Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Oh, I see, history comes down to the courage or lack of courage of Presidents and Kings and so on. Thanks for enlightening me.

See, I had thought that the social changes of the Roosevelt period resulted from the combination of a number of factors including the labor insurrection of the early 1930s. I had, I guess foolishly, thought that such things as the West Coast general strike and the rise of the mine workers union and so on had forced capital to adapt. But now I am enlightened and see it was only due to the courage of Mr. Roosevelt.

by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 03:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
just to point out - the consequence of my previous idea of how things happened was that I thought positive change required organization/mobilization/convincing of the working class. But under my new understanding, thanks to your enlightenment, I realize that the most important political action will be to lament the lack of courage of today's political leaders since that lamentation will, no doubt, produce a moral reformation.
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 03:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh my. You're now a flaming red organiser of the working class? Who knew?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 03:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whatever I am, the nostalgia for "courageous" Roosevelt seems to, unaccountably, forget Harry Bridges and John L.Lewis and the millions of people who risked and lost lives in the labor struggles of the 1930s.  Why is that?
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, for goodness sake. The text up there is a brief tribune, not a fucking thesis. Try using something called good faith instead of scraping around to find any angle, however convoluted, to attack the people you call "the left".
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe that nostalgia for an imagined golden age in which Heroic Roosevelts bestrode the world is a poor basis for a political program that will do something more positive than obtain some publications and TV appearances for the authors.
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:30:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is your argument that pamphlets should not use a common understanding of history of another continent - which will not live up to "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" - when making rethorical points?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES!
by A swedish kind of death on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 07:08:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the rhetorical point made is both a bad one and one founded on a false understanding of history.
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 08:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem in France is the same as that in the USA: a very large portion of the general population supports the right and the far right. Roosevelt benefited from not only huge popular support but a massive insurrection to his left which made his bargaining position stronger. Consider Hollande, who will come to office, i hope, with a split electorate, a large number of whom support the far right.

Look at Roosevelt's electoral map in 1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1932

by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 08:08:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So nations get the leaders they deserve, that right?

The French do not deserve to be saved, for they are sinners.

I guess we'll just have to dissolve the people and elect a new one.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 08:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What does that have to do with anything? The world has an objective reality that has nothing to do with "deserve"
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:11:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
consider the same Pres. Hollande in two situations
  1. as France exists
  2. in a situation where new militant labor union with massive support is taking over factories and installing worker management

Hollande 1, I assure you, will be "less courageous" than Hollande 2.
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this is a relevant point both in itself and in the way you put it. But the people who are behind Roosevelt2012 are precisely attempting to raise the pressure from the left on Hollande, and in two ways, as I see it. One is by giving as high a public profile as possible to alternative policy proposals so they cannot be ignored either by the government or public discourse; the other is to provide discouraged civil society, social and workers' movements with reasons to think that it's worth fighting. Unionists now (and I can think of two I've spoken with recently, from different towns and unions) say that it's hard to mobilise when most workers are pretty depressed by the thought that the bad stuff is going to happen anyway -- it's the triumph of TINA. What they need is some TARA -- there are real alternatives. The growth of a big social movement calls for not just a perceived threat, but also a vision of possible victory.

The founding signatories of the 15 policy points in the manifesto are not fake lefties waiting for their chance to get on TV, as you suggest elsewhere. People like Stéphane Hessel who wrote the essay Indignez vous!, or Susan George of ATTAC, or the sociologist Edgar Morin, are not unaware of the need for a major social movement, it's much more on that side that they have always expended their energy than in party politics.

The split electorate problem bedevils us, but it's to a considerable extent due to the death of the perspectives people might feel the left held out in the pre-Soviet decline 20th century. Large movements of opinion that could change that split need to know that history has not ended leaving only the free-market economy standing.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ok
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:44:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I generally agree, but I do not think this much needed new vision that can animate a revived popular movement can come from looking backward.
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At least the past history obviates the need to prove the existence theorem for such possibilities. Instead, what is needed is to translate what once worked in a different context into a context appropriate to here and now.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 12:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't like the term "neoliberal", the right wingers who dominate EU politics and are so strong in the US are not new in any way - the bitching of feudal lords about peasant uprisings was not all that different from what you can read in the Economist today. The right has used some new marketing methods and takes advantage of changes in social structure since the 1930s - that vast left wing unionized industrial workforce is just a memory and the masses of right leaning white collar workers did not exist back then. If one wants to oppose these people, however, pretending that it is possible for a courageous politician to (a) take power and (b) implement proposals to radically turn the state away from right wing policies by sheer force of character seems to me to be utterly pointless. And it's pointless to pretend 'we are the 99%' when the population is essentially split in half - half on the right and half of those on the far right, half social democrat and half of those conservative social democrats. That's the reality and no amount of wishful thinking will turn it into some cleaned up Hollywood version of Roosevelt Saves the Fucking Day.
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 02:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This group of left-wing intellectuals chose Roosevelt as a symbol of a democratically elected leader standing up to economic interests and changing the rules for the better. There are plenty of courageous people in Europe fighting for change, but there can be little progress if political leaders lack the convictions and the courage to change the rules. This is what this appeal is about. Perhaps you might have something interesting to say about it. Perhaps not.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it is remarkable that they chose the guy who centralized US finance in Wall Street instead of, say Harry Bridges or Jaures or even Ramsey McDonald. Not remarkable - illustrative.
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is Harry Bridges? (Rhetorical question). Jean Jaurès is an inspirational figure, he was not a transformational politician like FDR.

Either you have completely (deliberately?) misunderstood what this manifesto is about, or you are opposed to the idea of economic and social change through representative democracy. I guess the latter.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 02:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They should have called their initiative RamseyMcDonald2012.

Ramsay MacDonald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labour returned to power - this time as the largest party - in 1929 but was soon overwhelmed by the crisis of the Great Depression, in which the Labour government was split by demands for public spending cuts to preserve the Gold Standard. In 1931, he formed a National Government in which only two of his Labour colleagues agreed to serve and the majority of whose MPs were from the Conservatives. As a result, MacDonald was expelled from the Labour Party, which accused him of "betrayal". The Gold Standard soon had to be abandoned after the Invergordon Mutiny and MacDonald's National Government won a huge "doctor's mandate" at the 1931 General Election, at which the Labour Party was reduced to a rump of around 50 seats in the House of Commons.

Better than Roosevelt, evidently.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 02:46:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm referring to his first fall from power - caused by opposing WWI.
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand that, but it's not widespread common knowledge (and definitely unknown in France).
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He should have got himself shot, then he would have been remembered as a hero like Jaurès, rather than as a sellout.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 11:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a New York State Senator from 1910 until April, 1913, when he resigned his seat to take a position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, where he served until 1920.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 02:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Far from opposing entry into WW I, FDR sought but was refused permission to expand and upgrade the navy prior to US entry into the war and helped negotiate the first 'lend lease' agreement with Great Britain providing a means of getting US goods into British hands despite legislation forbidding sale of US goods to belligerents. It was on this trip that he first met Churchill.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 02:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For 'sale of goods' read 'sale of arms'.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 02:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know what this manifesto is about: it is about the usual feckless elite politics of the professional class of "left" journalists and academics who see their role to be the treasured advisers of some courageous and appreciative politician.
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This remark is beneath contempt, and will remain unanswered.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 11:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Puh-lease.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 03:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's very peculiar that the dominant "left" in the US and Europe thinks "courage" of political leaders is something independent of social struggle. The people have no agency, they must rely on the "courage" or be betrayed by the lack of courage of office holders. How odd.
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's probably a form of learned helplessness.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One might remark that it is equally remarkable to ascribe a lack of agency to political leaders.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 04:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oddly, I do not think elected leaders of 20th century or even 21st century OECD states are able to make significant changes that are opposed by the corporate elite in the absence of public pressure.
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 05:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That might take a courageous leader, even in the presence of public pressure.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 05:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
not too much public pressure in evidence.
by rootless2 on Thu May 3rd, 2012 at 05:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At the very least we should give rootless2 a star for his very long ride on a favorite Marxist hobby horse.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 12:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 12:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and i'm not even a marxist!
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 02:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]


It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 04:39:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 03:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I see, history comes down to the courage or lack of courage of Presidents and Kings...

Neither the authors of the article or any of the commenters other than yourself have said that what Roosevelt did just came down to personal courage. But, had he not had both the openmindedness to see that finance needed to be regulated and the courage to try it would not have happened. He also understood the value of being seen as being forced to do what you want to do anyway.

There is no doubt that the challenges facing Hollande or any other leader wishing to reform the financial system are significantly more challenging today for lack of such forces pressuring a reformer to do what they would themselves like to do, but the point afew made about the necessity for engendering hope and offering vision remain. Yours seems a counsel of despair and that is unhelpful. Perhaps this situation is like the one Lenin described as "The worse the better." One thing we should know and others need to know is that, failing a successful push-back, millions of people will be ground to dust and then the system will implode anyway.  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 04:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And, of course, you have certainly not said that what Roosevelt accomplished all came down to personal courage, so we are unanimous on that beleaguered point.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 04:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"It simply points out that Roosevelt had the courage to regulate finance and to transform the tax system in a progressive sense, and that the American economy didn't shrivel up and die as a result."
by rootless2 on Fri May 4th, 2012 at 09:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And had he not displayed that courage and accomplished what he did the succeeding forty years would certainly have been the poorer. (Not to diminish the significance of the strength of the labor movement in his time compared to our time.) And he certainly helped his cause by his highly effective use of media - especially radio. That is clearly another difference between the presidential response to depression in the '30s and to the current so called 'Great Recession' - actually another depression.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 10:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Huey Long said
"Now in the third year of his [Roosevelt's] administration, we find more of our people unemployed than at any other time. We find our houses empty and our people hungry, many of them half-clothed and many of them not clothed at all. "

He also said that the problem with FDR was that he agreed with whoever spoke to him last.

by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 10:56:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Zinn:

Where organized labor was strong, Roosevelt moved to make some concessions to working people. But: "Where organized labor was weak, Roosevelt was unprepared to withstand the pressures of industrial spokesmen to control the . . . NRA codes." Barton Bernstein (Towards a New Past) confirms this: "Despite the annoyance of some big businessmen with Section 7a, the NRA reaffirmed and consolidated their power. . . ." Bellush sums up his view of the NRA:

   The White House permitted the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and allied business and trade associations to assume overriding authority... . Indeed, private administration became public administration, and private government became public government, insuring the marriage of capitalism with statism.

by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 10:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FDR was no socialist, but, with the appointment of Marriner Eccles to the Fed, passage of Glass-Steagall, the creation of the SEC etc. he did put in place a system that worked until it was dismantled.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 01:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a self-dismantling system. By the time the Kennedy administration banned racial discrimination in federal housing programs, hundreds of billions had been spent of which 2% went to non-whites. And that was the tip of the iceberg. And those New Deal created white suburbanites then became the base of the modern right wing Republican Party. At the same time, the massive concentration of finance on Wall St, partly due directly to New Deal regulations and partly due to the enormous accumulations of wealth from military industries, oil,real-estate, and even direct New Deal contracts ( H Ross Perot became a billionaire by ripping off Social Security and Medicare) increased the power of the FIRE sector. Ta da! It's also worth noting that the proximate cause of the 2007/8 collapse had nothing to do with behavior prohibited under Glass-Steagal.
by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 03:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True, that was behaviour prohibited under the anti-bucket shop laws.

I think that was a Roosevelt too, albeit a different one.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 04:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The decision of the regulators to ignore AIG sales of CDS - essentially to operate a bucket shop - is one that shows the danger of GOP governance.  Laws on the books don't matter when not enforced.
by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 06:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It wasn't on the books when AIG started bucketeering. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act exempted swaps from bucketeering rules.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 07:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104979546


The regulator "did not sufficiently assess the susceptibility of highly illiquid, complex instruments," to ratings downgrades, Scott Polakoff told the banking committee in prepared testimony today. "In hindsight, OTS should have directed the company to stop originating credit-default swap products before December 2005."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDm4OdFvcWUw&refer=home
by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2012 at 07:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quote mining and Gish Gallop. Tiresome.

Are you seriously going to argue in a sober voice that the Commodities Futures Modernization Act did not matter to AIG's failure?

Would you also have argued that if it had passed in 2001 instead of 2000?

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 03:38:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The law did matter, but the OTC and other regulators still could have taken action.
by rootless2 on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 08:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With Timmy and Rubin running around in the administration?

Keep on dreaming.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 09:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
2005 was during the Bush administration.
by rootless2 on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 10:20:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When the Commodities Future Trading Commission tried to kill exotic derivatives in the latter half of the '90s, Rubin, Summers, Greenspan and Geithner told it to shit down and shut up while they legalised bucketeering.

Are you claiming the OTS would have had better luck under a Gore presidency than the CFTC had under the Clinton presidency? If so, on what grounds?

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 10:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely - because those guys were capable of changing their minds when data forced them to.
by rootless2 on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 10:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Russian experience with Messrs Summer, Rubin and Geithner argues otherwise. (Leaving Greenspan to one side, as you surely did not mean to include that Randian hack in your statement in the first place.)

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 10:59:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks - I did not mean to include Greenspan.

Even Clinton says derivatives dereg was a mistake.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/clinton-rubin-and-summers-gave-me-wrong-advice-on-deriv atives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/

Even Rubin admits he was wrong although in his typically self-serving way
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/28/getting-the-economy-back-on-track.html

While some people saw one or more of these factors, virtually no one involved in the financial system--whether institutions, investors, regulators, analysts, or commentators--recognized the breadth of forces at work or the possibility of a megacrisis, and this included the most experienced among us. More personally, I regret that I, too, didn't see the potential for such extreme conditions despite my many years involved in financial matters and my concern for market excesses.
by rootless2 on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 11:30:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps I misremember the American constitution, but I was of the impression that Al Gore would no longer have been president by the time Mr. Rubin allowed data to change his mind...

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 11:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
second term would have ended Jan 2009.
by rootless2 on Sun May 6th, 2012 at 11:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
correct me if i am wrong, but two issues stand out to differentiate the two eras, roosevelt's and ours.

first is that there wasn't really much middle class back then as there became later, peaking in the 60's.

the very rich had hornswoggled the economy, then as now, and something had to give, roosevelt saw the gap mass state-supported employment could fill, and filled it.

the second is that finance, although relatively opaque even then, has become orders of magnitude opaquer, so the common man is clueless as to the myriad layers of obfuscation hiding the naked facts, to understand their complex causes as the wrecking ball of austerity smashes into his house equity (illusionary, yes, but he counted on it), savings, bond and stock yields, and pension funds.

another difference i believe significant is public federal pension schemes didn't exist back then, the welfare state was still a dream, so the huge social security funds weren't swelling the brokers' accounts to the degree they do today.

"We can all be prosperous but we can't all be rich." Ian Welsh

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 7th, 2012 at 03:53:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But also, and Al Giordano makes this case, the plight of the majority was far starker.
by rootless2 on Tue May 8th, 2012 at 12:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, and america's riches still mostly untapped, environment as yet largely undegraded, except the dust bowl, and population much smaller. then to work one's way out remained possible, now all that's left is to  sell your way out.

"We can all be prosperous but we can't all be rich." Ian Welsh
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu May 10th, 2012 at 09:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: