Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mother earth

mother earth's Journal
mother earth's Journal
March 3, 2015

Chris Hedges "Fascist Corporatocracy: False Left-Right Paradigm"

mother earth’s DISCLAIMER:
WARNING, this topic may not be safe for all viewers, the opinions and views presented are just that, opinions & views which do not necessarily represent those of the poster, DU or any DU'ers who offer opinion on the subject. Please proceed at your own risk.
If you are unable to discuss, venture into thought, or in any way confront the problems of capitalism this video may cause severe medical reactions which may include convulsions, or may require protective gear for safeguarding head injury. Please seek medical attention and inform your doctor if you suffer any ill effects.

CONTENT: I am including an M rating for mature since Hedges is candidly discussing issues that reveal the false paradigm.
There is no RT warning, so it is safe for those over age 18 to view.

March 2, 2015

Prof. Richard Wolff on Real Time

mother earth’s DISCLAIMER:
WARNING, this topic may not be safe for all viewers, the opinions and views presented are just that, opinions & views which do not necessarily represent those of the poster, DU or any DU'ers who offer opinion on the subject. Please proceed at your own risk.
If you are unable to discuss, venture into thought, or in any way confront the problems of capitalism this video may cause severe medical reactions which may include convulsions, or may require protective gear for safeguarding head injury. Please seek medical attention and inform your doctor if you suffer any ill effects.

CONTENT: I am including an M rating for mature since Marxism is candidly discussed. There is no RT warning, so it is safe for those over age 18 to view.

For further thought provoking info: http://www.rdwolff.com/

Academic positions

Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City. He also teaches classes regularly at the Brecht Forum in Manhattan.
Earlier he taught economics at Yale University (1967-1969) and at the City College of the City University of New York (1969-1973). In 1994, he was a Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Paris (France), I (Sorbonne).

BA in History from Harvard College (1963);
MA in Economics from Stanford University (1964);
MA in History from Yale University (1967); and a
PhD in Economics from Yale University (1969)

For more info on published works & public presentations:

Be sure to also check:


Seems the video may need to be viewed on youtube.

February 28, 2015

Wars for the Oligarchs, Has the IMF Annexed Ukraine?

Uploaded on Feb 13, 2015

Michael Hudson Report: Finance is a new kind of war and forced sell offs that the IMF is imposing is a new kind of battle ground


HUDSON: Well, the terms on which the IMF make loans, first of all, are based on austerity. The terms require more austerity and a withdrawal of all the public subsidies. Now you have Ukrainian population absolutely devastated. The only result of the IMF's austerity a program that--the conditions that it's laying down for making loans to Ukraine is you have to repay the debts. But you don't have the ability to repay their debts. So there's only one way to do it, and that's the way that we've told Greece and other countries to do: you have to begin selling off whatever you have left of your public domain, or you have to have your meeting oligarchs take on partnerships with American or European investors, so that they can buy out into the monopolies in the Ukraine. So, essentially, the IMF has a two-stage one-two punch. The punch number one is: here's the money; now you have to repay us after cutting back public spending and causing a depression. The two punch is: oh, you can't pay us? I'm sorry that all of our projections are wrong. And the IMF has been wrong on Ukraine year after year, almost as much as it's been wrong on Ireland and on Greece.

So now the real problem is: what is Ukraine going to have to sell off to pay the foreign debts that it gets for having waged the war that's devastated the economy? Well, the main things that the foreign investors want are Ukrainian farmland. Monsanto has been buying into Ukraine. But Ukraine has a law against alienating its farmland and agricultural land to foreigners. And a matter of fact, its law is very much the same as what the Financial Times reports that Australia is wanting to do today, to block Chinese and American purchase of farmlands. The IMF's position is you have to dismantle public regulations against foreign investment and you have to dismantle consumer production and environmental protection regulations. So, in other words, what is in store for Ukraine is a neoliberal policy that's guaranteed to actually make it even worse. And in that sense, finance is war, finance is the new kind of warfare using finance and forced selloffs in the IMF is a new kind of battlefield. So I'm not sure how all of this is going to really help Ukraine, and it promises to lead to yet another crisis down the road very, very quickly.

PERIES: Michael, let's unpack the debt of this crisis. Now, the war has led Ukraine into a deeper crisis. Talk about the devastation that has caused and what they have to manage in addition to what the IMF is trying to impose on it.

HUDSON: Well, when Kiev went to war against Eastern Ukraine, it fought primarily the coal mining region and the export region. Thirty-eight percent of Ukraine's exports are to Russia. And yet this was the--the export capacity has been bombed out of existence. And, in fact, the electric companies that fuel the electricity to the coal mines been bombed out. So Ukraine can't even supply itself with coal.

Now, that's very--what is so striking about all this is that just a few weeks ago, on January 28, Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, said the IMF does not make loans to countries that are engaged in war. That would be funding one side or another. And yet Ukraine is involved in a civil war.

And also the IMF articles of agreement say that it cannot make loans to an insolvent country. So how on earth can the IMF be part of a loan bailout for the Ukraine if, number one, it's at war, the war has to stop totally; number two, it's insolvent? The only solution is that Ukraine will somehow scale back its debts to private investors. And that means a lot of contrary hedge funds investors.

So, again, the Financial Times today has an article showing that an American investor has $7 billion of Ukraine debts and wants to speculate in it. How is Ukraine going to treat the speculators? And then, finally, how is the IMF going to treat the fact that Russia's sovereign fund lent 3 billion euros to the Ukraine on harsh terms through the London agreement terms that can't be written down? Is the IMF going to insist that Russia take the same haircut that it's imposing on the hedge funds? All of this is going to be the kind of conflict that's going to take much more effort than even the solutions that we've seen over the last few days have taken on the military battlefront.

PERIES: And so how could Ukraine imagine getting out of this crisis?

HUDSON: It imagines it'll get out of the crisis by the West giving it $50 billion and saying, here's all the money you need, spend it as you want. That's the extent of its imagination. This is fantasy. It's living in a dream world, except that a few weeks ago, George Soros came out in The New York Review of Books and said, give Ukraine $50 billion and look at it as a down payment on military or with Russia. Well, immediately Kiev said, yes, we will only spend them on defensive arms. We will defend Ukraine all the way up to Siberia as we wipe out the Russians.

Today, yet another Financial Times article said, yes, give Ukraine the 50 billion that George Soros asked for. We've got to enable it to have enough money that it can fight America's war against Russia. And the Europeans are saying, wait a minute, not only at the end of this, but there'll be no more Ukrainians to fight, but the war is going to spread into Poland and into elsewhere, because if the money that's given to Ukraine is really for what the Obama administration and Hillary and Soros are all pressing for to go to war with Russia, then Russia's going to say, okay, if we're being attacked by foreign troops, we're going to have to not only bomb the troops, but the airports are coming in, the railway stations are coming in. We're going to extended towards Europe. And apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. The one choice: Europe, Germany, and Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials and European technology, we can be the most prosperous area in the world. Or you can go to war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice.


All roads lead to the same villains.

Edited to add: I am no Putin lover or apologist, he certainly has shown us who and what he is, but beyond that, I am no lover of these financial wars aimed at bringing nations to their knees.

Having said that, I am really tired of the RT slams on this board too. Is there no room for opposing opinions, are we to only post and view what is presented by our own mainstream media? If that is the case, we are in more serious trouble than I believed possible. If a democratic board cannot allow for opinions which mostly come from our own US presenters simply because they are on RT...then we are beyond lost and no different than the GOP who get their lockstep talking points. Aren't we the party that self-examines & sees the bigger picture.

This is my humble opinion, but I honestly think if we call everything conspiracy if it does not fit with what TV tells us to think, we've lost our capacity for rational and free thinking, and we may as well all join the military, because it is our main focus, not life, not people, just war and more war.

In the above snipped interview...it states
there'll be no more Ukrainians to fight, but the war is going to spread into Poland and into elsewhere

When is enough, enough? Ok, stepping off the soapbox, but I do feel it needs to be said. We are democrats, we once believed and were told by FDR that dissent is our duty.
February 27, 2015

Unconditional Basic Income explained by Barbara Jacobson, European Citizens' Initiative

Published on Mar 24, 2014
World Finance interviews Barbara Jacobson, one of the organizers of the European Citizens' Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income, about whether such a system is feasible for Europe.

February 27, 2015

Army Spied on Hero Over Amazon Review

Published on Oct 15, 2013
President awards William Swenson, a former active duty Army Captain, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry. Captain Swenson received the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as an Embedded Trainer and Mentor of the Afghan National Security Forces with Afghan Border Police Mentor Team, 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, during combat operations in Kunar Province, Afghanistan on September 8, 2009.

Exclusive: Army Spied on Hero Over Amazon Review
President Obama gave this outspoken, brave soldier the Medal of Honor. The Army dug through his trash and bothered his girlfriend.
Will Swenson is officially an American war hero, awarded the Medal of Honor, the military’s most prestigious decoration for his actions in Afghanistan. But in the eyes of the Army, he was, for a time, a target of surveillance. Army investigators staked out his house. They went through his trash. And it all started because Swenson was mentioned in a book review posted to Amazon.com.
The Army’s treatment of Swenson is one of a number of high-profile cases where the military has launched investigations into highly-decorated troops—only to have the investigations themselves come under scrutiny. Top congressmen have demanded answers from the Secretary of the Army, while insiders speculate that the deep dive into Swenson’s life was a political stunt. Before President Obama gave Swenson the Medal of Honor, he was known as much for his stinging criticism of Army leadership as he was for his heroism at the Battle of Gangal.
“There’s good reason to suspect that the investigation into Swenson was really about his award, his criticism of the Army, and the hope that agents would find something to shut him up,” said a source knowledgeable about the investigation. “All of the details the Army was looking to confirm were all within their reach from the beginning, without speaking to Swenson.”
A single Internet comment started the trail that led agents to Swenson’s Seattle condo in May of 2012, a year before Obama hung the medal on him. Documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Beast show that the Army’s Criminal Investigative Division, or CID, sent agents to question Swenson because he was thanked—along with several other people—in a paragraph-long book review.

February 27, 2015

Richard Wolff, Global Capitalism: February 2015 (Highly Recommend)

Published on Feb 5, 2015

Monthly Economic Update
Co-sponsored by Democracy at Work, Left Forum, and Judson Memorial Church

Richard D. Wolff

Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 7:30pm

“The Economics of a New Year” Judson Memorial Church Assembly Hall 239 Thompson Street at
Washington Square, Manhattan

These programs begin with 30 minutes of short updates on important economic events of the last month. Then Wolff analyzes several major economic issues. For this January 14, these will include:

1. Causes and consequences of the oil price collapse: can it produce another crash?
2. Greece: if Jan. 25 election brings Syriza victory, what happens to Europe?
3. The economics of Cuba, 1959-2014: embargo, survival, new industries, and the turn toward worker cooperatives


Professor Wolff's Website: www.rdwolff.com

Professor Wolff's Podcast: http://www.truth-out.org/economic-upd...

February 26, 2015

Financial Times: What next for Greece?

Published on Feb 24, 2015
Syriza, Greece’s ruling leftist party, has radical options to avoid both Grexit and eurozone demands, but would they work? FT columnist and associate editor Wolfgang Münchau debates with Reuters News editor-at-large Hugo Dixon. Lex’s Robert Armstrong chairs


Greek PM Tsipras Briefs SYRIZA MPs on Negotiations (Feb. 25, 2015)

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras gathered SYRIZA’s Parliamentary Group in order to brief the party’s MPs in detail regarding the government’s moves since it took office on January 26. Tsipras referred to the difficulties and climate the new government had to face, the alliances formed and the conflicts that took place, as well as how things progressed between the three consecutive Eurogroup meetings and how the government managed to secure a strong negotiation position.

According to SYRIZA sources, the Premier referred to the government’s achievements during that period of time. Those gains include: The distinction of the loan agreement from the Memorandum. The disengagement from the Memorandum, as an austerity policy framework. The interim agreement, which gives a breather to the Greek people. The avoidance of a plan aimed at economic and fiscal asphyxiation and essentially aimed at the government being considered a “left parenthesis.” The end of unrealistic primary surpluses. Stability in the financial system by reaching a Eurogroup agreement.

Regarding the list of the reforms approved by the institutions and loan partners yesterday, Tsipras noted that the government managed to replace the previous government’s measures with a series of targets based on the so-called “Thessaloniki program.” Furthermore, he stressed that an important step has been taken, even though things remain difficult, and that the government is judged by its ability to negotiate and govern. Finally, he said that the government should quickly put its plan forward, specify reforms and gain credibility on the basis of implementing those reforms along with credibility to loan partners about “willing to make the necessary changes in thorny issues that persist for decades.”

It should be noted that today’s meeting was scheduled for Tuesday night, after the Government Council, but it was adjourned due to the Parliament’s eventful meeting discussing the immunity lift or not of New Democracy MP Adonis Georgiadis.

Reactions prior to the meeting

Among the meeting’s participants was Productive Reconstruction, Environment and Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis who yesterday, during the Governing Council, expressed his objections on the reform program, estimating that the agreement is not compatible with everything SYRIZA committed it will implement.

On her behalf, Deputy Finance Minister Nadia Valavani stressed her worries on the “speed” with which the government can “run” a negotiation regarding the pre-election proclaimed measure of the so-called “100 installments.” As she underlined, it is an absolute necessity not to waste time. Moreover, Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias expressed his belief that the negotiations should also have a geopolitical dimension.

The above objections came as a continuation of the criticism expressed on Sunday by SYRIZA MEP Manolis Glezos, who has heavily criticized the Greek government for the way it handled the Eurogroup negotiations as well as the agreed outcome. In a sharp statement published on the website of the Movement for Active Citizens that he founded, Glezos apologized to the Greek people for contributing to this “illusion,” as he characterized the negotiations from which many expected that Greece will have more gains.

In response to the historic member of the Greek Left, the Government Spokesperson Gavriil Sakellaridis commented that “in any case, we will not cease to honor and respect Manolis Glezos, but that was a misguided and wrong statement.”

Finally, on his behalf, SYRIZA MP Kostas Lapavitsas, in an article published on his personal blog, called for an immediate Parliamentary Group meeting, expressing his “deep concerns” regarding the Eurogroup agreement and the reforms expected by the government’s loan partners
- See more at: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/02/25/greek-pm-tsipras-briefs-syriza-mps-on-negotiations/#sthash.Cz8rOXwd.dpuf

*Thessaloniki program:

February 23, 2015

"Beggar Thy Neighbor" A Lesson on How Germany Plays Dirty

For the full transcript:


Heiner Flassbeck says Germany has played a devastating role in the European Monetary Union and the "Greece guilty and Germany innocent" narrative is completely false - February 22, 2015

Two snips:

FLASSBECK: Yeah, that's a wonderful example, because 20 percent is exactly something--what is needed, depending on your productivity. But let me take the example of France. You'll see France is much more important than Greece. Everybody is focusing on Greece, but the real problem is France. France did everything right. France had a productivity increase of 1.5 percent. French wages increase increased by 3.5 percent. So the difference was exactly the 2 percent inflation target. And so France was perfect. But France is in the same difficulties as Greece--in principle not has acute, but in principle they have a huge gap with Germany in terms of competitiveness. Why? Well, because German productivity was also 1.5 percent, but German nominal wages only increased by 1.5 percent and not by 3.5 percent like in France. So they did nothing, they did everything right, but they're in trouble anyway. And this is where the unfairness comes in and where it is absolutely clear that if you do not tackle this root problem of the currency union, it was not tackled in the first ten years. But if you don't tackle it now, then you will never find a solution for the Eurozone. Forget about Greece. If France and Italy have to do the same thing as Greece did, it goes through a Great Depression. Could you imagine what it means politically? It will be a disaster. It will not be a radical left-wing government that comes to power in France, but a right-wing, and in Italy also.

JAY: Now, you talk about the difference in the wage levels. But how did Germany keep wages down? Is not like it's a state-run economy. I mean, why couldn't the German workers fight for higher wages?

FLASSBECK: Well, this is easily explained. It was, first of all, in agreement. In Germany we have a long tradition of having tripartite negotiations or agreements between the government, the employers, and the unions on wages. So that was the first step, that it was an agreement where everybody agreed that now we have to, so to say, keep our wages low to reduce unemployment, and nobody thought about the currency union. It was only by chance that the currency union started exactly at that moment of time.

And then the second step was that indeed the right-wing government passed a lot of legislation that weakened the unions dramatically. And this package of legislations are not one measure, but ten, 20 measures that all weakened the negotiating power of the unions, all in the attempt to reduce unemployment in Germany. But what nobody thought about: that this is the classical begger thy neighbor policy for the rest of the European Union and for the rest of the world. Don't forget the United States. The United States have a permanent, huge deficit with Germany, because Germany is hidden, so to say, is protected by the low value of the euro. So if there would not be euro, then clearly the D mark would appreciate against the dollar. But with the low euro, the euro is, so to say, the average of weaker countries and stronger countries. Germany has a wonderful, wonderful goal to increase its surplus with United States and begger the neighbors, because it's absolutely clear that the country that is increasing its current account surplus all the time--and it did so for the last ten, 15 years--this country has huge absolute advantage from international trade, where all its trading partners have negative effect. It's not trade as something that helps everyone; if there is absolute advantages through rising current account surpluses in one country, the other countries have negative contribution from trade. And then the whole idea of free trade is useless and the whole negotiations about TTIP, this agreement between Europe and Germany, is absolutely useless. And I saw it was now discussed in the United States and Congress, and rightly so, if there is no clear idea about the exchange rates.

JAY: So, I mean, does this mean the Eurozone really doesn't make any sense, that as long as you've got these different nation-states and at heart they really are competitive--how can they exist within the same monetary union?

FLASSBECK: It could have made sense. You see, if everybody would have obeyed to this rule that I mentioned, wages in line with national productivity, plus commonly agreed inflation target, well, it would have been a nice idea. But if one country goes for a totally mercantilist approach, then there is no chance to make sense of it. Then there is no way to bring it back, or it's very difficult to bring it back, because the other countries would need absolute cuts in wages. But absolute cuts in wages lead to deflation. So if Germany is not moving, nothing will happen. And that is why the book Against the Troika, the German title of it is Only Germany Can Save the Euro--nobody else.

JAY: And doesn't seem like they're--at least when it comes to Greece--are so intended. In fact, they have this counsel of what they call wise men, these group of economists who issued a statement--I think it was today--apparently saying, let Greece go, we'll be better off, the better defense of the Eurozone is actually to let Greece go.

FLASSBECK: Yeah. Well, these people are stupid. You know, I do not not even think about them. This is a club of extremely radical conservative economists with no clue about the world and all the important relationships in this world. So don't even--ignore it.

But what is really dramatic is the collective denial of Germany's position in the currency union from the very beginning. In Germany we have--in the mass media and the important media, everybody's trying to defend the German position along the lines--all the others are wrong, only Germany got it right from the very beginning. And this is a disaster. You know, if a society that is now living in a--has a democracy for more than 50 years and understands itself as an open society, as an open society where everybody can discuss freely everything, and then you see that you have such a collective denial of a very simple fact, then really it's getting critical, and then many people are really frustrated about this.


An astute comment after the above at TRNN link. I don't usually copy comments, but this one sums it up so well...

This highlights why unfettered capitalism is so destructive. Germany are only being 'good' capitalists, they are working for their own advantage and 'externalizing' all ill effects, "beggar thy neighbor" is the essence of capitalism, and that is why in the long run we go through these cycles of collapse and rebuild. Capitalism is a short term gain philosophy. That is why much of the events in the world make no sense on the surface, it is because we are trying to understand them from the perspective that leaders are working towards at least 'national' interest, but they are not, they are working towards the self interest of small groups of interested parties.

This is the source of the Austerity policy throughout Europe, Germany played dirty with wages, it has triggered a race to the bottom for the rest of Europe just to compete. It would be interesting to know the source of this strategy (because Austerity is a strategy) is it internal to Germany or external, all of the European leaders seem to go and bend their knee at the White House.

February 22, 2015

Greece and the Endgame of the Neocolonial Model of Exploitation (February 19, 2015)


With the bankruptcy of Greece now undeniable, we've finally reached the endgame of the Neocolonial-Financialization Model.
We all know how old-fashioned colonialism worked: the imperial power takes physical control of previously independent lands and declares its ownership of the region as a newly minted colony.

What's the benefit of controlling colonies? In the traditional colonial model, there are two primary benefits:
1. The imperial power (the core) extracts valuable commodities and low-cost labor from its colony (the periphery)
2. The imperial power sells its own high-margin manufactured goods to the captured-market of its colony.

This buy low, sell high dynamic is the heart of colonialism, which can be understood as one example of the The Core-Periphery Model (June 11, 2013).
The book Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History is an excellent history of how this model worked for Great Britain.
The tensions this model generated in the colonial elites of America are brought to life in Tobacco Culture: The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of Revolution.
This traditional model of colonialism was forcibly dismantled in the 1940s-1960s. Former colonies established their political independence, a process that diminished the wealth and global reach of former colonial powers.

In response, global financial powers sought financial control rather than political control. This is one dynamic of what I call the Neocolonial-Financialization Model (May 24, 2012), which substitutes the economic power of financialization (debt, leverage and speculation) for the raw power of political conquest and control.

The main strategy of financialization is: extend cheap credit to those with limited access to capital. Those with limited access to capital will swallow the bait of cheap credit whole, and willingly agree to penalties, high interest rates, etc.
Then, when the credit expansion reaches levels that cannot be supported, the lenders demand collateral and/or favorable trade and financial concessions.
These tactics have been well-documented in books such as The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

But the economic pillaging of former colonies has limits, and as a consequence the global financial powers developed the Neocolonial Model, which turns these same techniques on one's home region.

Thus Greece and other capital-poor European nations were recognized as the periphery that could be exploited by the core, and the euro was the ideal tool to financialize the economies of nations which could never have generated credit/housing bubbles without the wide-open spigots of cheap credit flooding their economies.

In Neocolonialism, the forces of financialization are used to indenture the local Elites and populace to the financial core: the peripheral "colonials" borrow money to buy the finished goods manufactured in the core economies, enriching the Imperial Elites with A) the profits made selling goods to the debtors B) interest on credit extended to the peripheral colonies to buy the core economies' goods and "live large", and C) the transactional skim of financializing peripheral assets such as real estate and State debt.

In essence, the core banks of the EU colonized the peripheral nations via the financializing euro, which enabled a massive expansion of debt and consumption in the periphery. The banks and exporters of the core extracted enormous profits from this expansion of debt and consumption.

Now that the financialization scheme of the euro has run its course, the periphery's neocolonial standing is starkly revealed: the assets and income of the periphery are flowing to the core as interest on the private and sovereign debts that are owed to the core's central bank and its money-center private banks.

Note how little of the Greek "bailout" actually went to the citizenry of Greece and how much was interest paid to the financial powers.
This is not just the perfection of neocolonialism but of neofeudalism as well. The peripheral nations of the EU are effectively neocolonial debtors of the core, and the taxpayers of the core nations are now feudal serfs whose labor is devoted to making good on any loans to the periphery that go bad.

Neocolonialism benefits both the core's financial Aristocracy and national oligarchies/ kleptocracies. This is ably demonstrated in the recent essay Misrule of the Few: How the Oligarchs Ruined Greece.
With the bankruptcy of Greece now undeniable, we've finally reached the endgame of the Neocolonial-Financialization Model. There are no more markets to exploit with financialization, and the fact that the mountains of debt are unpayable can no longer be masked.

At this point, the financial Aristocracy has an unsolvable dilemma: writing off defaulted debt also writes off assets and income streams, for every debt is somebody else's asset and income stream. When all those phantom assets are recognized as worthless, the system implodes.

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 10, 2004, 05:08 PM
Number of posts: 6,002

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»mother earth's Journal