Naomi Klein, she of No Logo fame, has an interesting article in this month’s Nation entitled Privatization in Disguise, outlining the rapid-fire manner in which Iraq’s assets are being lined up for sale on the world market. The administration and their neocon supporters are already making mouth noises about the privatization of Iraq’s oil supplies to finance the rebuilding. Other countries are objecting to American unilateralism in the privatization process (read: no-bid contracts awarded to Bush supporters like Halliburton), but their objections are that they are being cut out of a share of the loot, without calling into question the fundamental unsoundness of privatization itself. While privatization-induced economic meltdowns caused by IMF-mandated structural readjustment programs are bringing chaos down on nation after nation, corporate suits around the world drool over the pickings available in Iraq’s newly liberated economy, promising a rape of the country far more violent and damaging than anything Saddam Hussein managed during his reign. After all, Hussein had to live there.
Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people, who might–who knows?–want to hold on to a few of their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations after the bombing stops, but without any real democratic process, what is being planned is not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity; privatization without representation.
A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverized by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country has been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their newfound “freedom”–for which so many of their loved ones perished–comes pre-shackled with irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling.
Thanks, Ms. Klein.
LinktoComments(‘92741332’)
Old Comments
Chances are, you know Alan Ralsky. Or at least, you know his work. Ralsky is one of the big-time spam operators, sending out millions of e-mails promising to make you thinner, richer, and better-looking. He doesn’t do porn, but that’s about the limits of his ethical concerns when it comes to sending spam. A few months ago, the Detroit Free Press ran an interview with Ralsky, describing his move into a new 8,000-square-foot luxury home in West Bloomfield, MI, from where he plans to run his spam empire. That was all the information some enterprising Slashdotter needed to go on–pretty soon, Ralsky’s address was posted on Slashdot, and a sneaky plan was hatched to get even.
Seems Slashdotters started using that address to subscribe to magazines, catalogs, and other junk mail, in Ralsky’s name. Unlike e-mail spam, in which the recipient bears much of the costs involved, junk mail is paid for by the sender. But it’s annoying, just as annoying as all those come-ons Ralsky fills our inboxes with every day.
Within days, Ralsky’s mail box started filling up. And Ralsky was heartily annoyed. When the Detroit Free Press talked to him a couple weeks later, Ralsky complained “These people are out of their minds. They’re harassing me.” He had even retained a lawyer to file suit–against who, I’m not sure. The same man who said of his job, annoying people through e-mail, “I’ll never quit. I like what I do. This is the greatest business in the world.”
Of course, nothing this good could happen without a down-side. Bruce Schneier’s “Cryptogram” describes a study by a team of security analysts showing how this kind of attack could be automated. With a fairly simple Perl script and use of the Google API, a bad person could harvest postal addresses and automatically subscribe them to hundreds, even thousands of mailing lists. The catalog and ad companies have no real interest in preventing it, as it a) doesn’t break any current laws, and b) gets addresses into their databases. Eventually, I suppose, a critical mass could be acheived, in which direct-mail advertising had no visible effect, and then the money these companies spend on such mailings would outweight their benefits, but in the meantime, there’s not much hope of any action on their part. And as anyone who’s ever tried it knows, it can be a real pain in the behind to get yourself removed from mailing lists once you’re on them. For now, we’re stuck with “hope and pray”, which is not much of a defense. In the middle-term, a legislative solution seems the best course of action, making direct-mailers responsible for verifying opt-ins before sending mail. But given how ineffective legislators have been so far in dealing with low-lifes like Alan Ralsky, this is going to be one heck of a difficult fight.
After a withdrawal-inducing absence of several days, Jeanne d’Arc returns with a couple of great posts, and some links on looting, most notably this article entitled, boldly enough, “The Case for Looting”, by one Steven E. Landsburg writing for Slate. Landsberg’s thesis is that there’s really not much wrong with looting in Iraq, on the grounds that the looting did not remove wealth from the Iraqi economy, it just shifted it to new owners. Since most of the wealth in Iraq was obtained illegitimately, there is nothing wrong with Iraqi looters reclaiming some of it for themselves. All in all, he says, “I’m sure that a lot of glass and more than a few noses have been needlessly broken, and I’m sure that some goods have been transferred to people who won’t fully appreciate their value. (On the other hand, I’m also sure that some goods have been transferred from people who didn’t fully appreciate their value.) But in the scheme of things, this is small potatoes.”
I respectfully disagree. So I wrote to Mr. Landsburg.
Mr. Landsburg,
I can’t quite get my head around your “case for looting”. First of all, I don’t think that the comparative extremity of the past several days looting and the past several decades’ kleptocracy (that’s what I’d call it, if I were to call mobs breaking into buildings and stealing stuff “looting”, which I do) [Note: A reference to Landsburg’s statement “…if you insist on calling it ‘looting’–in which case, I have no idea what word you’d use for the depredations of the old regime…”] have anything much to do with each other, but that’s not important right now. What is important is that, by looking at abstract, generalized definitions of “theft”, you’ve overlooked the specificities of the particular acts of looting that have gone on in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq over the several days. Doing so has kept your argument focused on monetary wealth, which I guess is that basis for your comparison with Saddam’s sticky-fingered reign, but there are other sorts of wealth and value that are greatly diminished by these acts of looting.
The outrage over the current looting has been mainly focused at two particular acts (or sets of acts). The first is the looting of hospitals and theft of beds, medical equipment, and medicines. Although the monetary value of this equipment has not been lost to the total Iraqi system, it has been lost (in the form of replacement price–which is likely to be higher than the actual monetary value of the goods stolen) from Iraq’s already beleaguered hospitals. More importantly, the *use value* of those objects has been lost entirely–stolen medicines and equipment cannot be used to treat sick or injured Iraqis. Even if all the material was returned, most of it would be worthless for medical use, having been out of the controlled environment of the hospital/clinic and potentially contaminated. For a people that are currently living in the middle of a war, this hampering of the medical system represents a great loss, even if, on the other hand, individual looters are able to sell or otherwise use the materials they stole.
The second major source of outrage has been the looting of the Baghdad Museum. A price has been put on the stolen objects of 17 billion dollars. But even if Iraqi looters were somehow able to obtain the full value of these objects–which seems unlikely given their illegitimate possession of these artworks and artifacts, the necessity to work through brokers, smugglers, and other middlemen in getting the objects to market, and the lack of specialized knowledge of the objects by the Iraqi looters–the value that these objects represent to the people of Iraq as a whole, the symbolic value as icons of Iraqi and Muslim history, tradition, and peoplehood, cannot be recovered. Furthermore, as with medical equipment, outside of the controlled environment of the Museum, these objects will rapidly lose even their monetary value, as well as their scientific and historical value. It is not very reasonable to assume that Iraqi looters are capable of caring for these objects, many of them fragile with age, the way the Museum’s curators can. As these objects are mishandled, they will likely suffer from environmental exposure, breakage, wear, and soiling, reducing their value and making some heretofore priceless pieces, worthless.
I fail to see how any of this helps the Iraqi people or, indeed, the world as a whole, although I am sure that the looting of the Museum will at least make art collectors everywhere very happy–when the objects turn up in their neighborhoods, anyway.
As yet, I haven’t gotten any response–it’s only been a couple hours–and I honestly don’t expect one. But I would love to know how Landsburg justifies his argument in light of the clear damage done by looters both to the Iraqi medical system and to Iraqi cultural patrimony.
LinktoComments(‘92613414’)
Old Comments
Everybody’s favorite lefty cowboy has an impressive analysis of where the Peace Movement, and the Left in general, is at right now, how we got here, and where we might be going, over at the Reach’m High Cowboy Network Noose. As Cowboy Kahlil sees it:
The Left has three missions ahead: preventing the war with Syria, stopping Patriot Act 2 and preventing Bush’s re-election. All three are negatives though, reactions, not pro-actions. Is the Left capable of defining its own agenda in positive terms anymore? No, but I hope it’ll rebuild its capacity to do so.
[…]
The single largest demographic group getting short shrift from both major parties is the working poor. The decline of unionism, the lack of affordable healthcare, the low minimum wage and the insufficiencies of the Social Security system are all matters that could be addressed by a cohesive Left before the Right announces its plan and we find ourselves fighting from the defensive position again.
I’m not defining the answers to those actual or looming problems but I can say that most proposals out there sound weak and uninspired in a time when ‘bold’ and ‘new’ approaches provoke headlines and inspire the image of action instead of passive reaction.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Several bloggers have written very insightful words about the looting in Iraq, particularly the almost total decimation of the Baghdad Museum’s collection. Teresa Nielsen Hayden‘s comments have been particularly cogent, both mourning the loss of so many priceless artifacts and berating an administration and military that allowed it to happen. Under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, our legal responsibility in this matter would be clear; unfortunately, the US has not ratified the Hague Convention. As it stands, our piece of the blame in both contributing to the breakdown of law and order in Iraq and allowing this looting to go on is clear, but how to–or indeed, whether we even can–minimize the damage is an open question.
Might I suggest, however, that considering the question of how this priceless material might be reinstated to the Museum is a good way of thinking about what a liberated Iraq might look like? Given that nobody in our administration or military seems to have given the matter much thought–or if they have, they certaintly aren’t sharing–maybe this is one way to approach the question. What if post-War Iraq was explicitly designed to facilitate the return of the cultural artifacts and artworks stolen from the Baghdad Museum?
To start with, an amnesty should be declared: anyone can return any object to the Museum with no questions asked and no penalties through a certain date, say May 15. A deadline is crucial–many of the stolen objects are thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands of years old, and they need constant curatorial care and protection. Also, the hope is to obtain the return of these items before the international collector’s market has time to swoop in. The amnesty is also crucial: although the looters engaged in criminal acts, do we really want the police, particularly “de-Saddamified” Ba’athist police that Iraqi citizens already have cause to distrust, to be responsible for the collection of immensely valuable and fragile antiquities? Likewise for Coalition forces–is it in anyone’s interest for American and British forces to go door to door, searching homes and seizing stolen goods?
To make an amnesty work, however, it is crucial that the Iraqi people believe that the amnesty will be honored–if even one incident occurs in which a looter is arrested or even bullied under the apparent protection of the amnesty, it would completely undermine any hopes of having works returned. But the Iraqi people, having lived for years under Saddam’s heavy-handed police apparatus, are not likely to give this trust willingly. That means that the new government must operate with nothing short of complete transparancy and integrity–no back room deals, no cut corners, recriminations. A South Africa-style reconciliation committee should be set up to allow the peaceful settling of past grievances, where the truly horrifying aspects of the last quarter century can be addressed.
Amnesty is only halfway there, though. In order for an Iraqi person to return the goods s/he has rightfully stolen (and which, after all, are the property of the Iraqi People) the incentive to return it must outwiegh the incentive to keep or sell it. The incentives for return are difficult, ethereal–flat out ideological. They are the contribution to scientific and historical knowledge, the participation in the Iraqi nation, the investment in the Iraqi people. Again, unless a new regime is established that can make these into true incentives for the Iraqi people, they will have no reason to return these goods, amnesty or no. That means meaningful participation by Iraqi leaders empowered to act independently, not a puppet state to American and British corporate interests. Especially as the incentive to sell is so great–many of these objects will fetch enough, even on the black market, to provide security for an Iraqi family for years. After a dozen years of sanction-induced uncertainty–and twice that living under a brutal dictatorship–the security represented by these objects is immense. Which means that the new regime must not only make Iraqi citizen participation a reward in itself, it must also make human security its highest priority. This means a) no politicking with relief missions (even if they’re French), and b) quickly establishing an Iraqi economy that provides for the Iraqi people’s needs. The best way to do this might be to re-nationalize Iraqi oil–Iraqi oil for Iraqi people!–or, at minimum, to establish an Alaska-style dividends program so that Iraqi oil wealth translates directly into Iraqi individual financial security.
All this would have to happen fast, blazingly fast, before the looters have a chance to move their booty onto the international collector’s market. Reform would have to be swift, immediately remunerative, and unimpeachable. Even then, it is unlikely that every object will be returned, but a goodly number might be if Iraqi people felt that it was in their best interests, as citizens of a New Iraq, to do so. And the kind of Iraq it would take to do this is, I hope, the kind of Iraq that well-minded people want for Iraqis. It means a lot of work in not very much time, but that is what we signed on for in this War, and it is what we–and especially the Iraqi people–have every right to expect.
LinktoComments(‘92553973’)
Old Comments
Michael Moore’s latest project, entitled “Fahrenheit 911”, explores the relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families, apparently going back two generations. In an ironic twist, after a competitive bidding project, Moore secured a pretty lucrative contract from Republican Mel Gibson’s production company, Icon Productions. Moore’s success in getting the very people he attacks–staunch Republicans, publishing companies, etc.–to back his work is interesting; I’d like to think that his backers are expressing a democratic ideal of open access and funding work based on its quality, not its ideology, but I think it probably has more to do with the money to be made from a controversial best seller and maker of incredibly profitable (and cheap) documentaries. Whatever the reason, I’m glad to see Moore back in the studio.
But I worry about this new project. Moore seems to be at his best when tracking nebulous ideas through their possible permutations, rather than when attacking a particular person or organization. “Roger and Me” succeeded not because of its portrayal of Roger Smith, GM’s president, but because it attacked the much more difficult topic of profitability versus responsibility, of corporate ethics versus community. The weakest point of the otherwise brilliant “Bowling for Columbine” was, in my opinion, Moore’s attack on K-Mart, not because they didn’t deserve it, and not because it wasn’t interesting to watch K-Mart PR flacks deal with their own corporate hypocrasy, but because it worked directly against the rest of the movie’s strengths. Moore’s examination of the roots of violence in America suggested that just having guns didn’t make people more likely to kill each other, that there was something deeper in our national identity that promoted violence as a useful and meaningful reaction to adversity and fear. Now, I support tighter gun control laws, but it’s not a position that is supported by Moore’s film, and so the protest at K-Mart seemed more like an easy media trick than a part of the unfolding narrative.
Now Moore is proposing a film that is composed entirely of a localized attack on one person (or, rather, on one family), which doesn’t seem like it will leave a lot of space for the cultural, social, and political factors that have fed into American foreign policy for decades, that fuel American anti-Islamic sentiments, that have allowed us to view government as a set of business relationships. These complexes date far earlier than any Bush’s worldly power, and are far more far-reaching than that of even a White House occupant’s power.
Of course, I don’t know what Moore is planning–after all, he did manage to look at a pretty wide swath of the American cultural landscape through the small lens of the Columbine shootings. But I fear that Moore is allowing himself the luxury of partisanship, of targeting and taking down a personal enemy, instead of exploring and explaining the political landscape at large, which he does so well.
As long as I’m on the topic, I want to discuss Moore’s ample girth. Fighting Nation writes:
Hey Michael Moore, I challenge you to drop your tub of Kentucky Fried Chicken, your bag of White Castle Burgers, your 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew, your box of Twinkies and your bag of Doritos and run a mile to protest the war. I bet it can’t be done! You fat windbag.
It’s common to see rightists describe Moore as “fat” but it’s not very rare to see even lefties doing so. The implication is that Moore pretends to represent the poor working class and to care about starving children and such, but he’s fat, you know, so how much solidarity can he really feel with the hungry masses? The thing is, poor people are fat, and getting fatter. Go into any K-Mart (on your way to the gun section, perhaps) and visit the large, clearly marked “Big Men’s” section. You’ll notice that it’s just about as big as it’s “normal” men’s section. Now, K-Mart’s clientele are fairly diverse, but one group is distinctly absent from its demographic, and that’s the rich. Check out Fat Land and Fast Food Nation for the inside skinny (sorry, I couldn’t resist) on how fat has become America’s calorie of choice, particularly among the working classes. Moore may have his share of faults, as a person and as a documentarian, but as far as I can tell there is nothing about his size that interferes with his ability to do the work at which he excels.
LinktoComments(‘92498040’)
Old Comments
An article in the WashingtonPost, “Librarians Make Some Noise Over Patriot Act” (via Talk Left) looks at some more actions librarians are taking in opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. As I said before, librarians are the front line fighting for your (and my) freedoms, and this article gives even more reason to love your librarian. In Monterey Park, CA, they put up signs on every computer terminal, saying “anything you read is now subject to secret scrutiny by federal agents.” Other libraries are regularly destroying usage records and some have even decided not to install new technologies that would make tracking library usage easier.
One thing that bothers me about these articles is that everything I’ve seen written about librarians seems to reinforce the image of “librarian as dowdy old lady with hair bun”. The Washington Post piece says “Across the country, in a movement that belies their staid image, librarians are rising up in anger…”. What did librarians ever do to deserve this image? While I’m sure that a reasonable number of librarians are, in fact, women of advanced age and varying degrees of pleasantness, the fact that we never seem to run out of librarians indicates to me that some younger people must be coming into the field from somewhere (a hunch made more certain by the large number of young people enrolled in library sciences programs across the nation). For a more positive image of librarians, might I suggest a peek at Librarian Avengers (Warning: this is a flash site with a loud soundtrack that sounds for about 10 seconds–it can be quite startling–and features some loud sound effects–don’t look at this site in the library!). In “Why you should fall to your knees and worship a librarian”, the author notes:
Librarians can catalog anything from an onion to a dog’s ear. They could catalog you. Librarians wield unfathomable power…. Librarians are all-knowing and all-seeing. They bring order to chaos. They bring wisdom and culture to the masses. They preserve every aspect of human knowledge. Librarians rule. And they will kick the crap out of anyone who says otherwise.
Be sure to check out the other sections of the site, to get an idea of just how much your librarian does when you’re not looking (and let’s face it, you ungrateful brute–you’re never looking). Maybe it’s time to shed some of these outdated, Frank Capra-esque stereotypes and start paying attention to these Freedom Fighters. Show some respect!
LinktoComments(‘92409218’)
Old Comments
Yesterday morning, Coalition forces liberated Baghdad, and we finally got to see some of that rejoicing in the streets (and also, a goodly helping of “beat the collaborator”) we’ve been missing so far in the execution of the war. People looked elated, attacking that statue of Hussein with glee and toppling it, elderly women beating Saddam’s image with their shoes (apparently a very strong insult in Arabic cultures; thanks to Electrolite for pointing out the pictures), and welcoming the Coalition troops with the openness our administration has always said they deserved. It was a good moment, when the people of Iraq seemed to finally accept that they were no longer under Hussein’s lash.
By yesterday evening, of course, right-wingers were accusing liberals of not being happy enough, of sulking because we wanted the war to fail, or at least get stuck in a “quagmire”, and so on and so on. Of course, we knew it was coming, no matter what objective was met. When Coalition troops found what they thought was chemical weapons earlier this week, a hearty round of “told you so’s” was raised, and we could hardly expect the capture of Baghdad not to fuel another. For the record, I’m happy for those people of Iraq still living (and civilian casualties seem to have been pretty low, but unfortunately not non-existent; military casualties, on the other hand, don’t seem to play into anyone’s concept of victory, but it’s thousands of young Iraqi men who will never get to take advantage of the liberty America is supposedly going to provide their people, who will never return to their families and loved ones) and I’m especially glad that the Battle of Baghdad didn’t get embroiled in the kind of army-crushing, civilian-slaughtering, urban guerilla warfare that many predicted. But let’s not be too proud of ourselves just yet. The real work in Iraq only starts with the occupation of the country–and it will be a long time before the ramifications of our actions there start to make themselves felt.
Also, all this news of the Iraqi people welcoming their “liberators” makes me wonder. The Iraqis aren’t idiots; they know who butters their bread at the moment. I’m reminded of an excerpt from Joseph Heller’s “Catch 22”, posted a couple weeks ago at Busy, Busy, Busy:
“I don’t believe anything you tell me,” Nately replied with a bashful, mitigating smile. “The only thing I do believe is that America is going to win this war.””You put so much stock in winning wars,” the grubby iniquitous old man scoffed. “The real trick lies in losing wars, in knowing which wars can be lost. Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how splendidly we’ve done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of crises. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our own recent history. Italy won a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble. Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a world war we hadn’t a chance of wining. But now that we are losing again, everything has taken a turn for the better, and we certainly will come up on top again if we succeed in being defeated.”
Nately gaped at him in undisguised befuddlement. “Now I really don’t understand what you’re saying. You talk like a madman.”
“But I live like a sane one. I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top, and I an an anti-fascist now that he has been deposed. I was fanatically pro-German when the Germans were here to protect us against the Americans, and now that the Americans are here to protect us against the Germans I am fanatically pro-American. I can assure you, my outraged young friend” – the old man’s knowing, disdainful eyes shown even more effervescently as Nately’s stuttering dismay increased – “that you and your country will have no more loyal partisan in Italy than me – but only as long as you remain in Italy.”
“But,” Nately cried out in disbelief, “you’re a turncoat! A time-server! A shameful, unscrupulous opportunist!”
“I am a hundred and seven years old,” the old man reminded him suavely.
[…]
“I can’t believe it,” Nately remarked grudgingly, trying stubbornly not to watch him in relation to the girls. “I simply can’t believe it.
“But it’s all perfectly true. When the Germans marched into the city, I danced in the streets like a youthful ballerina and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’ until my lungs were hoarse. I even waved a small Nazi flag that I had snatched away from a beautiful little girl while her mother was looking the other way. When the Germans left the city, I rushed out to welcome the Americans with a bottle of excellent brandy and a basket of flowers. The brandy was for myself, of course, and the flowers were to sprinkle upon our liberators. There was a very stiff and stuffy old major riding in the first car, and I hit him squarely in the eye with a red rose. A marvelous shot! You should have seen him wince.”
Now, this administration seems to be doing everything possible to make sure that the Iraqi people do not win this war (or the peace), but let’s face it, where brute force won’t get the job done, we’re just not very effective forces. You need a leader assassinated, a democratically-elected government overthrown or undermined, call America; but if you need a democratic system–a People’s government, if you will, but don’t tell anyone I said “People’s”–built up that recognizes basic human rights and works to establish equality for everyone, if you need a reconciliation process to clear away 25 years of bad, bad memories, if you need a nation free from the tyranny of terrorism and warlordism, an ethnically and religiously pluralistic society in which men, women, and children of all sorts can live and prosper… well, American is not the team to call in.
So, three cheers for the Iraqi people. They’ve defeated Saddam, now they have to fight a war for the hearts and minds… of America.
LinktoComments(‘92376433’)
Old Comments
Michael Moore explains the “backlash” against his comments at the Oscars: Bowling for Columbine experienced a surge in theater viewings and in pre-orders for the forthcoming video release, his book Stupid White Men jumped back to the top of the bestseller lists (for the fourth time!), he obtained funding for his next project, and he’s received tons of supportive letters and e-mails. He even seems to be getting a laugh out of the hate mail.
On the standing ovation that accompanied the announcement of his win for Best Documentary Feature, he says:
It was a great moment, one that I will always cherish. They were standing and cheering for a film that says we Americans are a uniquely violent people, using our massive stash of guns to kill each other and to use them against many countries around the world.
Seems like Mike’s weathering the “storm” pretty well.
And that’s what’s interesting. Of course, Mike’s said all along that the sales of his books belied the idea of a nation firmly behind their President. Yes, other voices like Ann Coulter’s, who couldn’t be further away from Moore politically or stylistically–yeah, both go over the top from time to time, but can you imagine Coulter having a sense of humour about anything? (And no, acting like those wacky liberals are oh-so-funny doesn’t count.)–sold well, but this just reinforces the fact that, despite the polls, despite the Fox News ratings, despite everything, there’s a wide diversity of opinions out there, and not just among the relatively estranged punditocracies of the left and right, whose job it is to be outrageous (but reasonable, oh so reasonable).
LinktoComments(‘92336820’)
Old Comments
In our ongoing coverage of Jon Stewart, Salon.com has a good feature on the Daily Show’s brand of political humour. The article deals with Stewart’s (and his fellow Daily Show writers and cast) performance in terms of his comic aesthetic, rather than considering the show as straight reporting on the world’s absurdity as I prefer to see the show. Of course, this being Salon, you have to either subscribe or sit through the ad for a “day pass”, which wouldn’t be so bad if the system worked well and it was clear how to view the article once you watched the ad. Oh, and if the ads were not, 4 times out of 5, for Salon itself…
LinktoComments(‘92268729’)
Old Comments
|
|
