical idea that the political world should be assumed to not change, and evidence of change is evidence that things are going wrongly, and that a government intervention is required to somehow address the wrong of the change.




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

War and the Idea of the Static Universe

The Static Universe and War

“Will climate change cause war?”

They have developed a new meme as a way to win our hearts, or at least use our values against us to gain power over us.
On first blush, it is self-evident that  no one likes war. Warhawks, by definition, do, but there are explanations to account for that –
and, also, it is not quite safe to declare that warhaws like war per se, but maybe see it is a ready choice since they do not acutely

feel the consequences of war personally. The numerous sentiments about the generals watching the lines on the map moving from side to

side, and all that.

So, the marxists are now pushing the idea that we should act now, based on hints of global warming, because if we wait too long for a

real signal to appear, it might be too late – catastrophic consequences will result –

-now those include “war.”

Yes, global warming will cause war. A clear predictoin from the marxists.

First of all, this is contrary to a bunch of other recognized bits of wisdom (to be discussed).
But second-of-all, this prediction is, again, based on the acceptance of

When I was in grade school, the thing we learned about nature was that it was always changing, and populations of animals and plants were

always changing. This was one of the few meta-lessons, above specific details about biology, population dynamics, etc.

As an example: we learned that there was the idea of a ‘pinnacle forest.” If a cataclysm wiped out a forest, or field, it might end up

barren. Then, “colonizers” would grow. Their seeds were always borne on the winds, and would always be there to settle a suitable habitat

– one with no competition.  This is how it is with bread mold. You don’t need to foster or cultivate bread mold. It is ubiquitous. Bread

left out for a couple days is the virgin terra, and will be colonized.

However, the early colonizing plants would be replaced by the slightly more permanent plants, etc., culminiating in long-developing

trees, the “pinnacle forest.”

But eventually the trees would drop branches and leaves, and lightning would strike, or a hurricane or tornado or earthquake would

displace these trees. And the progress from colonizers to long-lived plants would again set its inexorable pace, only to face some

eventual change yet again.

Hard to believe, since the landsacpe we schoolchildren knew had been there, on our drives outside of town, for the entirety of our lives.

But a but easier to believe when we were informed, “the habitat we know is not native to this audience; it has been shapedfor over 100

years by farming and grazing. Our landscape used to be [insert landscape here].”

In awe, those of us who paid attention in grade school would never look  at the prairies, or swamps, or savannah, or forests, the same

way again.

There are now more trees on the contintental US now than in the past 200 years; they just were not all the quick-growing pines in

southeast. pine – the weed of trees.

Now we revere an oak, a maple. Someone safeguarded it, and if it was bought, it was bought at a good price, relative to other trees, and

was taken care of tenderly to achieve its maturity.

All of this to illustrate how we were taught biology: things change. WE could see it. We knew it. And only know it better as we see

various landscapes get cleared by hurricane, or fire, or earthquake, or bulldozer.

We see the progress they taught us in grade school. We have no doubt. To everything there is a season.

However, to the marxists, there are not seasons. change is an opportunity to make us fear that life as we know it is changing, and so

observed change means we should hand over power to them.

Hypothetical disaster, or governance by totalitarians.

Of course, this choice is easy, if and only if the disaster is hypothetical.

So, politically, it MUST NOT be portrayed as hypothetical. It must be portrayed as sure.

Nothing in science. politics, or biology is ever sure.

Yet this is what is required to inspire FEAR.

AGW as a socially recognised problem is failing. Partly because of two things: one, the marxists did not yet accomplish what they thought

they would before they were found out ot be liars, and two because we are seeing: nature changes – saome places have been drought-ridden,

per AGW theory, yet other places have just barely surfaced from historically notable snow-melt floods.

The weather is not cooperating.

So, other lines of FEAR must be activated.

Starvation, and other phenomena, etc.

And war.


We all took undergrad psychology, where the profs attempted to show how illuminating social science could be: violence rises with

temperature. Sure – makes sense.

Expand that.

War will cause various conflicts, which will lead to war. You can always find a PhD ready to predict a plausible future.

“War” is vague enough that you can redefine various problems to be “war:” the riots in Greece, harsh comments on the internet, etc.

So, here we have it: we should hand over the planet to the elitist totalitarians and the watermelons because we, otherwise, will face


We are opposed to war. So, to be consistent with our values, we must agree with them.

This is pathetic. Especially because if we really think about it, increased temps will probably lead to less war. We will gain habitat

that is more productive for growing crops. We will gain nore hospitable habitat – the vast frozen tundra of Alaska, Russia, and China

offer impressive opportunities.  Antarctica might be seen as an alternative. And all of this new residential construction would let us

build homes green from the ground-up.

So, the whole idea is ludicrous. But it yet again demonstrates the theme that to accept the point of view of the world of the

alarmarxists, you must accept the view of the static universe, where the only thing you can be sure will not change is that change will

happen. And the verso: if there is no habitat change, we will not have wars. Right. I’ll buy that.

A sad reality for the marxists is that, up to the time of Marx’ birth, our world has been vastly infused with humanitarian respect for

life, decreased death from war, decreased conflicts per 1,000 population per year, etc.

History has nations rising and falling with great regularity. Partly due to invasion from warring neighbors or foreigners.

It is only in the recent era where we could possibly have a ruling class that could manage to be free from front-line battle. Nations

free from the violence of piratic no-man’s-lands. An era of more internationally-recognized treaties than ever. Etc.

The moment we got to this point is the moment Marx began writing. Writing exactly the opposite.

So, when you hear this stuff, use your brain. Go look up stuff for yourself. Remember, if you are old enough, to the way things were

taught before th emarxists figured out they could get steady jobs in public education. To the time when nature had one constant aspect:


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Last Democrat Kos Blogger?

This guy will eventually figure out that we liberals can no longer stand the forces of reason and civility; we must berate anyone who dissents.

Our ideas cannot stand on their own, so we must conduct social enforcement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Prediction: Normalizing Incest Is Next

Well, the people with “minor-attracted persons” have apparently had a conference lately. They are upset with how things are going with an update/revision of the psychiatry diagnostic manual.

Hopefully, these further efforts by the marxists are enough to make you wake up and agree that there is something going on in our culture other than us being “liberal,” and accepting. Sure you are so progressive, so evolved: you are friends with a gay hair dresser and it doesn’t even bother you. Wow.

Pat yourself on the back for being so modern.

What is really going on is a campaign: tear down the nukelar family, because it is Marx’s unholy trinity of God, family, and commerce that keeps the prevailing society in place.  This is the heart of what they call “cultural hegemony.” Or whatever college-larnin’ term they want to put on it.

Sex as part of the family is and idea that must not merely be accepted, along with other versions of the “family,” it must be smashed.

Obama’s guru, Bill Ayers, is supposed to have coined the battle cry, “Smash Monogamy!” These people will try to act mild-mannered to you, so you “Accept” thenm. But they hate the nukelar family and the extended family. That is what stands between them and “revolution!”

Look – I could keep going on and on. But at some point, you are going to have to accept the fact that there has been, and hopefully will ocntinue to be, an American, Constitutionalist Democratic Party, AND, also marxists using our party.

So: I won’t put links on this “smash monogamy” thing. Go google “smash monogamy,” and Obama’s ghostwriter, “William Ayers.”

They know: they have to destroy the family to have their revolution. It is reported that, in order to show commitment, the Weather Underground guys had same-sex encounters with each other. Including Ayers, who nonetheless is so old-fashioned to have his sweetheart of a home-maker wife Barbara Doern – who can cook up a pretty good bomb in the kitchen in no time.

Well, sure, we can accept the same-sex couple. After all, they have always been around, and they are not hurting anyone. But the marxists don’t care. They simply have co-opted the fact that we all know there are same-sex oriented people, and have played that up as a political issue. In the recent hub-bub about same-sex marriage, I heard one declaration that there were 1,200 or 1,400 major restrictions and compromises of civil rights of those who want a same-sex marriage.

Really? Name five. That 1,200 sounds horrible! -I did not go bother to look this up, but I am sure somehow someone combed over all laws and etc., and found there were 1,000 health insurance polices, life ins policies, etc., where a same-sex couple in civil union could not avail what a male-female marriage could.

So, there are a lot of ways to drum up numbers fo remotional appeal of how terrible the cultural hegemony is.

That is just one avenue. The marxists have been working sex-style angles all over the place. In the 60s, the idea of “open marriage” was thrown out there for everyone to consider. Not – ‘hey, let’s tear down society and have a revolution because of this,”  – no, these issues are presented as innocuous – if it feels good, do it.

So, the marxists succeeded pretty well in promoting sex outside of marriage, same-sex stuff, and cheating. Really, not much new there. Just the “acceptance.”

Plus, also, as time has gone by, the theme that has been brought up little by little is that of all of these arrangements, there is something bad – oppressive – about a committed heterosexual couple. Somehow, the woman was oppressed. This was back in the same hey-day, and so we got the Stepford Wives movies, and the equal rights amendment effort. OK, nothing wrong with giving the women the right to vote, and we must recognize that it is wrong to replace a wife with a robot – unless the wife consents.

But the campaign is not about accepting differnt ‘lifestyles’ – it is about bringing down the heterosexual committed couple. The “square” couples. “Vanilla.”

This continues on.

So, the boundaries of what is acceptable in mainstream society – the cultural hegemony – are the focus.

This includes the group of people who want to have sex with under-age people. Most of us would call them “sick,” and would identify the behavior as “illegal.” But, the hidden marxists now are pushing, this is just because we are brainwashed by the cultural hegemony. All of those oppressive images on TV of adult-adult relationships are OPPRESSION, they will eventually declare.

But first, they have to warm us up to accept this differnt lifestyle, with a range of arguments, including, “if you are Christian, why do you judge so much?” (A favorite of these atheists – if you are an atheist, why are yo using Christian theology to make an essential point?)

So, a next frontier is normalizing “minor-attracted persons.” Hence the recent conference, as noted on a few conservative (=”racist”) websites:

It looks like this is their line of argument: Just as with same-sex attraction, the field of psychiatry does not really have scientific data firmly declaring that “minor-attracted persons” have a “mental disorder;” therefore it is an arbitrary, oppressive prejudice of the cultural hegemony, and we should investigate this further (called “doing research”). In the future, if “science” figures out that a minor-attraction is a scientific “disorder,” and or finds evidence that adult-child romances hurt minors, then, at that time, our civilized, scientific society should go ahead and recognize these things as bad mentally and legally. Until then, the jury is out, and we should be “accepting,” and they say, allow these things to carry on.

There you have it. Until “science” can decide that a behavior is “disordered,” or that, inevitably that someone gets hurt, they say we should accept it.

Well, it is pretty clear that the minors are hurt, right? Well, just watch for these arguments. For these revolutionary marxists, they know what they are up to  – so they get to declare the criteria in any debate. cuz it has never occurred to you to make the case that minors get hurt in many ways by pedophilia. we are caught so off-guard, we are stammering. In the meantime, they pull out a handful of “findings,” and “statements,” and observations. They are prepared to counter an obvious side of the issue because we are totally unprepared. For example: it is true that some people have the pedophilia forced upon them, but manage to have a decent life. The marxists will argue that this disproves on e of our beliefs – that pedophilia harms the child. They will say: show the studies. We know. Among ourselves, we know this to be true from cases we know in our own lives.

So, what’s next? For the marxists, the goal is revolution – the overthrow of the cultural hegemony. They believe they have to overthrow the prevailing forces that keep the current society in place. These are: Christianity (and to some extent, Judaism), the family, and commerce. So, any way you can chip away at “the family” is progress.

Bestiality, mammal-to-mammal relationships, are making headway. Google “Cannes Film Festival,” and “Zoo.” A documentary: A guy died from injuries suffered at a group event enjoying man-horse relationships, and that brought the group to the attention of authorities. A film-maker made a documentary of this…

“Independent filmmaker Robinson Devor shies away from prurient imagery, instead enveloping the story in rich photography that gives it a dreamlike beauty overwhelming the sordidness of the subject matter.”

Following that was the issue of whether Roman Polanski would get in trouble, if he returned to the U.S. in 2010, on outstanding warrants from the 1970s for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Plenty of “liberal” people came to his defense. With no good argument, they threw out plenty of lame one: time has gone by, the woman herself does not desire to see him go to prison, hey, he makes great films, it was a different day and age, hey, she was wearing a provocative outfit, and whatever else.

So, with Polanski, we gave the green light to the marxist effort to decrease the terribleness of pedophilia.

Corey Feldman saying this in a recent Hollywood gossip magazine just helps to mae the casce that Hollywood is different – more “progressive,” less old-fashioned.

For us democrats, we went along. We hate the rich who exploit others, unless it is Hollywood. Then, we accept anything. Polanski raised some eyebrows, but Corey’s story has not made much of a ripple. Google “Corey Feldman,” “Hollywood,” “pedophiles.”

So, what is next? How can the marxists push even more that variations of sexual relationships other than marriage are just fine? And that we traditional people are at best old-fashion, and at worst are the “oppressors?”

We have heard that pre-marital relationships are “healthy,” that same-sex relationships are healthy, that mammal-to-mammal relationships are fine, that “open marriages” are fine, that group activities are fine, and that pedophilia is fine.

What next? Looking at the Bible, where we pretty much see all of these ideas listed (we are so old-fashioned as much as we try to invent new things), there is one listed that has not yet popped up onto the periphery of society, as far as I can tell: incest.

It won’t be brought up as: “Hey, this is OK.” It will be brought up in a way that the quote about the man-horse movie will fit: “Independent filmmaker Robinson Devor shies away from prurient imagery, instead enveloping the story in rich photography that gives it a dreamlike beauty overwhelming the sordidness of the subject matter.”

This occurrred to me when pondering how I will  be decalred to be old-fashioned, or oppressive, next, and thinking abt what is listed in the Bible. So, I am throwing the prediction out there that this will pop up, as the man-horse deal has at Cannes, and how the currnet group is working the pedophilia/science issue right now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

If you cannot trust Obama about DUST

Well, I warned you:

I am here, fellow democrats, to let you know: 1. your party has left you, and 2. FYI everything you hear from “our” candidates in this recently initiated election season will be false. Whatever they say, especially whatever Obama says, can be verified as patently false within a couple days with this thing called “Google.”

So, our fearless leader/redeemer/saviour is on the road NOT to campaign for president – hech, he does these bus tours ALL the time! — he is JUST out on the road to gather some good ideas from anyone who is out there along the road on some good idees for perking up the economy.

Ya see, giving billions to banks to hide off-shore did not work that well. I know! I lost a couple of bar bets on that one, too.

So, in Kancarankactee, Illiniowa, a farmer asks if ridiculous over-regulation, such as OF DUST, can be lifted from the burden of the American Farmer, so he or she can just get out and harvest motor fuel.

Obama scoffs and tells the guy in so many words that it is PRESPOSTEROUS to think that the USDA wants to govern dust.

Just go call the USDA. Plain advice from us plain folks. Obama is not one of those pointy-head, out-of-touch elites, like when Bush had no idear 1. what a grocery store scanner was, and 2. what the price of a loaf of bread was, no Obama is a BROTHER.

Jes call the USDA. They will fix ya up. Thar is NO tax on DUST!

Well, tarns out, the USDA has no tax or regeelations on dust.

What was that gun-clinging, Bible-totin’ hayseed talkin bout!?

Fooo – lishnest!

Obama scoffs, then says, no, don’t believe evarthang you hears. Jes call the US of the DA.

Scoff Just like he scoffed at those CAmbridge parking tickets.

Well, what do ya know. It tarns out that Oprabama has been trying to regulate DUST.

Therefore, and wentforth, I declare agin that evarthang the president claims on the campaign trail is false.

They say the microphone takes away 15 IQ points. So to be respectful, mebbe he simply did not recall he was tryin to regulate dust. DUST.

Not the OSDA – Why in tarnotion would USDA be tryin to regeelate dust? But the E of PA. Yess. THe sames thatz tryin to regeelatre BREATH.

Oprabama says don’t believe evarthang ya hear in the intertubes. Let’s add: don’t believe a single thing you hear him claim on the campaign trail.






Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Nothing Will Be True.

The election season has kicked off yet again. It is Party Time.

It will be disgusting. We democrats will play all high-road and handsome. As we ought. But we should not. We have sold our souls. We are all socialists now. But we cannot let this news out. If anyone brings it up, just mention “McCarthy” and red-baiting.

It will be painful to see. Here is a brief guide about what to expect. First: any narrative/story/example of everyday citizen will be false. Patently false. Constructed. A woman who is paraded around for having lost her healthcare and being denied cancer care will be revealed, if the truth does come out, as being denied some experimental cancer screening, and she will be discovered to be self-employed, making a lot of money, and simply choosing to not bother to buy health insurance.

She will serve as canvas for us to contruct our pitty-potty platform. We aren’t for us, but for some imaginary collection of sad-sacks who, purportedly, are waiting for us to rescue them from the Big Blue Meanies (the unholy trinity of Christians, nukelar families, and people working at commerce).

Thankfully, the last two prez election rounds have taught the conservatives / republicans, so they will be on the case to reveal our fables.

This is really sickening. With so many real-world situations to address, why do we make them up? All of Obama’s from 2008 were made up.

So were all of Hilary’s.

Next, I will fill you in that every spontaneous question from some whistle stop will be fully constructed. The “small town single mom” will turn out to be some campaign staffer, and clever observers will find her in some group photo with Obama from a couple months previous. They will all be staged.

The entire crowd will be bussed in. This is what we did last time. Bussed from college campuses across state lines when necessary.

I am giving you the heads-up. This is one sign that this party is not what you think it is. Figure it out for yourself. Watch these fake campagin efforts.

Oh – and watch Craigslist for employment opportuntities. We will be hiring our “volunteers.” you might just be able to work a deal and get paid straight-up to vote for Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Uncle Tom’s Abortuary. 1.

Uncle Tom’s Abortuary.

No, not really. Uncle Tom did not have an abortuary. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, was a timely novel that found fault with the pro-choice attitude toward slavery that was the prevailing active political position at the time, 1840, before the Civil War. And before Steven Douglas so eloquently phrased the pro-choice slavery position in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. (Known to Douglas supporters as the Douglas-Lincoln debates.)

I have recently gone through Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and I thought it was mostly a singularly astonishing novel. There has been a great deal written about Uncle Tom’s Cabin, so you can go look all of that up. Knowing some history, and getting into the lengthy story, I think the writing ranges from fairly decent, to melodramatic, to profound and unprecedented. The characters are sharply drawn, and, yes, with lots of stereotypes, both white and black, but especially for black. While Beecher Stowe honestly perceived African-origin Americans as equal in God’s eyes, and believed all thing should be equal on this earthly side, she still lays down some heavy stereotypes for the black characters. The story works nonetheless.

The thing I want to note is a parallel between our current social status of abortioneers and the way that slavery, and especially the runaway-slave-bounty-hunter business, was noted to take on legitimacy due to two things: the legality of slavery, and the moneyed status of those in that profession.

Spoiler Alert: the novel has been out since 1840 – so I don’t feel so bad revealing what happens. Long story short, Uncle Tom is a slave who gets sold from a slaveholder/farm where he was treated relatively well (given that he was a slave), and ends up with a cruel slaveholder. Tom is – and watch out – there is no way to grasp this novel without recognizing God Almighty, who is certainly a character – a Christian through and through, and goes beyond what we would believe a mere mortal – especially an uneducated mortal – would endure to follow God’s instructions. He has a chance to fold, to wrinkle, to slip, but has love in his heart, and so is noble.

Is he the “Uncle Tom,” obedient plantation slave? Well, no. Our favorite liberal admonishment, the “Uncle Tom” ridicule, is a bastardization of the character. Tom suffers – he is a Christ analogy – because of his obedience to God, while defying his human, earthly “master.”

That reality should not be expected to slow us liberals down in the use of the “Uncle Tom” pejorative; we hate God as much as Karl Marx has instructed us to hate God. So, no skin off our nose (yet).

Along with Tom’s life, a couple other slaves are sold away from Happy Hills. One female and her young son are sold, but she runs away after the contract is signed and money has changed hands, so the buyer has seen his deal run away from him. Literally.

So, long story short, he contracts with a couple slave bounty hunters to go get his property.

The discussion of these slave-hunters by Beecher Stowe is what I will reflect upon. At the time, the Fugitive Slave Act had recently come to be law. This made the entire country pro-choice on slavery. Specifically, it obligated “free” states to permit and foster the conduct of the business of runaway-slave retrieving. In the free north, the status of the slave as property was acknowledged, and you could not look the other way or harbor a slave any more than a pawn shop owner could knowingly accept and resell stolen goods, to the loss of the legitimate owner.

I think this set up a very divisive issue, and gives parallels to today’s status of our nation as a pro-choice nation. To be good citizens, to not-ruffle feathers in polite society, and to keep the peace amongst family at gatherings, we who are pro-life need to defer to the prevailing pro-choice reality.

This gives the pro-choice view a false impression of broad acceptance.

Even among us Christians, who, by faith and creed, part and partial, should have no second thoughts about how we ought to regard slavery, or regard abortion.

This is what Uncle Tom’s Cabin is about: how can we Christians hold any view other than to formally, officially oppose slavery. Slavery, and connected activity, anywhere.

If they made you read this in school, or if some Marxist college professor assigns this book to make some point about dialectical materialism, they won’t make this central point. That is it.

We stride off to church on Sunday, and feel good that we have worshiped tithed, and at the same time our mind is free of the thought that somewhere the whip cracks, and somewhere a public sale is separating mother from child. Recorded in the county register with the legitimacy of our Christian, adult-male-to-adult-female, minister-presided wedding.

I will quote the text to show how Beecher Stowe highlights the legitimacy being given to slavery and the slave-trackers.

This may take a couple posts. I thought my intro would be brief, but I have written a lengthy post so far.

So, I will wrap up this blog entry with one leading quote, and save the rest for another post. Or two.

My goal is to help us see how this reality-based novel, seemingly of a bygone day, where we progressives and liberals will certainly side with the anti-slavery view is an exact parallel to what we should be thinking nowadays regarding abortion, but how we are failing, and giving the abortioneers legitimacy.

Chapter 8: Eliza’s Escape. At this point in the story, early on, Eliza has run away from the farm because she has learned that her owner has sold her in order to settle some debts, and that he has also sold her young son, to yet another buyer. The buyer, who held some debts from her owner and by the purchase has settled the debt, has discovered his property has run away, and has given chase. As well as he can, given that horses must be rounded up, and a direction determined, by a couple of complicit fellow-slaves.

The buyer cannot catch up with his runaway property, but at a tavern, he negotiated with a pair of men to retrieve his property. These are the salve-trackers. They are shown as rough, slippery jobbers in between the upstanding legitimate world and the lousy scoundrel world. They can talk business, and grasp the situation and laws involved, yet are ready for the brawling rough-and-tumble, and seem to have no steady work or location.

This deal is negotiated. Then, Stowe narrates: “ If any of our refined and Christian readers object to the society into which this scene introduces them, let us beg them to begin and conquer their prejudices in time. The catching business, we remind them, is rising to the dignity of a lawful and patriotic profession. If all the broad land between the Mississippi and the Pacific becomes one great market for bodies and souls, and human property retains the locomotive tendencies of this nineteenth century, the trader and catcher may yet be among our aristocracy.”

To me, that says the abortionists, and their advocates, will be among our aristocrats. High profile, high wages, high status, in high-level meetings, and held with high regard. And so they seem to be.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized