schmevil: (union)
In brief:

- There are no quick or easy solutions for the Liberal Party. STFU about Justin Trudeau. We're talking deep structural reform and rebuilding.

- The NDP is not responsible for the Conservative majority. Yes, there was vote splitting, but the appalling performance of the Liberals and their aprox decade long sink into the electoral abyss is on them. The Conservatives deserve credit for the incredible machine they've built. They didn't get a majority by accident.

- Congrats Green Party and Elizabeth May! Historic day for progressives. First elected Green MP, and first NDP opposition.

- It's going to be a rough adjustment for Quebec, but in the long run, a renewed engagement with the rest of the country can only be good. Good news too, for the rest of the country, as we can once again have truly national policy debates. ALL regions are now up for grabs, if parties fight hard enough, and long enough.

- Conservative majority, ok. Time for progressives to fight harder, be it through citizen journalism, informal activism, or NGOs.

- Voter turnout is estimated at 61%. Shameful, particularly in light of how much the political map has been rewritten. We need to spend these next four years dragging our fellow citizens into: learning about our electoral system and political parties, encouraging them to get involved, and fostering a sense of individual and community responsibility.

Possibly a longer, more thoughtful post later. For now I need to sleep it off.
schmevil: (union)
America’s Radical "Conservatism"
Lawrence Davidson, for Consortium News (via Truthout).
March 3, 2011

Instead of the traditional conservative approach of relying on time-tested solutions, Reagan espoused the so-called Laffer Curve, which gambled on the unrealistic notion that massive tax cuts for the rich would generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, just one example of the Right’s anti-conservative — and even crazy — “conservatism,” as Lawrence Davidson notes in this guest essay:

If you have the stomach to listen to the likes of Glenn Beck or track the antics of people like Sarah Palin, you might get the idea that today’s American political conservatives are a bunch of radicals and extremists. And, as we will see, you would be correct.

But this is not how it always was. There was a time when conservatism was a more low-key affair with a certain sense of pragmatism and even fair play.

There is not much of this traditional conservatism left here in the U.S., except in certain intellectual circles. And, even there, one has the sense that it is hanging on by its fingernails.

Read more.

GRAPH: As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed In The United States
Zaid Jilani, for ThinkProgress.
March 3, 2011

Read more.
schmevil: (union)
An Eloquent Plea for Democracy.
James Travers for the Toronto Star.
March 4, 2011 (Originally printed in 2009).

Laughter or disbelief would have been my ’80s response to any gloomy prediction that within the next 20 odd years Canada’s iconic police force would twist the outcome of a federal election. I would have rejected out of hand the suggestion that Parliament would become a largely ceremonial body incapable of performing its defining functions of safeguarding public spending and holding ministers to account. I would have treated as ridiculous any forecast that the senior bureaucracy would become politicized, that many of the powers of a monarch would flow from Parliament to the prime minister or that the authority of the Governor General, the de facto head of state, would be openly challenged.

Yet every one has happened and each has chipped away another brick of the democratic foundations underpinning Parliament. Incrementally and by stealth, Canada has become a situational democracy. What matters now is what works. Precedents, procedures and even laws have given way to the political doctrine of expediency.

No single party or prime minister is solely to blame. Since Pierre Trudeau first dismissed backbenchers as nobodies and began drawing power out of Parliament and into his office, all have contributed to the creep toward a more authoritarian, less accountable Canadian polity.

Some of the changes are understandable. Government evolves with its environment, and that environment has become more complex even as the controls have become wobblier, less connected. The terrible twins of globalization and subsidiarity — the sound theory that services are most efficiently delivered by the administrative level closest to the user — now sorely test the ability of national legislatures to respond to challenges at home and abroad. Think of it this way: Trade, the economy and the environment have all gone global while the things that matter most to most of us — health, education and the quality of city life — are the guarded responsibility of provinces and municipalities.

Politics and politicians being what they are, the reflex response is to grasp for all remaining power. Once secured, it can be used to exercise political will more easily by overruling rules and rewriting or simply ignoring laws. Power alone is effective in cross-cutting through the silo walls that isolate departments and frustrate co-ordinated policies. Important to all administrations, unfettered manoeuvring room is that much more important to minority governments desperate to maximize limited options and minimize opposition influence.

Good for prime ministers, that’s not nearly good enough for the rest of us. It fuels an inexorable power drift to the opaque political centre, creating what Donald Savoie, Canada’s eminent chronicler of Westminster parliaments, calls “court government.” It’s his clear and credible view that between elections, prime ministers now operate in the omnipotent manner of kings. Surrounded by subservient cabinet barons, fawning unelected courtiers and answerable to no one, they manage the affairs of state more or less as they please.

Prime ministers are freeing themselves from the chains that once bound them to voters, Parliament, cabinet and party. From bottom to top, from citizen to head of state, every link in those chains is stressed, fractured or broken.

Read More.

Tories Rebrand Government of Canada As Harper Government.
Jonathan Rose, for the Toronto Star.
March 3, 2011

"It is one thing for journalists or even the public to use the more partisan 'Harper government,' but it is another thing for the state to equate the Government of Canada with the leader of the governing party," said Jonathon Rose, a specialist in political communications at Queen’s University.

"The effect of this subtle framing just before an election is to equate government with Harper," said Rose. "It creates a perception of a natural affinity between one party’s leader and the act of governing."

The Harper-centric messaging prompted Rose to recall French King Louis XIV and his 17th century divine right of kings: "L'État, c’est moi," quipped the political scientist. "The state is me."

Read more.
schmevil: (Default)
Seriously why does this exist?

These fantasies always strike me as a little gross. cut for pinko ranting )

Also goddammit Hollywood, can we get some new stories?

PS. Red Dawn is apparently #15 in a list of Best Conservative Movies. Ha ha ha.
schmevil: (daily planet)
I really liked this piece:

'Soul Of A Citizen': Make A Difference, Knowing The Outcome Won't Be Perfect, by Paul Loeb

When people hesitate to take a stand on issues from the Gulf oil spill to the horror show off the coast of Gaza, it's often because they're unsure of the outcomes of their actions. The issues themselves can be complex and overwhelming. I've talked in an earlier Soul of a Citizen excerpt about the trap I call "the perfect standard," where we feel we need to know every conceivable answer before we start to take a stand. But we also hold back because all our actions seem fruitless or compromised and because we're uncertain just how they'll will play out. Yet acting despite this ambiguity is often the most effective way to make change.

Heartfelt social involvement inevitably leads us into uncertain spiritual and emotional terrain. Theologian George Johnson amplifies this point in Beyond Guilt and Powerlessness. "Most of us," he says, "are more comfortable with answers than with questions. When faced with a problem we generally approach it with the assumption that information, insights, and proper action will bring satisfactory solutions. We want to fix things right now."

But as Johnson explains, "the reality of a broken world" often leads to ambiguity rather than certainty. "What we thought, believed, assumed, or followed is suddenly brought into question .... Receiving more information unsettles us rather than making things clear and easy .... It should not surprise us that our journey into the lives of those who cry for help will be discomforting."

Read More
schmevil: (daily planet)
Last night I talked about reporting Punch A Slut Week on Facebook. Sometime during the night, Facebook too the event down. \o/

Also, I can't recall if I linked to this article. Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

Facebook has gone rogue, drunk on founder Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams of world domination. It’s time the rest of the web ecosystem recognizes this and works to replace it with something open and distributed.

Facebook used to be a place to share photos and thoughts with friends and family and maybe play a few stupid games that let you pretend you were a mafia don or a homesteader. It became a very useful way to connect with your friends, long-lost friends and family members. Even if you didn’t really want to keep up with them.

Soon everybody — including your uncle Louie and that guy you hated from your last job — had a profile.

And Facebook realized it owned the network.

Then Facebook decided to turn “your” profile page into your identity online — figuring, rightly, that there’s money and power in being the place where people define themselves. But to do that, the folks at Facebook had to make sure that the information you give it was public.

Read More
schmevil: (philosoraptor)
1. Atheists and charity. My working thesis is that the reason atheists donate less to charity on average than do church-going believers, is that they aren't part of charitable communities. Churches and temples regularly engage in fundraising and charitable works. Where does the atheist go for the same kind of in-built charitable community? We have to find or build that community, whereas believers are very often born into one, or can joining a large and thriving charitable community.

That atheists care less about their fellow humans is a proposition I'm going to reject outright. I give you: Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and even our borderline evangelist anti-theists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

2. National security, democracy, and good government. I'm of the opinion that substantive democracy requires a limited definition of national security. Fewer 'vital national interests', so governments have fewer excuses for foreign adventures. As much transparency as possible, so that the blanket of national security can't be used to hide things that must not be hidden, such as military, intelligence and governmental misconduct. A clear separation between national security and governmental integrity, ie. what hurts the party in power, does not necessarily hurt the country; or, the Prime Minister is not Canada.

The Afghan detainee scandal makes it clear: you can't have good government when the party in power is throwing around the excuse of national security. 'National security' is akin to 'terrorism' in its clarity, and in it's ability to inspire knee-jerk patriotism and panic. When a governing party starts to frame things with the rubric of national security, when they try to block the efforts of HM's Loyal Opposition, with that old boogie man, you know you're in trouble. Let's all be thankful we have such an awesome Speaker. Hail!

Anyway, I'm by no means a pacifist, but I'm deeply suspicious of security-creep. Because ultimately, national security is an excuse to go to war, to engage in all kinds of governmental tomfoolery and misconduct, it absolutely must not be allowed to expand without the input of the people. It's too important to leave up to the politicians!

3. Kids these days, and their lack of understanding of the workings of the internet. It's kind of a meme right now that Facebook will soon surpass Google, as an entry point to the internet. Facebook is already well on its way to kicking Google's ass in the 'exploiting your users for advertising dollars' department. Will Facebook soon become the world's homepage?

Firstly, I'm kind of doubtful that Facebook is going to be around for the long haul. Maybe it's reached a kind of critical mass of membership, and for that reason alone will be able to keep on trucking through the arrival of the next big thing. Maybe not. But I don't think that Facebook offers enough, is useful enough to stay in the top spot forever.

Facebook is a portal. It shapes your internet experience. Google, on the other hand, is a search tool that let's you go wherever you like. There aren't any alerts warning you that you're about to leave Google (oh noes!). There aren't the constant reminders that Jane likes Tokyo Hotel, and David would like to be friends. When Facebook is your portal to the internet, you're not really on the internet in a meaningful way. You're in the magical land of Facebookia, where everything is pre-formatted, works the same way, and connects back to your profile. If Facebook is your portal to the internet, and has always been your portal to the internet, then... do you actually know how to use the goddamn internet? Do you know what the hell it is? Do you know how to keep you and your information safe?

My experience with young teenagers says: sometimes yes, but oftentimes no. I spend a lot of time advising my ducklings on matters of internet-y import, and that just seems counterintuitive, doesn't in? They're supposed to be the internet generation!

Of course, it could just be my Facebook hate-on talking, but-- The longer a technology is around, and the more commonplace it becomes, the more users take it for granted, and the less they know about it, and how to fix it. Take cars, for example. Most people can drive. Few people know what a fanbelt looks like, much less its significance. The thing about all-encompassing portals like Facebook, is that they don't let you fiddle around, see the source code, build things yourself, or just talk about how things are built. Have we reached the drive-only internet generation?

Kids these days, get off my lawn! *grouse grouse*
schmevil: (drugs)
Today I want to talk about one of my pet peeves: equating anti-oppression efforts with political correctness.

Feminism, anti-racism, LGBTQ activism and all anti-oppression efforts are part of a fundamentally rights seeking, justice seeking movement. They are socially revolutionary, not reformist. There is a radical core to them that can't live and let live. Can a feminist shrug off misogyny as someone "looking at things differently"? Can an anti-racist shrug off racism? (Haters gonna hate). Of course not.

Anti-oppression efforts are not politically correct; most of the time they're politically wrong. Politics is fundamentally about expediency, it's a deal-making game. It's how we negotiate competing demands, needs, ideologies and somehow make a society work. Anti-oppression efforts are a call for justice. Anti-oppression is not about "getting something for yours". It's about identifying a lack, an injustice in the fabric of society: an unrepresented, oppressed group that must make a place for itself, make it's voice heard, however it can. Anti-oppression efforts are radical politics.

Political correctness is a measure of how "good on the issues" a politician (or ordinary citizen) is on the hot topics of the day. Are you with the prevailing consensus on labour unions? Then you're politically correct. It's got nothing to do with progressiveness, or anti-oppression. Both of those are too far afield to ever be politically correct because the epicenter of public opinion is the only 'right' place to be. It's about fashion. It is no longer fashionable to be racist, sexist or ableist. And so you are no longer racist, sexist or ableist, because it is the 'right' thing to do.

Anti-oppression efforts manifest in more and less radical ways. General strikes, civil disobedience, employment equity legislation: these are all tactics adopted by anti-oppression movements. Whether striking or bargaining, the core message does not change: There is a wrong and we're damn well going to right it. The core message of the fashionable radical is LIKE ME LIKE ME LIKE ME, and for that reason, is damn easy to spot.

You know those "I judge you" secrets on F!S? If you equate anti-oppression efforts with political correctness, I judge you.
schmevil: (daily planet)
Clinic: New Okla. abortion law hard on patients, AP.

The requirements of Oklahoma's new abortion law are drawing some emotional responses from patients, a clinic director said Wednesday, now that women must have an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before the procedure can be done.


The new statute requires the person performing the ultrasound to describe the dimensions of the fetus, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity. It also requires the doctor to turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images toward the woman to see them.

Meek said no patient at the clinic had yet canceled an abortion after hearing a description of the fetus. Jennifer Mondino, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights that filed the lawsuit, said that so far no patient at the Tulsa clinic has decided to view the images.

Meek said requiring women to listen to a description can be traumatic, she said, especially for rape and incest victims and women with fetal abnormalities or whose pregnancy threatens their own life.

Read More.


No abortion in Canada's G8 maternal health plan, CBC

The federal government has disclosed for the first time that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries.


International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said the government would consider funding family planning measures such as contraception, but not abortion under any circumstances.

"We're saying that we're using the definition in our discussions of family planning, which does not include abortion," Oda told reporters on Monday in Halifax, where she was meeting with her G8 counterparts.

"We're not debating abortion; we're clarifying family planning."

Read More
schmevil: (daily planet)
In 2008, a San Francisco softball team came to Seattle to compete in the Gay Softball World Series. The team, named D2, made it all the way to the championship game. And that's when people started asking questions. No, literally. In the middle of the game.

Now the players are suing.


After losing the game, five players from D2 were brought to a hearing where they were "forced to answer intrusive questions about their sexual orientation and private life in front of a room of over 25 people," including whether they were "predominantly attracted to men" or "predominantly attracted to women."


In response to a player's statement that he was attracted to both men and women, a NAGAAA member responded, "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series."

Read More.
schmevil: (bruce lee (jumpsuit))
Please take a read through this post for a primer on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It is, I guarantee you, relevant to your interests, as its aim is an iron-fisted copyright regime, and the criminalization of many things we take for granted online. Currently participating in the talks are the US, Japan, the EU, South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Mexico, NZ and Australia.
schmevil: (Default)
[This might be an ill-advised, off-putting rant, but what the hell. Sometimes you gotta let off some steam.]

So Something Awful has discovered [ profile] fandomsecrets. I'm mildly annoyed by their comments on the nature of fandom, but what really pissed me off was rereading an older secret that I'd happily forgotten. The gist of the secret is this: LJ fandom is full of rich/middle class women with too much time on their hands. Further, the vast majority of fans participating in the Fail conversations, were rich/middle class women with too much time on their hands. Why do these intensely privileged people care so much about fandom Fail, when there's Real Suffering in the world? To the secret maker, I say this: FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.

1. I am so goddamn tired of this classist myopia. Oh hey, guess what? Not everyone on the internet is rich or middle class. Working class and poor people have internet access too! Also, not all participants in the Fail discussions have university degrees. Shocking though it may be, high school educated people can string words together into sentences, and can even formulate complex arguments about media and fan culture. But obviously active fans are middle class. Poor and working class people wouldn't squander their precious free time on fandom. It really would be irresponsible to save up for a computer, and then shell out for internet service every month, never mind spending time (that could be spent on a second or third job), on leisure activities. Not when you're working class or poor. *gasp!*

2. Secret maker, I'm willing to bet my pitiful bank account on your knowing very little about your fellow fans' real life circumstances, let alone what kinds of activism they're engaged in outside of fandom. As far as I can tell, most of the loudest voices in the Fail discussions are experienced activists of one stripe or another, and many, many people whose first exposure to these issues was through a Fail, have applied the lessons they learned in fandom, to their offline lives. Also? Stop trying to deflect bb. There is bigotry, power and privilege in fandom, just as there is in all parts of life, and it should be called out wherever it is found. We don't save this shit up for whatever you've decided is the ~important stuff.

3. And lo, once again the specter of the Facebook Activist eclipses the efforts of sincere advocates and activists. So let's take this head on: I'm not going to dispute that some Facebook Activists are insincere, image conscious, band wagoners. If all you can be bothered to do for the cause is join 1,000,000 Strong Against Whatever, it's possible you're more interested in how your profile looks, than Whatever. (Of course, it's also possible that you're too busy to be an advocate at x point in time). However, if you're active in the group, posting and reading messages, following links to useful videos and resources, and educating your friends about the issues, then you are doing something. That lazy people join Facebook groups and leave it at that, does not mean that all internet activism is bunk. In the 60s they would have been button-wearing, weekend Flower Children. The internet has not made people lazier, or worse advocates for social change. It has made it much easier for activists to coordinate their efforts, and for people from different backgrounds (including women, PoC, poor and working class folks, and people from the developing world) to network, and voice their vital concerns.

4. There are still massive, and frankly disgusting disparities in internet access (both in the West and the world over), but there are lots and lots of people trying to close those gaps. The internet is increasingly not made up of rich and middle class (presumably white) people from the West. There is a growing movement to have access to the internet understood as a rights issue.

5. Rich/middle class women with too much time on their hands? Really, secret maker, that's how you want to play this? I... can't even touch this one.

Excuse me, I'll just be rageflailing in the corner over this, and many other things that are annoying me this week.
schmevil: (ms. marvel (smash))
This Robot 6 piece returns us to the horror that is Marvel's Civil War. Well, for the record, I've always been vaguely in agreement with the idea of superhero registration. Superhuman registration is a step too far, and UN sanctioned superhero teams (like the Avengers or Justice League) are a step not-far-enough. If you transport superheros into a real world context, they're a lot harder to like. They're a lot harder to believe in. Who the fuck would want Tony Stark zipping around the world in flying, powered-armor, punching the shit out of 'bad guys'? And what about the Hulk? Man, publicly I'd be all about curing his sad, sad plight. Privately, I would be sympathizing with the Illuminati - yes, let's shoot this fucker out into space where he's no longer an unstoppable, rampaging force of id.

In the comments, Mark Waid says that "Superheroes are not about rules, they're about flying." And he's pretty much right. It's why grim-and-gritty, 'realistic' reboots of beloved superhero properties are so grating. But let's thought-experiment our way through this morass anyway. Sorry Mark, we're killing all ur fun! What if superheroes were real? Would your position on superhero registration change? Read more... )
schmevil: (dexter and rita)
So I hear this one a lot. And sorry, the idea that allies don't get called on their screw ups is ridiculous. I've been issued so very many privilege checks over the years that I can't remember all of them. Here's a recent example, if you're looking. I made a joking post about places where hateful humour can still safely find refuge (ie. what you can still get away with joking about) but my wording was utter fail, and I got called on that.* And that's as it should be. I don't know any sincere allies who think they're unimpeachable moral arbiters. I may not intend to hurt people, but when I do, I deserve to get called on it. I may not intend to do or say something racist, misogynistic, ableist, or transphobic, but when I do? I should be called on it. Nobody gets a free pass, and no one will ever have done enough to be 'above suspicion'.

* I also got called on using the term 'fucktard'. There's a subthread that goes into the whys of that exchange, but suffice it to say that it's part of an ongoing conversation about those kinds of words, and the hows, whys and whens of their social acceptability. Used context-free as it was in the linked post though, it was indeed offensive, and I apologize.

(And er, apologies to anyone posting in that thread, who wondered why it disappeared for a day. idek what happened there but I've fixed all the security settings on my entries. I think).
schmevil: (daily planet)
This is a delicious must-read shredding of Bill Kristol's defense of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. With actual numbers to back them up The Economist exposes DADA for the blatant exercise in bigotry for what it is: a disgusting and absurd policy that's led to the discharge of 12,000 active duty soldiers, in the midst of two, large-scale, messy conflicts, that isn't even supported by a majority of soldiers.

It rests on the notion that some soldiers are homophobic and, therefore, any change to the policy might negatively affect morale. Yet he presents little evidence to back up his claim. Because I am startled by his blatant, unsupported, anachronistic bigotry, I thought I might amuse myself by offering up Mr Kristol's article in full, peppered with pointed interjections from myself.

In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama worried that “too many of our citizens have lost faith” in “our biggest institutions.” Many of those institutions have, of course, invited disillusionment with their feckless and irresponsible behavior. But poll after poll shows that at least one major American institution retains citizens’ faith. Indeed, this institution has improved its standing in recent years as respect for others has declined. That institution is the U.S. military.

So what institution does the president want to subject to an untested, unnecessary, and probably unwise social experiment? The U.S. military.

Social experiment? Open and peaceful cohabitation with non-heterosexuals is a social experiment that has been going on for decades, with fairly good results. But yes, it is "unnecessary", in the same way that allowing blacks to serve on equal terms was unnecessary, if you happened to be white.

“This year,” the president informed us, “I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

It’s hard to know where that “finally” came from. Until a year ago, Americans had elected presidents who were in favor of upholding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—so if action on this has been overdue, it’s only been for the single year of the Obama presidency.

The "finally" comes from over five years of polling (or "poll after poll" as Mr Kristol says) showing support for repealing the law. Or maybe it was "finally" as in "finally, eight years after beginning one war and six years after starting a second, concurrent one, stretching the forces to the breaking point, we are considering letting all able Americans serve openly."

But the repeal is something that Obama campaigned on. He believes in it.

Wait, not only is he lobbying to make this change, but he also "believes" in it? What an awkward misuse of elected office!

Read more.
schmevil: (daily planet)
Our Role In Haiti's Plight, Peter Hallward

Worth a read:
Haiti is now a country where, according to the best available study, around 75% of the population "lives on less than $2 per day, and 56% – four and a half million people – live on less than $1 per day". Decades of neoliberal "adjustment" and neo-imperial intervention have robbed its government of any significant capacity to invest in its people or to regulate its economy. Punitive international trade and financial arrangements ensure that such destitution and impotence will remain a structural fact of Haitian life for the foreseeable future.

It is this poverty and powerlessness that account for the full scale of the horror in Port-au-Prince today. Since the late 1970s, relentless neoliberal assault on Haiti's agrarian economy has forced tens of thousands of small farmers into overcrowded urban slums. Although there are no reliable statistics, hundreds of thousands of Port-au-Prince residents now live in desperately sub-standard informal housing, often perched precariously on the side of deforested ravines. The selection of the people living in such places and conditions is itself no more "natural" or accidental than the extent of the injuries they have suffered.

As Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, points out: "Those people got there because they or their parents were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies specifically designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities; by definition they are people who would not be able to afford to build earthquake resistant houses." Meanwhile the city's basic infrastructure – running water, electricity, roads, etc – remains woefully inadequate, often non-existent. The government's ability to mobilise any sort of disaster relief is next to nil.
schmevil: (daily planet)
The Guardian's live blog.

Oh, and Scans Daily gets topical: Persepolis and Unknown Soldier.

Now I'm off to see Up with my brother.
schmevil: (daily planet)
Read more... )

دنیارابگوییدچطورآنهاانتخاباتمان دزدیده اند
Tell the world how they have stolen our election

- original article by one_hoopy_frood on LJ

schmevil: (daily planet)
[The following is a meme post; text and pics not mine; original post by [ profile] one_hoopy_frood]

Read more... )

دنیارابگوییدچطورآنهاانتخاباتمان دزدیده اند
Tell the world how they have stolen our election

- original post by [ profile] one_hoopy_frood

July 2012

1516171819 2021

Most Popular Tags


RSS Atom

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags