Wednesday, October 31, 2007

PEJ Study: Big Media "tabloidizes" US political journalism

I recently blamed punditry for much of what's wrong with American politics. I decried how the US public tends to read polls and columns to make positioning calculations. Political coverage is confined to candidates with "star quality". Instead of issues, policy, and analysis, we get the tabloidization of American political journalism. Would John Edwards beat Guiliani? Can Hillary Clinton win the center? Can Obama keep the black vote while courting a "white" center? Tragically for America, decisions based on who might "win" rather than who is right or best qualified almost always result in the election of candidates that are neither right nor qualified.

Now --I've got a hard study to back me up. It's by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy
In the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, the media had already winnowed the race to mostly five candidates and offered Americans relatively little information about their records or what they would do if elected, according to a comprehensive new study of the election coverage across the media.
The study has the hard numbers to back up a summary conclusion:
In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.
Nor is the media without bias. Some candidates can't seem to buy favorable coverage. Others -like Barack Obama and Fred Thompson -seem to be enjoying a honeymoon.
The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.
I suppose that just proves how out of touch I am. I have yet to hear Obama say anything that was not obviously vetted, coached and rehearsed. As for Thompson --ah well! What can one say about an ugly mug and uglier political philosophy? I might as well shout at a wall. Big Media has already decided that Thompson, the least attractive candidate in any party, is, nevertheless "Presidential" material. How bloody absurd!
The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.
The public, however, shares my sense of disaffection and outrage. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reports that the public is just as fed up with this evil system as am I. Seventy-seven percent against 17 percent want more coverage of issues and less punditry, bullshit and claptrap. Fifty-seven percent want real debates. Only 42 percent want more news about which candidate is leading in the poll du jour while fifty five percent want more news about candidates that are not deemed by big media to be "front-runners". Among other findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study:

  • Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
  • Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.
  • Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.
  • Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.
  • There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.
Democrats might be excused for seeming to acquiesce in this tabloidization of political coverage. It was not so long ago that Democrats couldn't buy a good story. Still, media fixation with every aspect of politics but issues is evidence of insidious media cynicism, an entrenched belief that Americans will not read or understand a story unless is has star quality and celebrity in it.

There is nothing democratic about a system inherently biased in favor of the "superstars" of big media --Obama, Clinton, Thomspon, Guiliani. There is nothing democratic about a system in which candidates like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are discounted out of hand, not because they are not strong on issues but because they haven't gotten benediction from the poohbahs of big media. There is nothing democratic or fair about a system that discounts your preference because you are not or have not read the poohbahs du jour!

I recently endorsed Mike Gravel because Mike has an impeccable record in the US Senate and because his position is real and absolutely right. Sadly, last time I checked, Democratic "procedure", was freezing Gravel out of what passes for "debate". Fortunately, I can still support Kucinich but resent having to make decisions based on a "political reality" that ought NOT to be a "political reality".

Why can't we have a system in which one may vote one's conscience? Why must we have a system in which one worries about "wasting" one's vote on a third party candidate who may be the best in the field. Why can't we abandon the absurd electoral college? Why can't we select the eventual winner based upon national totals via a Borda count, a range vote or some other system that has been shown to better and more accurately reflect the will of the "people".

A better system will encourage a richer field, especially if the reforms should coincide with the abolition of the absurdly long and boring system of primaries. If elections had been conducted on a more scientific basis, George W. Bush could not have stolen the White House --even with help from DieBold. There is much literature available about alternative voting systems. The science dates back, at least, to the 18th Century. Google "range voting", "Borda Count", "alternative voting systems". You'll get plenty of reading material.

It's bad enough that my votes are stolen by DieBold. It's bad enough that the US Supreme Court would presume to anoint a phony President with a creative, "Alice in Wonderland" interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It is bad enough that candidates are bought and paid for because the very expense of a campaign militates against those who may be most qualified. But a system about which it is accurately charged that by supporting either candidate, my vote is wasted is absolutely intolerable. As long as this evil status quo is maintained and supported, America will continue to get --not the brightest and best --but the slick, the bought and the paid for.


Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Rumsfeld is warned: “A torturer is an enemy of all humankind”

Former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld now faces criminal charges in France for ordering the torture of prisoners in Iraq and at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Charges aganst Rumsfeld were filed with a French court while Rumsfeld was in Paris for talks sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine.

The charges, supported by some of the world’s most prominent human rights law groups, formally charge Rumsfeld with "....authorizing and ordering torture".
Those responsible have rarely been called to account. Nonetheless, the need to prosecute those responsible for atrocities has been recognised ever since the International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo. The impunity of responsible persons abets new crimes. The recourse to legal instruments is becoming ever more important in order to effectively uphold human rights.

--European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)

ECCHR is joined by the French League for Human Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and other groups throughout Europe.

Can similar charges against Bush be far behind?
“Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide,” Ratner [ECCHR] added in a statement after filing the complaint. “A torturer is an enemy of all humankind.”

The charges against Rumsfeld were brought under the 1984 Convention against Torture, ratified by both the United States and France, which has been used in France in previous torture cases.

The criminal complaint states that because of the failure of authorities in the United States and Iraq to launch any independent investigation, it is the legal obligation of states such as France to take up the case.

Ratner and his colleagues in France’s legal community contend that Rumsfeld and other top US officials are subject to criminal trial because there is sufficient evidence to prove that they had authorized the torture of prisoners held on suspicion of involvement in terrorist acts.

“France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld,” said FIDH president Souhayr Belhassen. “It has no choice but to open an investigation.”

--Rumsfeld Charged with Torture in French Court

It was Rumsfeld’s presence on French soil that gives French courts jurisdiction to prosecute him. Pssst! Don't tell Bush about this.

According to Raw Story Bush ordered 'torture' tactics himself, giving "marching orders" to Gen. Michael Dunlavey. The general claims that he then asked the Pentagon to approve the "harsher interrogation methods at Guantanamo"
More than 100,000 pages of newly released government documents demonstrate how US military interrogators "abused, tortured or killed" scores of prisoners rounded up since Sept. 11, 2001, including some who were not even suspected of having terrorist ties, according to a just-published book.

In Administration of Torture, two American Civil Liberties Union attorneys detail the findings of a years-long investigation and court battle with the administration that resulted in the release of massive amounts of data on prisoner treatment and the deaths of US-held prisoners.

"[T]he documents show unambiguously that the administration has adopted some of the methods of the most tyrannical regimes," write Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh. "Documents from Guantanamo describe prisoners shackled in excruciating 'stress positions,' held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months."

Most of the documents on which Administration of Torture is based were obtained as a result of ongoing legal fights over a Freedom of Information Act request filed in October 2003 by the ACLU and other human rights and anti-war groups, the ACLU said in a news release.

The documents show that prisoner abuse like that found at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was hardly the isolated incident that the Bush administration or US military claimed it was. By the time the prisoner abuse story broke in mid-2004 the Army knew of at least 62 other allegations of abuse at different prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, the authors report.

The ACLU also found that an Army investigator reported Rumsfeld was "personally involved" in overseeing the interrogation of a Guantanamo prisoner Mohammed al Qahtani. The prisoner was forced to parade naked in front of female interrogators wearing women's underwear on his head and was led around on a leash while being forced to perform dog tricks.

“It is imperative that senior officials who authorized, endorsed, or tolerated the abuse and torture of prisoners be held accountable," Jaffer and Singh write, "not only as a matter of elemental justice, but to ensure that the same crimes are not perpetrated again.” ...

--Raw Story, General claims Bush gave 'marching orders' on aggressive interrogation at Guantanamo

Amid these revelations comes news that the prosecution of Blackwater on murder charges has run into a snag. The US State Department had given the US sponsored terrorist organization, Blackwater, immunity from prosecution. Only persons planning to commit crimes are interested in obtaining prior immunity from prosecution. It saves them having to cover it all up afterward.
Both Hitler and Stalin came to realize that it was possible to eradicate the unpredictability of human affairs in "the true central institution of totalitarian organizational power": the concentration camp. What Arendt saw is that eradicating unpredictability requires altering the nature of human beings. In the camps the internees' deprivation of all rights, even of the ability to make a conscientious choice, does away with the dynamic conflict between the legality of particular positive laws and the idea of justice on which, in constitutional governments, an open and unpredictable future depends. On the one hand, in Arendt's concept of totalitarianism, human freedom is seen as inconsequential to "the undeniable automatism" of natural and historical processes, or at most as an impediment to their freedom. On the other, when "the iron band of terror" destroys human diversity, so totally dominating human beings that they cease to be individuals and become a mere mass of identical, interchangeable specimens "of the animal-species man," those processes are provided with "an incomparable instrument" of acceleration.

--[Hannah] Arendt's concept and description of totalitarianism

A "state" wishing to eradicate "unpredictability of human affairs" must make of its own apparatus an inhuman machine utterly lacking empathy. SS members become mere interchangeable parts in a killing machine. Master and slave alike cease to be entirely human. This is the state as machine. Such a state requires its Auschwitz, its Abu Ghraib, its Guantanamo.
In World War I enemy aliens were regularly interned "as a temporary emergency measure," (see "Memo: Research Project on Concentration Camps") but later, in the period between World Wars I and II, camps were set up in France for non-enemy aliens, in this case stateless and unwanted refugees from the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). Arendt also noted that in World War II internment camps for potential enemies of democratic states differed in one important respect from those of World War I. In the United States, for instance, not only citizens of Japan but "American citizens of Japanese origin" were interned, the former maintaining their rights of citizenship under the Geneva Conventions while the latter, uprooted on ethnic grounds alone, were deprived of theirs by executive order and without due process.

--Evil: The Crime against Humanity, Jerome Kohn, Director, Hannah Arendt Center, New School University

Nixon proclaimed: if the President does it, it's not illegal. Nazis were only following orders. Blackwater was only following orders. And the resolution adopted at Wannsee made the Holocaust legal. The opinions of Yoo and Alberto, they would have you believe, relieved Bush of US obligations to Geneva. Now, we learn that Blackwater had been given immunity from prosecution!!

There is no crime that cannot be made "legal" by a tyrant, a suck up, or a liar! But that proposition is just one of the seemingly endless series of absurdities and outrages with which the GOP has oppressed the people of the US. What had been merely the very worst administration in US history has become one of the world's most repugnant tyrannies. The opposition to Bush must now rally 'round an over arching objective: bringing Bush himself to justice in the US for capital crimes and to trial in a world court for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace .

Naming Names at Gitmo

[NYT] Well into the night of Sunday, Jan. 2, 2005, lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz sat alone at his desk in the headquarters of the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, consumed with a new project.

He often worked late. From the time Diaz enlisted in the Army as a 17-year-old high-school dropout, hard work had been his ticket. He had earned his college degree while serving as an artillery sergeant and then completed law school a semester early, driving a mail truck on the weekends. In 10 years as a Navy lawyer, his performance evaluations had been outstanding. As his six-month tour at Guantanamo neared its end, his stint as the deputy legal adviser there looked like more of the same. ...

An update:

Kucinich questions Bush's mental health

"Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush's mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III." The man who speaks the truth is the most sane. ...

Additional resouces Discoveries

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Five flagrant, fallacies Bush exploits to wage illegal war, demonize his critics, and subvert the rule of law

The 'Appeal to Emotion', always a favorite among demagogues and propagandists, is designed to get around reason and good sense. Of all Bush fallacies, this may be the most evil and subversive. Practitioners of this fallacy intend for you to act upon our worst, most destructive emotions --fear and prejudice. As a recipe for disaster, it is found behind George Bush's every rationale for war against Iraq, including those made before the war and the lies, slogans and claptap put forward after the fact.

Demagogues commonly exploit vanity, fear, prejudice and hate. Bush's run up to war on Iraq ran the gamut. Fear of Islam became the springboard for a fallacious link between terrorism and Islam. Bush held up the bogeyman and made of it a focal point for fear and prejudice.

911 was like a post-hypnotic suggestion. It could be hauled out whenever Bush and his minions found it convenient to distract Americans from the truth, whenever it was necessary to summon up the old demons in support of new aggressive adventures. It became the focus point of hate and vengeance, what some psychologists would call an "anchor".

Rudy Giuliani's coaches have obviously told him to use the term "911" often. It's his only trick. It's mere mention is enough to trigger a flood of adrenalin, literally a replay of emotions --fear, anger, revenge! Rudy summons 911 repeatedly, perhaps, as many as five times in a single sentence. 911! 911! 911! 911! Rudy's every speech should be called his "911 speech" and, indeed, they are! Rudy is a one trick pony. The demagogues of war could not have hoped for or planned a better device than 911 to trigger the emotions of anger and revenge.

Every person killed by US troops in Iraq is not only a victim of US aggression, they are also victims of the fallacy called begging the question. Begging the question, often called a circular argument, involves assuming the truth of a conclusion in the premise. Fundamentalists long ago succumbed to this argument: the Bible is the word of God because God says so in the Bible.

The conduct of the "war on terrorism" is not merely premised upon circular argument, it IS a circular argument, causing resistance which Bush conveniently calls "terrorist". If the US put ten million men in arms at any part of the world now at peace, they will be greeted by armed resistance. Bush will summon the circular argument and call them all "terrorists". But Bushies would not be done! Having justified such an aggression by citing "terrorism", Bush will cite the opposition as evidence in proof of his absurdity. Of all fallacies, this has the potential of being the most pernicious.

Most talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is labeled as "cutting and running". Labeling is a short hand fallacy, wrapping up in a word or phase a panoply of over-generalizations. It is not only the GOP and Bush who indulge this nonsense, it is also liberals, who excoriate Bush on every front but the sacrosanct issue of 911, about which millions of Americans still cannot or simply will not think clearly.

Talk of "cutting and running" is a disingenuous appeal to American macho so deftly exploited by John Wayne. Perversely, Americans fell in love with images of US troops storming the beaches on D-Day. But it was not lovely, it was hell. And those who were there will tell you that. The metaphor of "cutting and running" implies that our purposes are legitimate. They are not! It implies that we had higher, nobler purposes in Iraq --like those of D-Day! We did not! "Cutting and running" implies that the US is a moral leader throughout the world. Sadly and because of Bush, we are not!

Fallacies are logical viruses. While pure reason is free of emotion, fallacies exploit commonly held fears and prejudices. The Bush administration played upon public fears like an organ. Saddam did not merely have WMD, he was "evil", a dictator who sponsored terrorists, presumably the "terrorists" who pulled off "911". "Bush promised that he would not wait while "dangers gather"! All of the hot buttons were pushed. Bush was not content to manufacture an appeal to fear, he raised up a great strawman, accusing, preemptively, anyone who might disagree of preferring to "wait" for threats to materialize. He put words into the mouths of his opposition and told them they were wrong. I can't recall anyone ever having said that they wanted to "wait" before embarking upon a war on terrorism. In retrospect, however, waiting would have been preferable to waging, as Bush has done in fact, wars on every one BUT terrorists.

I am still waiting for Bush to bring to justice a single, bona fide "terrorist". Thousands of summary executions to which he so ominously referred in his 2003 State of the Union Address don't count. By definition, summary executions are not justice. The summary execution of anyone at anytime by any person or state is simply murder. It is my position that Bush be tried, under international law, for war crimes to include mass murder.

We are often told that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels! But "spreading the guilt around" must surely rank as high! It is a despicable and mean-spirited evil that motivates crooks to take innocents with them to the gallows! "Everyone who saw the intelligence believed that Saddam had WMD", Bush told us. But was that so? Even if it had been true (it wasn't), it is a strawman fallacy. A favorite among Bushies, it implies that Bush is unfairly singled out for criticism.

Spreading the guilt around is a transparent attempt to tar Democrats with Bush's failure. Democrats, it is said, saw the same intelligence and because they came to the same conclusions, share Bush's guilt. That argument does not impress me! My position is simply: a noose for all war criminals! I don't care how they are registered to vote. Still --the Bush defense is never allowed in a courtroom and has never, ever resulted in an acquittal for anyone on trial for pre-meditated murder. It was Bush who beat the drums of war and lately, there is evidence that Bush himself ordered the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Bush can spread the guilt around if he wishes, but it will never persuade an international court that will be charged with considering the war crimes charges against him, nor will it persuade the US court that must consider the capital crimes case.

Bush and his spinmeisters have found a bottomless well of fallacious spin with which to justify America's continued presence in Iraq. With "talk of withdrawal sends the wrong message and emboldens the enemy", Bush impugns the patriotism of anyone who dares question his lies.
The phrase embolden the terrorists—as has taking the fight to the terrorists—has frequently been employed by President George W. Bush, members of the Bush administration, and others in their support of the war in Iraq and use of fear as a political tool.

At the June 19, 2006, President's Dinner, a GOP fundraiser, Bush said that an "early withdrawal would be a defeat for the United States of America. An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists.


Bush's course of action in Iraq has never intimidated or deterred an enemy --not even those created by Bush's bone-headed, failed policies. The word "insurgent" itself is fallacious as it implies a resistance to a legitimate authority. There are, in fact, no insurgents in Iraq because there is no legitimate authority in Iraq to "insurge" against. Our very presence "emboldens enemies". It creates enemies. It gives the enemies of its creation, a convenient target. It makes terrorism worse and I have the stats to prove it. In fact, GOP policies since Ronald Regan have made terrorism worse. Again --I have the stats to prove it. British regulars found themselves in a quagmire when they tried to put down the American revolution. It was William Pitt, the Elder who exposed the hypocrisy of King George's position:
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms! Never! Never! Never!

William Pitt, Earl of Chatham

Pitt had cultivated a lost art --that of thinking clearly about his own country. There is no higher, no more noble form of patriotism. I challenge George W. Bush to question the patriotism of William Pitt with regard to his own country, England. I challenge George W. Bush to question the patriotism of Thomas Jefferson who codified in our own Declaration of Independence the very principle with which we will overthrow the illegitimate regime of George W. Bush!

If the US presence in Iraq is illegal (and it is) then those who aid and abet are equally guilty of war crimes. By law, you must oppose Bush. Not the other way 'round. The guilt of those who have materially supported Bush, aided and abetted his crime, should be determined by the same International Tribunal that considers the war crimes charges against George W. Bush.

If we were truly engaged in a "clash of civilizations", our leaders --had they been responsible and competent --would have found it in our national interest to live up to our own ideals. Instead, we trashed them for bluster, bigotry, and braggadocio for which Bush himself set the tone. Many idiots supported Bush because they thought a war to seize Iraqi oil would bring down the price of gasoline. I have nothing but utter contempt for such idiots. Bush might go to war for oil but never to bring down the price. He would go to war to push it up!

Bush eschewed the ideals of our founders. He replaced articulate, well-thought out argument and reason with vengeance, fallacy, and bald faced lies. His regime has had the the effect of "emboldening" critics and enemies. Even worse, it has allienated our many friends and one-time admirers. We may never regain that lost ground.

The list of US abuses undermining our position, making us less safe, includes the heinous torture of detainees, the use of white phosphorus on civilians, cold blooded murders by Blackwater thugs, the Bush government's assault on civil liberties in the US, the Bush government's incompetent handling and callous abandonment of American citizens in New Orleans, the purely political outing of Valerie Plame, the ad hominem labeling of war critics as traitors, the labeling of critics of 911 officialdom! These things are aid and comfort to enemies of the US.

The actions of the Bush administration belie every American ideal. Bush's actions prove the hypocrisy behind his numerous lies and fallacies. That Bush is still is office proves we have not the strength of our convictions, the commitment to freedom and democracy that had always been among our defining characteristics. Our actions have not recommended us to the world.

It is said that a "people" get the kind of government they deserve. I keep wondering, what the hell did we do to deserve this inarticulate, evil cretin?

An update:

Iran Says Documents Show U.S. Backing "Terrorists"

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has access to evidence of U.S. support for terrorist groups in the Middle East, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the allegation in comments to visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose country may soon send troops to hunt down Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq.

Tehran says the rebels are operating in Iraq with U.S. forces present in the country and this shows Washington is refraining from tackling them.

Like Turkey, Iran also has faced cross-border attacks by Kurdish rebels and has shelled targets inside Iraq in response.

"Escalation of terrorism in the region is one of the direct results of the presence of occupiers in Iraq, particularly America," Jalili, an ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said according to the country's state broadcaster. ...

Bush's Bald Faced Lies About WMD

Olberman Comments about "Lying"

Bush: "There's an enemy lurkin' 'round out ther...and they jest hate us ..uh.. because of whut we luv...we luv freedom, we luv..."

Amy Goodman is about as exciting as
warmed up oatmeal --but the info here is good!

An addendum: our friend --the Poetry Man (Mark) --has an excellent video entered in the "What I Stand For" contest at Lions for Lambs. The winner chooses 20,000 dollars to go to the charity of their choice! Cowboy regulars can help by supporting Poetry Man's entry, already a finalist in the contest. Mark puts it this way: "I am excited at the prospect of doing something for my fellow man with such winnings!" Mark's entry is entitled "What I Stand For" and, when you've seen it, I think you'll agree that what he stands for deserves our support.

Additional resouces Discoveries

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine