Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2003_07_13.php on line 23

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2003_07_13.php on line 23
July 18, 2003
Worth a try?

Worth a try?

Maybe it would help improve international relations if we all began to courriel one another from now on, instead of sending the less-euphonious e-mail?

Posted by AnneZook at 03:48 PM | Comments (0)
Complaints

We complain, but they don't listen. They go right ahead with creating 1984, don't they?

Sometimes, though, technology claims are, well, they're just a lie.

The pre-rehearsal of this doesn't surprise me. McCain's a Republican, after all.

But I wonder about some of that re-fried pork.

Shakespeare? Okay, but MacBeth? Why MacBeth? Because it's one of the few of the plays that lacks substantial political and military discussion?

(And isn't a romance. I doubt the people in Iraq or wherever this will be performed will be in the mood for my personal favorite, Much Ado About Nothing.)

Republican governors look to private contractors to save money

Several Republican governors are studying ways to eliminate thousands of state jobs by turning the work over to private contractors, a strategy they say will save millions of tax dollars.

Under the plan, government operations would be more flexible because officials would hire contractors as needed and eliminate the jobs after the work is finished.

Okay, that's a good idea because the agencies targeted for cuts have only intermittent utility.

After all, we don't need "human resources, health care, road construction, computer management and prisons" all the time, do we?

Anyone foolish enough to believe that is probably not going to understand that 20,000 or so state citizens going on and off the dole as the state does, or doesn't have money in any one month is going to add dramatically to the job market's volatility as well as endangering economic growth, should we ever see any again.

There are issues of potential corruption already being raised and anyone who thinks nepotism won't happen is just silly.

It's a bad idea on so many levels.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:31 PM | Comments (1)
Don't get me wrong

I approve of fighting terrorism, okay? If I'd had this blog before 9/11, you'd have heard me complaining endlessly about the USofA's indifference to acts of terrorism. (Historically this country is hard to motivate around deaths "over there.")

What I don't approve of is the way we're going about it. For instance, the fact that we're continuing our policy of getting into bed with tyrants and murderers because it's politically convenient for us at the moment.

(Stephen Schwartz is revealed, to no one's surprise, as a complete idiot. "[Karimov] boils opponents to death" the article says. But "[Stephen Schwartz] assures us that Karimov's sins are nothing to worry about -- just the growing pains that all "aspiring democracies" go through.") A complete idiot. A self-serving, short-sighted moron.)

And, speaking of scary historical parallels, read BJ today.

Take On the News takes on showing us how Bush handles being taken on by a reporter. (Answer: Not well.)

(Also? "These are bad people." 'Bad people'? What is he? Four? Or is he just avoiding saying, "men" because some of them are kids?)

Also, read Lisa at Ruminate This today.

(Also, Jim remains stubborn on the subject of comments. I think he's afraid Walter Cronkite will visit him, and I see his point. Still, lots of times I'd like to comment on what he says, but I'm not spamming someone's no-doubt already overflowing in-box with my drivel.)

Posted by AnneZook at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)
Memory Lane

Head over to Wampum for a brilliant dip into the Summer of '91.

As the page loads...the post-coital glow of a really good fight is fading and the cracks begin to show....

It's a pattern. The parallels are almost scary. Bush II's Administration is falling apart just like Daddy's did, post-Gulf I. Check the media stories, then and now.

Or, is it? The similarities in coverage give me more worries about the media than about the stories they're supposedly giving us.

Is this one of those times when we should be scrutinizing the media and not the men? Is this more a case of media post-war depression than of any actual problems being "revealed"?

The media was all over Gulf I, remember. And we all know by now that the fiction of Iraqi troops "massing" on the Saudi border, poised to leap across and commit wholesale mayhem, was, well...I guess you can get a speck in your eye when you're looking at those satellite photos, so we won't say, "a lie based on commercially available satellite photos taken at the same time that show an empty border" or anything rude like that. (I linked to it a million years ago and don't remember when or where I saw the story. I should put a "search" function on this stupid blog, shouldn't I?)

Nor will we bring up over 200,000 Kurds massacred by the "monster Hussein" after the "heroic USofA" encouraged said Kurds to rebel and then left them sitting there holding their...well, that's vulgar, so we won't finish it, but you know what I mean.

Anyhow. My point, not to get all sidetracked and stuff, is that the revelation of this pattern in coverage could be because both Administration's were/are venal. Or it could be that we're learning something valuable about the media.

(Also. Here's a Friday hee-hee.)

Posted by AnneZook at 10:25 AM | Comments (0)
Remind me again

What country are we living in? Who's in charge. Is it that Stalin guy? Because sometimes it seems that way. (via Chris Nelson.)

I think the next step is pretty clear, isn't it?

Go to the article.

Copy it into Word or your favorite word processing program.

Reformat the headline so that it's HUGE and maybe a seditious color of red. I recommend Garamond typeface and a beigy, newslettery color of paper. And crease it a lot, so it looks like it's been smuggled passed from hand to hand and hidden at times.

Now read it in public. Every day for, let's say, a week.

It will piss off the fibbies, but if they have time to track down every report of someone reading in public, they obviously have too much time on their hands anyhow.

The next step, obviously, is going to be getting Ashcroft fired. If it does nothing else, that might put a stop to those distasteful commercials advising us, in solemn words, that we're all a part of keeping our country safe and we should visit the website to see what we can do.

Let's disband that Orwellian sounding Homeland Security mess, okay?

I never liked the sound of it, I don't like the way it's organized, it's accomplishing nothing but endangering our liberty, and it's sucking down money that could be used for things that would actually make us safer.

(The weird thing is that, aside from hiring a nut to run the place, this Fatherland Spook Parade is the only bad thing we can't actually blame on Bush. He fought the idea tooth and nail until, seeing that it was going to be created whether he liked it or not, he stood up and announced he'd decided to create it. )

(Don't get all carried away with the idea that he was smart enough to see how it would turn out, okay? It's just that, knowing he was going to be in a rough fight to dismantle huge sections of the federal government, he didn't want to have to find funding for a huge, expensive, new department.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:58 AM | Comments (0)
Headlines

U.S. High Horse Now Riderless

Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq (see this)

House Halts Administration Plan to Outsource Park Staff

Nothing Left To Lie About

Why Coverage Of Bush Has Taken A Negative Turn

People power

Broken promise: Why I quit Iraq

Wolfowitz in Baghdad on Unannounced Visit

Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment ("If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said. Told you so.)

Senate Clears $369 Billion for Defense("The U.S. Senate on Thursday unanimously passed a $369 billion bill to fund the Pentagon after deflecting Democratic bids to force President Bush to account for costs of the war in Iraq and provide long-term plans to stabilize it.")

Some days, the news is very interesting. If I weren't already 3 hours behind on what I need to get done today, I'd be commenting on all this stuff.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)
July 17, 2003
They're pissing me off today

Just because there were shots traded along the Korean DMZ doesn't mean that progress isn't being made toward a peaceful solution. I've got my fingers crossed that, this time, Powell is telling the truth and not just spinning the facts to create the impression his boss demands. I don't really believe it, but it's not impossible that, this time they don't actually want war.

We lost the last time we were in Korea and there's no reason to think we'd win this time, especially since the North now possesses nukes. We can only hope they're smart enough to see this.

Also, the administration thinks you're stupid.

In spite of the reports we've read over the past couple of years about how the intelligence agency reported that there was an attack planned against the USofA involving, most probably, the hijacking of airplanes, it seems that an "intelligence failure" led to a lack of information that would have warned us that, you know, terrorists might be considering hijacking planes.

That's not the interesting part of the article, though. The interesting part is statements like this:

Some mysteries from after the attacks will apparently remain, like the question of how 15 young men from Saudi Arabia could join in a suicide conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon without the knowledge of the Saudi government.
Well, ain't that strange? Makes you wonder, don't it?

Yep, I'm wondering why a country that's accepting USofA money with one hand and allowing heated denunciations of "corrupt western imperialists" who want to "destroy Islam" out of the other sides of their mouths "didn't know" that a major terrorist attack was planned on USofA soil and would be carried out largely by that country's citizens.

Idiots. They think we're idiots, don't we?

Words of wisdom from Canada. It's time we all stopped tolerating, even supporting, regimes filled with thugs, criminals, and psychotics. And that goes double for the USofA, okay?

If, for example, we'd stood up publicly and said we were sorry we put Hussein in power and we were sorry we'd given him missiles and we were sorry we'd shipped him the materials to create biological weapons and we sorry we'd sold him the materials to make other weapons and by the way, we're going to Iraq and take him down because we created a monster...well, I think I could have supported that war. (We'd have to promise never to do it again, of course.)

Look at Pakistan and India. Exactly how did these two countries become such a danger to themselves and others? How did they get the money and technology to build nukes? Aside from nukes, exactly where did they get the armaments to wage, if they choose, all-out war on each other?

If you're really curious, look in the mirror.

They got it from us.

We "negotiated" a sort of temporary "peace" between the two of them. We give them money not to kill each other.

But there are strings attached, you see. Most of the money we give them, they're contractually required to spend buying weapons and military technology from USofA corporations.

Yep, you heard me. We enforce peace by demanding that they become more and more heavily armed all the time.

We suck, don't we?

We don't have to suck. We need to demand, from our leaders and from the media, that we be given easy access to the terms of these agreements while they're in negotiation. If they're too ashamed of what they're doing to let the world see it, then they shouldn't be doing it. (All governments should be required to do this.)

We need to demand that our local newspapers carry this material, in full, on a timely basis. We need to read it, discuss it with each other, and send feedback to Washington.

We need to demand that our government stop tying "diplomacy" to the interests of huge corporations and conglomerates including or most especially the defense industry.

And we need to dismantle about 50 percent of the military-industrial complex. Enough is enough, okay?

And you. You're at fault too, okay?

It's more than just national politics. State and local politics are also crucial. They're immediate, too. The decisions being made by a neighborhood council that you might not even know exists can directly affect your life 24 hours from now.

Your urban or suburban city council is negotiating deals and dealing with issues that you care about. You don't see much about it in the papers until after it's a fait accompli because most people pay no attention to local politics, so the papers quit covering it. That's a serious mistake, that "not caring" thing. From mayors can come governors, congressmen, and senators, okay? From them come presidential candidates.

I'm just saying. When they put a landfill in the empty field down the street from your house, don't come crying to me. You should have been paying attention.

Ahem.

On a lighter note, here's why so many movies are so lousy these days. Whatever these people think they're teaching with ''syuzhet', it's pretty clear that they're not teaching people how to make decent movies.

I don't begrudge people in the film industry for trying to add a veneer of intellectualism to what they do by creating university degrees for it, but why aren't they teaching them, for instance, how to read a script and figure out if it will make a decent movie? All the 'synecdoche' in the world won't turn a bad script into a good movie.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:31 AM | Comments (0)
An abundance of idiots

I'd say we need to organize another protest, but this one is going to have to be driven mostly by the guys. I mean, if any of you women watch EPSN or football, feel free to chime in, but it's the actual audience that needs to protest.

What connections Limbaugh has made between people of color and sports are dubious at best. When a Mexican won the New York marathon, Limbaugh said, ''An immigration agent chased him the last 10 miles.''
Let's hope his television presence goes the way of that other guy's...what was his name? You know, short-lived television presence, summarily fired for on-air bigotry and hate-mongering? Amazing how these people fade from the public mind once they've gotten what's coming to them, isn't it? Amazing and delightful.

Let's hope that six weeks or less after Limbaugh makes his debut, he finds himself suffering the slings and arrows of the public's amnesia.

Limbaugh's popularity is symbolic of a United States that still quietly buys into his stereotypes.
I believe this. I'm ashamed of those people, but I believe it. While we're all shaking our heads over the tangled history of tribal and national conflicts in the Middle East, let's not forget that we have in our midst here in the USofA, people who would gladly grab the nearest gun and turn this country into a battleground on the same, "they aren't like me" grounds.
He remains popular because other than a compilation of many of the above quotes in the mid 1990s by the group Fairness and Accuracy and Reporting, or FAIR, the media treat him as more friend than foe.
One more black mark against the media, if it's true. But do they treat him as a friend or are they, wisely, ignoring him in the national media; refusing to give him the free publicity that coverage of his bigotry and small-minded hatemongering would produce?

I think I said before that when Savage went down, approximately 70 percent of more of the people I discussed the subject with (both conservative and liberal) had never heard of the guy. And 99 percent of those who knew of him or had his words quoted to them were disgusted and appalled.

(The one person who wasn't is...well, let's just say that this person exemplifies, to me, my concept of a freeper. Knee-jerk reaction to the name of Clinton with the requisite foaming at the mouth and references to satan, mindless support of the right-wing of the right-wing of the Republican agenda, inability to cite facts to support opinions, red-eyed hostility when his statements are challenged or proven wrong, convinced that there is, indeed, a vast liberal conspiracy to take over the media, equates name-calling with political debate and all the rest of it. He'd be scary if he weren't so stupid. Maybe he's scary anyhow, you know? Even an idiot can pull a trigger. Or the lever in a voting booth.)

Surprise, surprise.

We're fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. Yes, in spite of Fly-Boy's drama-free landing on an aircraft carrier, the war didn't end. I'll bet Rove fires someone for failing to match his script. (

Or...is it all an insidious plan to make it look as though we're in a quagmire in Iraq and do they plan to abandon the country to its fate and triumphantly bring the troops home just in time for the 2004 election? After all, if they can get Bush back into the White House, they can always deploy the soldiers again after November...or delay their returns and then cancel them.)

Bah. The heck with them. I'm going back to work.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:10 AM | Comments (0)
July 16, 2003
Jackasses, Inc.

Forget winning "hearts and minds" with truckloads of frozen chickens. It ain't going to happen. Why don't they try offering what these people want? Jobs. Paychecks. Freedom.

What this Administration needs is a clue. Can someone please call the military and explain how hanging a portrait of Saddam Hussein in a prominent place in Iraq's most feared prison is not going to make Iraqi citizens any more thrilled to find themselves locked up there?

Nor is, you know, putting up a sign next to Hussein's portrait assuring prisoners that the USofA is their friend any more likely to convince them.

I'm sorry, but what kind of morons are in charge of this country, anyhow?

You know what these guys need? They need to hire the PR firm that Daddy Bush used to sell Gulf I, that's what they need.

They need help.

Maybe we should all buy the shirt?

Posted by AnneZook at 04:52 PM | Comments (0)
Oh dear

A very disturbing concept. I'd never heard of this before and don't know how I feel about it.

Instinctively, I feel that there's a significant differences between someone with a gender-identity problem and someone who wants to have both of their arms or legs amputated, but I could be wrong.

There's a sort of instinctive revulsion to the idea of amputating healthy flesh, especially when such an amputation produces a disabled person who will, in the future, require significant health care dollars. (You can't just whack off a limb or two without consequences, okay? It creates significant physical health problems. How is the woman with no arms going to make a living and pay for her health care problems? Or does she expect the public system to pay for them?)

I'm not sure about the concept of either of the procedures under discussion, to tell the truth. They compare this BIID to gender-reassignment surgery, but I've always had doubts about that, too.

Reports say that it's successful, that the people who undergo the treatment are, by and large, happier with their lives afterwards, and they're paying for the surgery themselves, so I never really considered it any of my business, but now it's being used as the rationale for this new thing and it bothers me.

Are people who undergo gender-reassignment therapy and/or surgery really conforming to an idealized view of themselves, or are they simply psychologically unable to deal with their role in society as their original gender? And is this a "problem" of theirs, or is it a too-restrictive society that forces people into absolute molds that don't fit?

Is there really such a thing as being "born with" a view of oneself that one can't live a full and productive life without having realized? Can this go beyond gender and is it possible that a mentally healthy person nonetheless has an idealized view of themselves with stumps instead of legs and feet?

If I say, "no, these are just people whose bodies we're altering because we can't help their minds," will such words be used to attack homosexuality?

I'm just not qualified to consider this subject intelligently. (I should have spent my lunch break working.)

Posted by AnneZook at 02:02 PM | Comments (0)
Ride 'em cowboy?

Why did Tony Blair follow George Bush down the slippery slope to war? It was always an interesting question and never more so than in recent days when the "factual" support for their position is unraveling around them. (Did they think no one would notice fabricated evidence or discredited intelligence? Well, maybe they had reason, if they did. It certainly took the USofA media long enough to connect the dots.)

Well, it turns out that he did, in fact, have a decent reason. I mean, I don't think that's what Kettle was intending to convey in his Guardian column but to my eyes, convinced as I am that Bush is being puppeteered by a bunch of power-hungry warmongers with delusions of grandeur, the idea that an invasion (one that was going to take place no matter what) was better as a coalition effort than as a stand-alone USofA effort.

It's a bit like breaking a horse...you don't accomplish much unless you're on its back. Standing outside the corral, shouting at the horse to behave itself gets you nowhere.

It's actually a decent reason to have stood beside the USofA on the invasion question. Interesting article, could be a fascinating book.

There's an article by Stothard in today's IHT where he suggests that Blair is going to be pretty firm about USofA failings in his upcoming visit. We'll probably have to do some searching for the full text of any speech(es) Blair gives. The USofA national media is unlikely to give us front-page access to the uncut text if their treatment of what our own politicians say is any guide.

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Also from the IHT, another report of another soldierdying. It's not that I don't sympathize with the Iraqi people who want to control their own destiny, because I do. But I doubt that those involved in the current guerrilla campaigns are the ones most average Iraqis want to see in charge.

We suck, okay? We tore their country apart and we failed to live up to our moral obligation to have a plan, a real plan, for how to handle the post-war situation in place.

Instead, we made blithe mentions of installing a "popular" government headed by an Iraqi ex-patriot and convicted criminal who was unpopular in his country. We refused to allow aid workers in when they were first needed because we hadn't "pacified" the country yet, but at the same time, we announced that it wasn't the job of our soldiers to offer aid to the hungry.

We've made a dozen mistakes since then, from the sweeping condemnation of all Baath party members to the realization that duh, practically everyone in the country was a Baath party member because that was the only way to get ahead. Instead of taking the temperature of the locals, we unilaterally decided that certain groups of former Baath party members were okay...based, you understand, on no knowledge of these people and no feedback from the citizens of Iraq. No, it was based solely on our need for them.

Power plant workers are locked out of their jobs because they might be bad guys, but we handed the police back their guns and assured them we trusted them? Who was more likely to have been a true Hussein supporter?

And, nooo, we don't want anyone messing with our their precious oil wells, so we can't let the local experts get back to work there, no. We can't get the water running but, by gosh, we've got oil experts (the USofA seems to boast no water experts), so let's by all means hand out a few multibillion dollar contracts and get the oil flowing.

We just suck.

(The Sunni supporters of Hussein aren't too bright, by the way. If they'd just kept their heads down, most of the "coalition forces" would have left Iraq before long (relatively speaking), leaving Chalabi in charge and it would have been a fairly simple matter to overthrow him, considering how much Iraqis dislike him.)

Me, I think they should go ahead and partition Iraq into thirds Give the Kurds in the north their homeland. Give the Sunni extremists the south. Leave the center of the country to the non-extremist Iraqis. The current national, territorial divisions in the Middle East are artificial creations imposed (largely) by the UK and have done nothing but cause death and turmoil in the Middle East since they were enacted.

Read this. A Vietnam vet gives us an overview of the "tour of duty" – that one-year lottery soldiers had to live through in order to be paroled back to "the world." It's worth considering as the military discusses implementing a one-year minimum tour of duty for the soldiers in Iraq.

Anyhow.

It's good to know who your allies are. Our allies seem to be in the news a lot recently, but Bush has been in Africa and it's well-known that he refuses to watch CNN or any of the other news channels when he flies (he prefers videotapes of old football games), so maybe he's missed some of these stories. If he's aware of them, there's very little defense for us choosing to invade Iraq but giving Saudi Arabia a free pass.

I disapprove of Bush & Company's indifference to any science that offends them, but when you consider some of the "scientific experiments" of the past, it does make you just a touch cautious, doesn't it? (This isn't a new story, but I continue to be appalled every time I see it again.)

It's none of my business, of course, but I think the court was wrong on this one. Very, very wrong. The woman lied to her doctor, whether knowingly or otherwise, and he, quite rightly, restricted the procedure he did on her.

Also, I think someone should figure out just what percentage of Bush's gift tax cuts to rich folks he's getting back in his campaign coffers. Of course, it's early days yet, but I don't think he's getting a fair percentage. Okay, 34 million sounds like a lot, but individual rich friends taxpayers each saved a lot more than that, thanks to Bush's brave plan to reward the rich for, well, being rich and largely Republican.

Meanwhile, of course, the Clintons are still under fire as no one in the Republican party finds themselves able to just get over it. The Clintons spent $3.58 million dollars defending themselves from spurious, imaginary, and downright untrue allegations of fraud, but the federal appeals panel, breaking with tradition has decided they're eligible for just over $85,000, around two percent, worth of reimbursement. First, the court's determination that the Clintons would have been "investigated anyhow" apart from the witchhunt Starr investigation, is unproven and irrelevant. (Nor it is a reasonable determination that any such investigation would have been of the same scope.) Second, the judge on the appeals panel who was also one of the guys who appointed Starr should have recused himself or something.

The Clintons complained through their attorney yesterday that two former Republican presidents fared much better in securing repayment of their legal bills in the Iran-contra investigation. George H.W. Bush was awarded $272,000, or 59 percent of the reimbursement he sought, and Ronald Reagan was awarded $562,000, or 72 percent of his request.*

Our courts are non-political and impartial, are they? I guess they look that way.

When you're a Republican.

( * I won't even get into the point that Reagan and Bush were, in fact, guilty of crimes in the Iran-Contra affair. Like most of these cases, your conclusion will depend upon what you read, who wrote it, your own partisan beliefs, and the fact that the full truth will probably never be known.)

Posted by AnneZook at 10:10 AM | Comments (0)
July 15, 2003
Lunch Break!

Gabriel, over at A Berkeley Economist is saying what I've been saying all along. The Administration is about to get its war on in a new zone. In the same way they used Iraq to distract us from Afghanistan, he thinks they're planning to use North Korea to distract us from Iraq. Or is it Syria? Or Iran? Don't anyone say this Administration doesn't know how to keep the mystery alive in a relationship.

When liberals ask me why I'm not against the death penalty, I point to stories like this one. (Except that the evil, revenge-seeking portion of my brain points out that death, horrible as it is, ends things. Someone who lives and suffers...now that's what I want for someone like this. (Down, Evil Portion! Down!)

Heh. Via Ampersand, it's another one of those things I've been saying for months.

Everything Avedon Carol says today is worth reading.

If you think Election 2000 is history, you're quite wrong. I'm happy to see it.

Unfortunately, that's as far as I got down the old blogroll today. (The 'A'? That’s so pathetic.)

Posted by AnneZook at 01:40 PM | Comments (0)
No Time For Blogging

That work thing, you know.

If you're bored, go read George McGovern explain that if he had to do it all over again, he wouldn't do it any differently.

Or read ABC on why the infamous uranium claims are less important than we think.

Or read how France and Germany are sticking to their guns on entering Iraq legally, with a U.N. mandate, or not at all.

Or contemplate whether or not the last embedded reporter leaving Iraq means that the story there is going to start falling out of the public eye.

Or worry yourself sick over the idea that North Korea, with nuke-capabilities, might just decide to preemptively take care of George Bush.

Or go read how frustrated Democrats are complaining that the press is giving Bush a free ride compared to their near-persecution of Clinton.

Or go read how the French are getting it right in another area...quality of life.

Or go read any of the people over there on the links list. Most of them are a lot smarter than I am anyhow, so you'll probably learn more.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:46 AM | Comments (0)
July 14, 2003
Aarrgghh

They're stonewalling us again and, further, they're being all revisionist and stuff, which is very aggravating.

How can they pretend that the effect of threatening the populace with being nuked was a minor factor in their attempt to sell their invasion of Iraq to this country and the world?

And I'm just astonished how the people who tried to hound Clinton out of his office for lowering his zipper can keep saying, with a straight face, that their guy hasn't done anything wrong.

Fleischer indicated the White House does not intend to find or disclose answers.
But I don't have time to deal with it today.

No blogging...must work!

Posted by AnneZook at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)