The House Democratic leadership recently proposed tying funding of operation to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
As is well known, this effort failed.
Apparently, in devising this measure the members of the Democratic caucus expected support from a number of their GOP colleagues.
The number of GOP supporters they expected has been quoted as sixty.
In his stump speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barak Obama has frequently said that the support of 12 GOP Senators is required to pass the antiwar measures that Congressional Democrats advocate.
These two numbers 60 in the House and 12 in the Senate are the basis of the title of this article, the 60-12 solution and are a matter of importance to all anti-war activists.
The events of the spring and the maneuvering around the timetable issue have demonstrated that a Democrat only approach to ending the war is inadequate.
Therefore a bipartisan strategy must be developed.
How can the anti-war movement generate the pressure to motivate 60 GOP representatives and 12 GOP Senators to resist their leaders and support anti-war measures introduced by the Democrats?
First: Focus on ending the war and drop the divisive partisan issues.There are a great many Republicans who view the Occupation and Invasion of Iraq as a massive mistake.A large number of these people are willing to be active in ending the war.Listen to them, seek common ground, and if necessary focus on war resistance only. Two war opponents giving a simple, unified message are far more powerful than two war opponents publicly engaged in an absorbing argument about impeachment or something.
Two: Use the web.Find out who your representatives and senators are and send them frequent messages denouncing the war.Remind them that you will not forget or be dissuaded and that on Election Day their position on the war will determine your vote. Send similar messages to the President and to the GOP party sites.Remind them over and over and over that they are the minority, that they are wrong on the war and that we the people are demanding change.
Three: Support anti-war groups and candidates.Send them money if you can afford to.Otherwise encourage them and strengthen them by signing petitions writing letters and otherwise keeping their voices loud and potent.
Four: Use the press; whether or not your letter to the editor is published it makes an impact. A local newspaper editor told me that he once got over 400 e-mails originating from conservatives nation wide when our local congressman publicly criticized Karl Rove.The Right is sending cards and letters; we need to send them, too.Send a lot.
Five: Be generous with your friends.You may know and respect people who support the war.They have their reasons and they have a right to their opinions, show respect for their views, perhaps they will show the same respect for ours.This will help to convince waverers and will defang some of the opposition.
Six: Be active in your locality’s political and community activities.You will develop a reputation as a serious person and this will add weight and strength to your opinions as you state them.
Seven: Find and support GOP anti-war candidates.I am not advocating that active Democrats sabotage the GOP; after all we have our hands full with our own party.Instead, I am asking Republicans opposed to the war to organize and challenge their leaders and for conservative minded anti-war independents to enroll and to help nominate anti-war Republicans in the upcoming primaries.
You will probably receive comments calling your steps not enough, and for those who are already doing them I applaud them for doing even more. But for those not doing anything right now, these steps are a necessary beginning.
Imagine if even one percent of disaffected Americans took these steps as you've outlined them? Let's even call it "The One Percent Solution". We'd have 3 million new people speaking out, engaging themselves in the political process. And that would indeed be noticed by the powers that be.
Great article, Mr. Chapman. I enjoy your writing.
by
Todd Huffman, M.D. (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 109 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 12:19:53 PM
I am SICK of the American people being used as "useful idiots" , manipulated by BOTH parties. They constantly dip out of the same cup and present us with "choices" from the same pot of swill. (sigh!)
I am voting against the WAR. We Democrats got in last election and consequently FUNDED the surge. Good Lord! Nancy Pelosi even tabled the Bush impeachment initiative (but it's still ALIVE!) I don't trust ANY of them!
I want us OUT of Iraq. I want our Country to stop doing the bidding of Big Business married to Big Government.
Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start being a good American.
I'm voting to get out of IraqandIsrael and the whole damn Middle East.
I'm voting to get out of Korea.
I'm voting to get out of NATO.
I'm voting to bring ALL our troops home and protect our own borders and stop the stampede. Our country is going BROKE and we can't afford this.
I'm voting for Ron Paul whose been against this thing from the very start, and against alot of other things as well. The media (corporate) will try and paint him as a racist or a kook but just do your OWN homework.
Nobody explains Ron Paul better than Ron himself. Do your own homework. You can listen here (thank God they can't control the internet...YET!)
You're kidding, aren't you? A "bipartisan strategy must be
developed," you say?
You write, "Apparently, in devising this measure the members of the Democratic caucus expected support from a number of their GOP colleagues." Colleagues? Are you referring to Congressional Republicans as "colleagues"? Do you really think that that collection of backwoods reactionaries, racists, shameless demagogues, religious fanatics, militarist zealots, pathological liars, & American neo-fascists deserves to be described as warm & fuzzy "colleagues?" I wonder what planet you're living on.
And if it were true that Democrats expected "support" from the GOP fascist brigade, shouldn't they have their heads examined? Is it a sane expectation, after what we've seen lo these last 6 years, to expect the highly-disciplined GOP shock troops to be lining up against their "president" and with antiwar forces? What would make you think that D's could possibly expect such a thing? Is the GOP well-known for frequent defections from their leaders?
And just because some slick talker like Obama says that X number of Republican is "required to pass the antiwar measures that Congressional Democrats advocate," does that make it so? Actually, the Democrats don't really "advocate" antiwar measures. And besides that, if Pelosi & Reid had refused to schedule a vote on any bill that appropriated money to continue the war, the war would now be over. Bush can veto legislation that passes both houses, but he needs Congress to appropriate the money -- he can't just will the money himself, out of thin air. It is simply incorrect to say that the D's "needed" support from the R's, when all they actually needed was determination to refuse to appropriate the money. The reason Bush finally got the money is because Pelosi & Reid gave it to him -- the R's are in a minority in both houses, so they can't by themselves pass anything that the D's don't want passed.
Of the ideas you suggest, I find #1 & #5 amusingly empty. The former says "Focus on ending the war and drop the divisive partisan issues." What "partisan issues" are you talking about -- ending the war, perhaps? You're trying to make it sound like the reason the R's didn't "support" the D's proposals was because of "partisan issues" -- as though the 2 teams could easily have agreed on an antiwar proposal, except the D's messed it up at the last second with childish insistence on "partisan" measures. Except that's not what happened at all. What happened is that the only difference was over timetables. That's not "partisan."
In #5, you say "You may know and respect people who support the war....show respect for their views, perhaps they will show the same respect for ours." Do you really think that's how the Republican mind operates? What evidence is there, in the last 27 years, that Republicans "respect" the views of anyone who doesn't agree with them?
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 2:52:25 PM
It is beyond my ability to understand what pupose you serve in your excoriation of people who disagree with you.
Are so absolutely certain that your head contains all truth, all knowledge and all instruction on the conduct of complex and multi-faceted affairs of state?
Most of us, or at least some of us, are willing to live with our limitations and to seek help from others in dealing with problems that overwhelm our individual efforts.
That is what government and politics is about.
That is why compromise and accomidation are honorable courses in political life.
If your course of actions and your writings are a comfort, you should continue them. In that case, I can only salute and offer you my undying devotion to your unconditional right to self-expression.
My purpose is not to provide comfort to myself or anyone else, but to challenge others to EFFECTIVE ACTION.
Respectfully Yours.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 3:06:14 PM
Sorry if you feel 'excoriated,' but your article makes
certain exceedingly debatable assumptions about the way politics works. In the world you're describing, both D's & R's are gentlemen and gentle-ladies, all doing their faithful best to represent their voters & make America wonderful. In the world you're hypothesizing, the only problem is that these 2 teams have certain nasty "divisive partisan issues" that prevent them from happily working effectively together.
That world doesn't exist. The Republicans are lying thieving gangsters, many of them outright fascists, while the Democrats are their equally dishonest enablers, who differ from the R's only in matters of style and language, & on a few relatively surface tactical matters.
As far as most citizens of this country are concerned, there's nothing to be gained from naive pieties about developing a "bipartisan" strategy. There are 2 reasons for this. One is the fact that Republicans are criminals, and should be in jail. The other is the fact that Democrats are their accomplices, and should also be in jail. Neither of these packs of criminals has the moral authority to be ruling over the rest of us. They have been partners in destroying our Constitution, in the mass murder of innocent Iraqis, & in plundering our own US Treasury -- all on behalf of the financial elites who jointly form the 2 parties' true constituency.
You shouldn't be wasting your breath conjuring up visions of "bipartisanship." Neither party is fit to rule, & even the thought of them "working together on a bipartisan basis" should make your blood run cold. When these wolves are working together, it can only mean that someone's blood is about to be sucked.
You are urging that people continue to have patient faith in the general framework of the existing political system -- when actually, the correct conclusion to draw from these last 6 years is that the system is a failure -- far beyond the point where it could possibly fix itself.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 8:56:09 PM
There are plenty of crooks in Washington, D.C., and though I think the current brand of GOP corruption is particularly noxious, I am not blind to Dem feloniousness either.
When I mention the GOP culture of corruption, I am thinking of something beyond the greed or veniality that leads to nest feathering bribes or sexual peccadillos.
I am talking about a plan to means that are ethically questionable, or even illegal, such as influence peddling to subvert the checks and balances that are in place to limit governmental power.
The GOP majority that came into power under the false promises of the Contract with America have ruthlessly and remorsely engaged in partisan practices that have crossed the line from advocacy into despotism.
Their attitudes, combined with the emergency situation of 9/11 resulted in Congress granting the President unprecedented and unwarranted authorization and powers in October 02.
I am concerned about rolling back those powers.
The Nobel prize winning author Heinrich Boell continuously refers to businessmen men and politicians as thugs and gangsters, so I am very receptive to the language you use in describing them.
My analysis of our political system is that it is the purest form of bourgeois dictatorship the world has ever seen. Hence your sense of the essential sameness of the two parties.
Nevertheless we still have some power to choose the hell that we will live in. We can choose a hell of despair and vitupretation, or we can accept the sysiphean task of reform.
I choose the latter. It is not enough for me to rail against the distant and indifferent stars. Like Ptolemy. I ask only for a place to stand and I long enough lever and I will move the world.
Which reminds me of the joke about the elephant, the bear trap and the pissant.....
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 7:12:12 AM
Well, it was Archimedes, not Ptolemy. But Heinrich Böll is
quite good.
Like you, I am also very concerned about "rolling back those powers." But we don't have to "choose the hell we live in." We can choose NOT to live in a hell. If we accept concepts formulated for us by the ruling class, we are destined to live in a hell. But if we choose other forms of social organization -- forms designed to serve our needs, & not those of a corrupt band of oligarchs -- our world doesn't have to be a hell at all.
You say "We can choose a hell of despair and vitupretation, or we can accept the sysiphean (sic) task of reform." But those aren't the only choices. The word "reform" means accepting the existing framework -- the one that's designed to serve our rulers' needs, not ours. And that's what you're counseling, when you talk about "bipartisanship," & sugar-plum visions of R's & D's "setting aside divisive partisan issues to work together."
What has to be set aside is R's and D's themselves, & the mindset which assumes that they are the only alternatives. We are going to be slaves forever if we don't create our own alternatives, with the main criterion being the satisfaction of our needs -- not those of a corrupt ruling class.
We don't want R's and D's to work together nicely. We want them OUT of power, prosecuted, and held accountable for high crimes against the populations of both Iraq & of this country. And we want to replace these swine with representatives who understand that their job is to serve the public interest, not the interest of their rich patrons.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 1:32:17 PM
Well, it was Archimedes, not Ptolemy. But Heinrich Böll
Rich, thanks for the correction, that's what I get for extemporainety.
New social constructs is exactly what I am driving at.
It is hard to see how they will occur, but by engaging with others, I hope that we will improvise or design something that works.
I look forward to hearing from you again when you expand upon the subject and share some of your ideas on new social constructs. In the mean time, let me share one of mine.
In our town we have a project called Energy Independent Caroline. We are hoping to erect some windmills, get some local farmers into bio-mass and help local homeowners and landlords to retrofit to use less energy.
This project requires all sorts of painstaking and time-consuming work.
The Town simply doesn't have the resources to implement the program, so it is ipso facto a joint private-public project.
We have a long way to go with it yet, but we are doing something, and we are doing something that enhances the environment, conserves resources and that enhances our economic vitality.
Best of all this is a ground up project that enhances community empowerment and face to face democracy.
Without an activist Democratic Town Committee and a lot of grass roots organizing, we would never have gotten Energy Independent Caroline off the drawing board.
The GOP candidates for town board don't support this program.
How much clearer can the difference between the parties be?
In this case there is clear causal connection between political activism and public benefit, as well as a clear partisan distinction on the substance.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 1:54:55 PM
RichM is completely right. The Rethuglicans (I call them that, because they call it the "Democrat Party" for purely psyops purposes) have shown they don't care about the Constitution, the Rule of Law, or peace, and will support their President and their party regardless of the needs, desires, or rights of the American People.
As far as I am concerned, there is no "good Rethuglican." They are unwilling to vote honestly, but simply stand the party line, whether right or wrong, in search of Karl Rove's promised 100 years of one-party-rule.
The Democrats in Congress COULD have put a quick end to this war if they were prepared to stand up to the Rethuglicans and their media machine and simply refuse to fund the war. It would have been DIFFICULT, especially for those right-wing-leaning, bigoted, southern Democrats who are really more DINO and Rethuglican-lite than anything else, but it COULD have been done.
But, the bottom line is that this Rethuglican administration has lied, cheated, stolen, and killed with impunity and the Rethuglicans in Congress have supported them every step of the way, refusing to hold them accountable. These same Rethuglicans who came after neo-Rethuglican Clinton for every little thing he did and eventually impeached him for 1/1000th of the criminal activity of Cheney/Bush. "The Rule of Law must Stand" my ass. There would hardly be a member of the Rethuglican cabinet left if they held them to the any standard of law, decency, ethics or morality.
Those who continue to support the Rethuglican Party in spite of the un-American actions of that party deserve neither respect nor "an open mind." They deserve what they are going to get if they keep it up.
Ugly and bloody revolutions are born when people support their ignoble leaders without question, simply because they are in "the party."
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 6:22:16 PM
You can wait for the ugly, bloody revolution if you wish
You can play with your balls and wait for the bloody, ugly revolution if you wish.
But while you are waiting you might want to think about what is happening around you.
A quarter of our children are living in poverty, which means they are probably not being fed properly or receiving proper medical and dental care or a good education.
A vast number of the others are latch key kids, growing up without direct parental supervision for most of the afternoon.
Parents are struggling with a obligations to work and their home duties.
Roads and bridges are crumbling and new ones are built to nowhere.
We are engaged in an arms race against our fears.
Consider for a moment what happens when ugly, bloody revolution breaks out. Are you really willing to just play with your balls and let that happen?
Just because a person can't solve everything, doesn't mean that he or she is helpless.
Just because the people in Washington misbehave doesn't mean we can't demand more.
If we are not willing to do for ourselves; isn't it naive and egotistical to expect others to do for us?
I am pleased that you have commented, it gives me another chance to ask the other readers to step up.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 8:09:08 PM
is criminal. It's a war crime and a crime against humanity.
I will not respect, accomodate, or compromise with anyone who supports the continuation of such crimes and funds them -- no more than for any common murderer, much less those engaged in mass murder and theft of a nation's resources. I refuse to support fascism in any way. Those who support the invasion and occupation -- it is NOT a war! -- are no longer my friends. I don't have any friends who are Nazis or KKK members either.
This -- crimes against humanity and peace -- is a very bright line.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 8:00:50 PM
The Iraq invasion and occupation are immoral, brutal and futile.
It would be wonderful to take the line of Republican Senator Jon Kyl and say that if it were in my power every boy would be home for dinner.
But that is not a line that I am morally able to take.
This is not 2002, we are no longer demonstrating to prevent the war.
Nor is it 2004 when we are campaigning to move public opinion.
It is not 2006, when we pushed a lot of Representatives out of their seats to make way for people who will end the war.
It is 07 and we are confronted with a stubborn administration and its skillful congressional supporters.
We won't have an election until 08, so if we can't persuade 60 Republican representatives and 12 Republican senators to vote against the war, we will be fighting it until 09.
For those who are willing to treat our fellow citizens as friends and neighbors and who are eager to begin our shared future on good terms with them, I ask that you organize and keep the pressure on Congress, the Administration, the media and work to end this war.
Ending the war is to everyone's benefit,
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 8:22:53 PM
"We won't have an election until 08, so if we can't persuade 60 Republican representatives and 12 Republican senators to vote against the war, we will be fighting it until 09."
All that was requires was to NOT vote to continue funding the war. The democrats have saying they need a veto-proof majority -- but that's a DAMNED LIE!! Congress could have done NOTHING and the war would end: no appropriation bill for the war: no more war.
And I am getting damned tired of being lied to!
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 10:13:17 PM
Yes, ending the war should be the number 1 priority
I'd shut my mouth and be cordial to a neocon devil if it meant we would end the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. We can resume fighting over all the other issues once that happens, including pursuing impeachment.
In reality, I just don't see the conservative side giving an inch. Just today after the big news that Lugar had doubts about the war, he was immediately attacked by his Republican colleagues for "not supporting the troops."
How many Republican congressmembers are against the war and would vote to stop funding it or vote for any other amendments aimed at ending it? Three? Four? That's not near enough. And if they are playing coy, or if they are saving face, or if they need capitulation on something else then I have no interest. War should not be treated like a strategic game.
When we should be living our lives, those of us who are not anesthetized by TV or drugs have been consumed for years with strategizing, framing, funding campaign ads and trying to out-maneuver the politicians in order to stop a heinous war that is bankrupting our nation.
I'm so tired of fighting and waiting for politicians to do what is right for the people of this country and getting no where. I would like to trust the people in office but I can't since they don't deliver on their promises. Elective wars and war profiteering and selling out to corporate interest should never be tolerated.
I appreciate your advice and insight but I am of the opinion that we need a completely new strategy.
by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 219 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 637 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 9:09:59 PM
Yes, ending the war should be the number 1 priority
The reason I wrote this article is to stimulate discussion on a new strategy.
The frustration level among the political people I know is reaching levels I would not have believed possible even six months ago.
Our President behaves like a guy shooting craps, betting all on luck while baby needs new shoes, and I mean that in the literal sense.
Our ability to fulfil our domestic obligations is shot and our presence as a humanitarian force internationally is pretty much reduced to church missions.
The GOP tax policy, the war and the massive and ongoing increase in military spending are crippling the prospects of a better life for vast segments of society.
The people who are vulnerable to GOP policies are the Democrats' constituency.
The GOP see themselves as protecting the other parts of society from the outrageous demands of the Dems.
The twain shall never meet, and there will not be an accomodation between the two.
Nevertheless, we can move ending the war to the front of the line.
Dems and progressives can stop our intramural bickering and present a united front on the war,
and hopefully the conservatives and the GOP can start pushing their Representatives and Senators toward a phased withdrawal.
Ending the war will benefit us all.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 7:30:13 AM
"But while you are waiting you might want to think about what is happening around you.
A quarter of our children are living in poverty, which means they are probably not being fed properly or receiving proper medical and dental care or a good education.
A vast number of the others are latch key kids, growing up without direct parental supervision for most of the afternoon.
Parents are struggling with a obligations to work and their home duties.
Roads and bridges are crumbling and new ones are built to nowhere."
Read this Everyday Apocalypse in Iraq Juan Cole, Informed Comment, Jun 20, 2007
and this A dream called electricity Ali al-Fadhily, Electronic Iraq, Jun 18, 2007
and this Child labor on the rise as poverty increases Report, IRIN, Jun 12, 2007
and this Baghdad orphanage scandal raises concerns Report, IRIN, Jun 25, 2007
and there are a hundred more like it, and describing worse conditions -- the fault of the US!
Latch key kids here? In Iraq many kids HAVE no latches or keys -- no place to live -- and many don't need a place becasue they are dead, and more dying every day! But hell --- THEY don't count -- right -- because THEY aren't American --- THEY are just brown ragheaded Arabs!!!!!
So Congress votes another $100 billion dollars to keep bombing and shooting and destroying them -- well who cares? Why should WE be have any responsibiity just becasue WE are the criminals who are doing it?
Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 10:36:39 PM
The suffering of the Iraqi people and of the whole Arab nation is well documented.
Apparently a long time ago, probably in the late 40's or early 50s the powers that be decided that the oil states would use their revenues to fund consumption rather than investment and the development of industry and commerce.
The result is that today a child in Algeria, who remains there, has a greater prospect of a lifetime of unemployment than of working. Egypt has a state bureaucracy that controls every aspect of economic, cultural and political life. Iran has just announced gas rationing and is desperately trying to build a productive economy before the oil runs out.
Countries like Nigeria, Russia and Indonesia, who have less oil and somewhat more diversified economies, are being undermined by the corruption emanating from their oil industries.
Oh, and did I mention the Texas-southern gas and oil clique in American politics and the pernicious effect they have on our political culture and ethics?
The money and influence that oil provides gives tremendous clout, there are plenty of people who will believe their ads, be intimidated by their power, or seduced by their wealth.
In the face of this vast conglomeration of power and wealth Blue Pilgrim's retreat into righteous isolation is tempting. I could easily go there myself.
But, the potential for change is there for those who are willing to put in the time and make the effort.
I went to over a dozen houses last night campaigning. In my rural town this covers a lot of territory. I found people home in only four houses and in one of those houses, the people home were kids.
Twenty years ago when my oldest son had a little paper route, we always made collections on Mondays and Tuesdays because people were home.
I don't know if all those people are working, but given the economy and the growth of tourism in this area, they may well have been.
I know it is asking a lot of people to be add yet another task to their already busy lives, especially when the odds are so daunting, but there is no other way.
Clearly the powers that be are not going to roll over.
Ending the war will benefit us all.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 7:54:21 AM
"Apparently a long time ago, probably in the late 40's or early 50s the powers that be decided that the oil states would use their revenues to fund consumption rather than investment and the development of industry and commerce."
The powers that be? The CIA and UK engineered a coup over democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran in 1953, when he nationalized oil. The US fascists have been doing this sort of thing all along.
"In the face of this vast conglomeration of power and wealth Blue Pilgrim's retreat into righteous isolation is tempting."
This is hardly righteous isolation; this is acknowledging the responsibility the US has for the enormities in the Middle East. Supporting the Republicans, or the Democrats who decided to fund this ongoing genocidal occupation for another year -- that's isolation and denial of the reality. Chrity might begin at home, but opposing this is not charity, but the moral responsibility to oppose criminal liability. You worry about the economy and people being home n the US -- that's NOTHING compared to what we have done to the Iraqis -- or were instrumental in doing to the Palestinians. It is you who needs to emrge from you political shell.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 2:22:30 PM
