Business with Heart: Victoria Hale

by Fran
Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 10:55:40 AM EST


The name Victoria Hale is new to me, but I am impressed by what I read about her. Because of Hale, I would like to start the New Year with a positive story. For many the first day of the year is one of hopeful outlook. Maybe this story can also enhance the motivation and endurance to see some of the new priorities of this year through.

I came across the name of Victoria Hale shortly before Christmas, when I received my Yoga Magazine, the only magazine I still like to read in the paper version. Luckily, I also found the story online. What intrigued me was the first paragraph, so I'm not quite sure why. But it is the story of a woman who shows that despite all the problems and negativity in this world, it is still possible to make a difference.

Poverty's Diseases - and the Scientist Who Stopped Looking the Other Way

Riding in a New York City taxi on the way from the airport is where Victoria Hale determined that she would turn her dream into reality. In a time of Big Pharma and its focus on big profits, Hale had long had a vision of bringing life-saving medicines to the world's poorest people, but her plan was drifting in limbo. Making conversation, her West African cab driver asked her what she did. She answered that she was a pharmaceutical scientist. At the time, she worked for a successful biotechnology firm. By her account: "He said, `You guys make all the money.' And then he laughed deep and heartily. His honest laughter was suddenly painful, like a knife in my soul." Hale said she knew at that moment that she would find a way to launch a nonprofit drug firm. No one had ever done that. Certainly not anyone that the IRS had heard of.

From the diaries - afew


So she founded the Institute for OneWorld Health. I do not want to go into the details of her story, they can be found in the various links below. Nevertheless, they are worth reading.

Esquire: Victoria Hale: Exec Of The Year - Big Pharmas Don't Make Many Of The Drugs That Could Save Lives In Poor Countries. So Hale Figured She Would.

Stanford Social Innovation Review: 15 Minutes with Victoria Hale - MacArthur "genius" prize winner creates drugs for the developing world

To me Hale's story has an important message. First, we need a compassionate vision, a goal or a mission to be motivated to take the necessary steps to move forward and to make a change and difference in this world.

Second, we need endurance and will-power, to continue during the tough times that might have to be endured to achieve the vision. This is really important, as we live in a world that demands instant-success. There is no more patience to take one step after the other. The demand is for instant shareholder values, instant bonuses, and instant riches. The kind of vision Hale had, needs the staying power that makes achieving a long-term goal possible.

But the cabbie's cynicism on that day jolted her into action. Hale and her husband put up $100,000 to start OneWorld Health. They turned the ground floor of their San Francisco house into the company offices. They took no pay for two years, burned through savings, and went into debt to the tune of $315,000. Dedication they had, but Hale knew that to be more than a promising start-up, they would need a big hit the first time out. Her first job would be to find the right drug to develop--it had to have promise, and it had to target pervasive suffering.

Well, and thirdly knowledge and know-how are definitely important, but are of no great use without the first two.

It is good to see had her endeavor is being rewarded, and that she is being recognized around the world. She has received awards from the Schwab Foundation, the MacArthur Fellows 2006 and the Volvo for life awards.

Shortly after reading the first time about Victoria Hale, Spiegel Online featured also a good story about her. THE AXIS OF GOOD - A Woman's Fight to Save the Poor from Black Fever.

The interesting thing is, she seems to get competition from Germany:

At the time, as Hale was requesting the data on paromomycine, TDR was interested in another drug that seemed promising in the fight against black fever. Ridley believed that the drug would offer a better cost-benefit ratio than paromomycine. The drug, known as impavido, is manufactured by a German company whose CEO, Jürgen Engel, has the luxury of producing a drug that doesn't make economic sense.

Rival drug

"We had actually developed impavido as an oral cancer drug, but it couldn't be used for that purpose," says Engel. The side effects were intolerable. But, according to the professional literature, the drug's active ingredient, miltefosine, could be used to treat black fever. Although it has serious side effects that can weaken an already weak patient even further, including nausea and vomiting, impavido is effective.

Like Hale, Engel turned to TDR for assistance, but the man in charge of the research department at the time lacked the funding to support paromomycine and impavido at the same time. He chose impavido, mainly because of its cost-benefit ratio. Impavido comes in tablet form, whereas paromomycine is administered by intramuscular injection. This complicates distribution, and complications cost money. Besides, Engel's company, Zentaris, was a conventional business, and TDR is accustomed to working with conventional companies.
Hale, on the other hand, was the head of an oddball, hard-to-comprehend entity that threatened to change the system.

Would be great if this is contagious. The world sure could use it.

Oh, and by the way, if the Gates Foundation supports this kinds of venture, they just earned a brownie point with me.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Government and fundation prizes to replace intellectual property and put an end to the current massacre.
by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 09:11:01 AM EST
I am not sure I understand your comment. :-)
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 09:50:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See Scrooge and intellectual property rights by Joseph Stiglitz for more background.

This seems to fit perfectly here.

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 10:09:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
YES! and thanks for the link.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 10:20:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're welcome :).

BTW I just did another non-patenting story (invention of photography) on my blog (actually just pointing out some other blog smart writing on the topic :). It's in french.

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 06:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We should have another ET bash on all aspects of copyright and patents in the near future.

I see no hope for the developing world unless all knowledge is freely shared.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 01:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tough statement. Result: 4

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 03:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The good thing about thsi endevour is that the list of diseases affecting Africa, Central America and some parts of India and South_America is quite short.

Most of the illness youc na see in the Third World can be solved completely with good water, good sanitation, good parenting help and good food. These are the things that really change the outcome of life... donot believe the hype of Big Pharma about how life-saving their products are...actually, taking into account the big picture, they are quite irrelevant (although in some particular cases it cna make the difference for a particular person).

So thecompany can indeed focus in the five (roughly) badly and desperately needed reasearch lines like Malaria or better solutions for Yellow Fever (just the two that most often come to my mind together with black fever mentioned).

I wish her a lot of luck. Although I also would like the states to research on these issues (as they already do in some cases)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 09:39:36 AM EST
My impression was, that it is not so much a question of research as of production. Many effectiv remedies seem already to exist, but are to expensive or do not make enough money for the regular Pharma companies to be interessted to produce them. So I think she actually is filling in a gap. Nevertheless it would be great if governments would support more research into these issues.

As we are not living in an ideal world, I think it is important to realise that people can make a difference.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 09:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I got that point. But I also understood...well somehow guessed (like an assumption you do without realizing it is not there) that she will devote the money to make the drugs cheap and to make research on those lines...

IN case he uses all the money to make some of the already drugs cheaper.. It is great!

Although, in that case, I think good food and good sanitation (and water) is much more needed generally...except for a very short set of medications. I hope she chooses them carefully and thoroughfully... in other words I hope that she knows much more than pharmaceuticals and medicine to get the proper answer (as far as I see it it is really a very difficult question...but maybe there are no-brainers).

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 10:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and I also think you are right about the sanitation. I think the solution is like a puzzle - each peace is important to complete the picture or solution. I do not believe in the one and only solution.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 10:23:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As you may guess. I am with you.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 10:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Although I also would like the states to research on these issues

We have become (too) thankful of charity because, increasingly, it takes on roles that it should not NEED to.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 11:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would like to see the state licence universtity post-graduate depts. to produce frontline tech. (in all areas), the patents (etc.) of which would be owned by the state (maybe with some chunk of cash or percentage of sommat to the inventor(s) of the new material/process/etc.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 01:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
licence and finance...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 01:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of the illness youc na see in the Third World can be solved completely with good water, good sanitation, good parenting help and good food.

Yes, very much so. I think the problem here is the frame - this is compassionate capitalism in action, with missionary overtones of bring the benefits of big-science to the innocent. Or something along those lines.

While running a not-for-profit foundation is better than being part of Big Pharma, if she'd set up a not-for-profit to provide basic sanitation, this would never have been tagged as a story in the mainstream press because it wouldn't be sexy enough.

It's not quite true that the 3rd world doesn't need meds, because tropical areas can be more hostile - with parasites and other infections - than temperate areas are. But the basics are an essential first step, and probably twice as likely to make a difference as drugs are.

An even more impressive result for a scheme like this would be to provide meds in the US itself.

Like kc I wish her well. But I think there is a subtext here, and it's about the exec class reflecting on itself. The recipients and their real needs seem to come lower down the list than the fact that this is pitched as an entrpreneurial success story.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 11:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We get quickly to a chicken-egg situation: imo education is the base from which all other life improvements stem. Yes, sanitation is needed, medications are needed, peace and justice are needed.

There is no instant solution. So all positive contributions are welcome.

I see nothing wrong with the exec class reflecting upon itself, providing that it would be indicative of a new mood of morality. Hardly to be expected, but not necessarily to be ridiculed.

Just as education is empowering in the 'Third World', so is it empowering in the executive world. My impression of the many execs I meet is that they are very well, but narrowly educated. All they want to know more about is what will help them survive and prosper in the tiny habitat that they currently occupy.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 12:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes I agree with you!
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 12:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, sanitation is needed, medications are needed, peace and justice are needed.
There is no instant solution. So all positive contributions are welcome.
I totally agree.  All of these approaches are needed, and they can be done concurrently.  Cleaner sanitation will undoubtedly reduce the incidence of malaria--but even then some people will get it, and it will be a long time before all areas of the world are perfectly sanitized.  So this drug could be a miracle, and save many lives.
by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 12:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Amazing how a story can be perceived so differently by different people. To me it was primarely the story of a woman who had to courage to follow her heart and take a step forward and do something about the misery she perceived. Why should she have created a non-profit company for sanitation if that is not her expertise? Why throw away years of learning an knowledge just because it could be called sexy? Sorry, I just have a problem following that line of thingking. :-)

I think it needs lots of courage to take that step and I do not know many people who have that courage. It is so easy to discuse this on sites like ET - but it needs a lot more to actually do something. If sanitation is so important maybe those here with the knowledge and expertise needed could start such an organization.

Also I do not think being entrepreneur is negativ - only if it is done with greed and egocentrically, and I do agree there is a lot of that. So, I find it nice to read about someone who does business with compassion and hope she will inspire others to do the same.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 12:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whoa Fran!!!!  What an incredibly outstanding comment,,,IMHO!
by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 01:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks :-)
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 01:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fran - the point is there are already plenty of people out there working on basics like sanitation. But they never seem to make these kinds of headlines.

I have nothing against the initiative. I just think it has to be seen in a bigger aid work context. And it's possibly a little sad that one sexy story - and this is a very sexy story - is going to get more media attention and support than people who have been doing some extremely unsexy but very important work for years.

They deserve support too. If anything they deserve more support, because they're often on the front line. Sometimes they're literally putting their lives at risk, to an extent which I'd guess isn't the case here.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 02:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not mean to criticize Victoria Hale - but I was pointing out the context in which her acts become remarkable, i.e. one of neglect of certain activities by our governments, which makes her entrepeneurship both needed and noticeable.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 02:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not share your confidence in the ability of governments to solve all problems.  Individuals taking action, or donating money to good causes, or doing good things as a part of a business, or as part of an ngo have been necessary over time.

I believe this is a pretty big difference between the US and Europe, in that there is much more of a tradition of charititable contributions, in particular.  I know you disagree with that,,,but I think that is just a difference in approach.

by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 03:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the government should certainly do some of the things that have been abandoned to charities, at least the basic necessities.

That charities do more, or better, after that is good, and will reflect the individual preferences - and freedom to act - of citizens. But relying ONLY on charity for some roles seems unefficient and dangerous to me.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 03:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree.  Both are needed.
by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 03:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you Jérôme, both are needed. However what I liked about Hale's business is that they are not into making profit.

I think one of the problems to today is, that companies are not happy any more to just make a profit, i.e. pay decent salaries, have all the expenses payed, even research and maybe have something left over. No, if the part left over at the end of a year is not at least twice as much as the year before the company is considered a failure. So, big companies are hoarding money, some don't even know what to do with it anymore, except for exorbitant bonuses, etc. Unfortunately even state owned companies today mostly fall into this pattern. Thus, I really consider the idea of a non-profit company novel for out times.

Okay, Hale's company gets the start up money from charities instead of banks, but I consider this a good investment, if this company actually will be able to make enough money to have all the expenses coveret, it will become self-sustaining.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 04:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, Hale's company gets the start up money from charities instead of banks, but I consider this a good investment, if this company actually will be able to make enough money to have all the expenses coveret, it will become self-sustaining.
I agree it would be great if they could become self-sustaining.  However, even if they can't, I would think it's a good model to raise charitable contributions to make up the difference,  for this kind of drug development.  I would certainly feel great about using part of my charity dollars to support drugs that would otherwise not be developed to be developed--and I think others would as well.  And with truely huge donations being made by Buffet and Gates, and of course foundations such as Kresge and many other that have gone on for years, far bigger dollars than my paltry contributions are available.

In my view, which I know may not be broadly shared here at ET, we have plenty of pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies that have the objective of developing life saving products (see heart valves, angioplasty catheters, pacemakers, defibrillators, stents, Lipitor, etc. etc.) and making a profit.  But there are products that are needed such as Victoria Hale has identified, that can not be developed and make a profit, due to the target customer set being incredibly poor.  So this seems a great opportunity for those who have earned their money in free market systems, to give back to others, through this kind of model.

And I don't think it will be reasonable for Ms Hale's company to break even--given the costs that I mentioned earlier for clinical trials and drug development.  maybe for the "long hanging fruit" products she'll get a head start since other companies have done a lot of the work--but even then, won't clinical trials be required?  and then there are other diseases in the 3rd world that I think are going to need much more spending for drug development.  So I think this charity raising model could be great.

by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 05:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ahhh, and after so much agreement all day,,,I hesitate to make this comment, but must,,,,I know it will not surprise you.  I think you are tarring a lot of good people with a broad brush with your negative comments on business.  Yes there are some bad actors in business, just like anywhere else in life.  but imho you are generalizing from a small set of bad actors and smearing a lot of good people.  

And it is the exception, not the rule, for a company to double its earnings from one year to the next,,,though I know the energy companies likely did it this year.  i don't have the numbers yet, but in the US I imagine earnings grew something like 12--22%, on average.

Happy New Year  -:)

by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, though my only corporate experience is in Finland, which I would say is not a typical business country.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 06:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read that if you remove energy and banking, S&P earnings stayed flat (or slightly decreasing) on average this year (that says a lot...).
by Laurent GUERBY on Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 at 03:33:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
sure, it says that in every up trend in the markets some segments lead, and some follow.  imho, it will be up again in '07, probably led by technology and some other sectors.  You can always back out the two lead sectors and find out it changes the results a lot.
by wchurchill on Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 at 10:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess your right, I was exagerating somewhat - but living in a Pharma cîty, where the companies seem to reorganize and restructre continuesly (might be an exageration again, but it feels that way) letting go of people to save money, make those they keep work more and then read in the news paper that the profits have raised again and the top people get bigger boni (though not as big as in the US) it just makes me a little cynical.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 at 01:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Congratulations to this wonderful woman, her supporters, and her company.  What a great story, and I wish them great success!!

I have thought in the past of a similar concept, and she seems to have basically taken that concept for at least a portion of her vision.  The concept was that realizing that profit seeking businesses in general will not develop new drugs if they know they can not be profitable,,,,how about combining a business with charity?  There are a number of people that would listen to ideas for drugs like these, and support them with charitable contributions.  One of her potential drugs is areal life example of this:

Armed with a fresh $43 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, OWH has enlisted biochemist Jay Keasling of the University of California at Berkeley to retool common bacteria as artemisinin factories. It is a process called pathway engineering, and the result could be a virtually unlimited, extremely cheap supply of the life-saving drug.
She goes way beyond my initial thought (and most importantly by having the courage to take action and do it!!), by adding the "low hanging fruit" idea--finding drugs that have failed for their original purpose, but perhaps have shown  promise in other areas--like this.

But I think the concept of getting money from charities such as the Gates Foundation will be an important one, because i think we'll find that it still may cost a lot of money to get these drugs to the market.  For example, most drugs in the advanced world today require very significant clinical testing to discover if they have side effects, what those side effects are and how to manage them,,,,and also even more fundamentally, do the drugs really work?  It's easy to get fooled by placebo effects, and just wanting something to work,,,if you don't do double blinded clinical trials.  And I think they will be required for some of these efforts.  So I say, take the money where you can get it, and do something good for the world.  As they say, Go Girl!!

On a related tangent, I think one of the charities has started putting money into upgrading sanitation around the world,,,,or maybe it's one of the governments.  Do this ring any bells for anyone?

by wchurchill on Mon Jan 1st, 2007 at 01:24:01 PM EST
Fran, what an awesome diary!  Awesome in itself, and awesome in the great thread and comments it has spurred.

First, we need a compassionate vision...
Second, we need endurance and will-power...

Indeed.  This is a question I have been wondering about a lot.  There is much, much work that needs to be done, but I am pessimistic that incentives that are not ego-oriented (such as money, power, fame, awards, honors, etc.) will be able to motivate in large enough numbers to get done.  How can we create systems and organizations that are not based on personal gain (again, such as money, honors, power, etc.) but that are driven by, as you write, compassion, and that are sustainable over a long enough period to solve or at least reduce as much as possible the problems that are out there?

This past New Year's Eve, I was fortunate enough to go to an old friend's wedding where I was reunited with many of our closest friends from high school.  We are all 35-36 years old, and so most of us are married and having children (me being one of the few exceptions).

The morning after the wedding/New Year's party, I stumbled into the hotel dining for brunch, my head pounding from a toxic mixture of champagne, wine, port, vodka, and beer, and as I entered the dining room, I was greeted by the overwhelming sound and sight of about 30 little babies and kids eating and playing and crying and running.  My hangover shifted up into fourth gear.

But through the euphocacophony of children's voices and old friends greeting each other and sharing stories and sharing tips on how to get over hangovers and making plans to catch up soon, etc., I observed with growing fascination how all the young mothers were so engrossed and involved in not just taking care of their own babies -- many of whom actually were at home with grandparents or babysitters -- but with each other's children, and even with those of total strangers.

What was so striking to me was this: The complete and spontaneous attention, affection and -- how can I put it? -- competence or diligence with which they applied themselves to those kids.  What is more, how they did so cooperatively and with added pleasure in that cooperation.  And furthermore, with absolutely no sense of competition or possessiveness or jealousy or insecurity amongst one another (e.g. "I don't want her holding my baby for so long," or "My baby was cuter/smarter/more advanced/etc. than her baby is at this age," etc.)  At least, no such negative feelings that my hung-over still half-drunken senses stupid, childless male brain could detect.  In short, at the risk of idealizing/simplifying/obfuscating a more complex, less pleasant reality, I found this cooperative, spontaneous teamwork of child-oriented love and affection to be the complete opposite of the ego-oriented, competitive, guileful, often manipulative and deceptive world of business in the stereotypical predominant male mode.

Could, I wondered, this incredible mindset that "drove", so to speak, these young women to take care of theirs and each other's babies -- and each other, in fact! (e.g. by giving each other advice, sharing information, etc.) -- be a mindset at the foundation of organizations that are built and run to solve problems that conventional, traditionally business-like incentives (the money, the power, the fame, etc.) that may not be suitable for the problems aimed at by Victoria Hale and other NGOs/NPOs/charities/etc.?  If so, how can we nurture and harness that?  How would it work?  How would it hold its own in a world that is so deeply based on the individualistic, materialistic, competitive, aggressive, ego-driven mindset?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 at 11:38:56 AM EST
Thanks bruno-ken.

I think you are on to something with your observation. It made me think of the concept of vertical and horizontal thinking. I think it was De Bono who coined these terms. Your example of the mothers would fit the horizontal thinking. In my opinionen most companies are structured according to the vertical principals. I think if more horizontal or simply women, or right brain, or emotional Intelligence or how ever on wants to call it, would be included maybe there could be a shift, to a more community process intsteat of competition process inside companies. Maybe wishful thinking too. Best would probably be a balance of both approaches. But I have to think a little more about it.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 at 01:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fran, just wanted to say that I read your great diary when fresh via the storylist, but forgot to recommend later.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 at 02:36:36 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]