Talking to myself about foreign policy, US politics, technology, &c.

Archive for the ‘US Politics’ Category

New Economist Blogs – two thumbs down.

Monday, December 4th, 2006

My favorite news-weekly, the inimitable Economist, has a new set of blogs, including US domestic politics and general economics.

I don’t like them.

The great thing about the Economist is their condescending, pretentious, more-brilliant-than-thou attitude. Coupled with their excellent analysis and fantastic writing, it works. The oracular voice is amplified by the lack of bylines, encouraging blind worship which I usually blindly give.

The problem is that they still write this way on their blog. And if you’re going to be an insufferable know-it-all, you really should, er, know everything about which you speak. And when you blog, you usually don’t have the time to pull it off.

When they write regarding unaffordably high insurance premiums “But what about the poor? It is hard to see any reason why insurance companies should subsidize them” it demonstrates an ridiculously blinkered ivory-tower economist’s point of view. Their analysis of American politics is thin and conventional, and particularly infuriating with their disdain for Democrats, despite the shellacking they just gave the Republicans.

So subscribe to the magazine, but not to the RSS feeds.

Nancy Pelosi’s Choice for Majority Leader Loses

Thursday, November 16th, 2006


“GOTV is only worth 3%…”

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006

So my only significant effort made for the election this season was a very pleasant afternoon doorknocking for Joe Courtney down in Northern Connecticut. Perfect New England day, kicking through leaves, enjoying a clear day, and finding almost no one home. After a few early door gaffes where I had to look at my button to see what the candidate’s name was, I had a lot of fun with the folks I was able to talk to.

Well, sounds like the final results are in- and Courtney knocked out rival Simmons by 91 votes.

I’m going to assume it was the 120 flyers I distributed did the trick. The moral of the story, kiddos, is that your vote – and your efforts – really can count.

Do your duty. Go vote.

Monday, November 6th, 2006

Tomorrow’s the Big Day. The outcome of elections in the US really matters; politics set the rules of the Game of Life we all play, and the board has been tilted too far off balance. That’s my take, anyway. If you like things the way you are, great. But in either case, don’t let someone else make your decisions for you.

Democratic systems reflect the desires of the people who vote. The poor vote in disproportionally low numbers; guess who gets shafted?

With no further elections facing the Bush administration, one shudders to think what all might happen in the next two years without an institutional check. The House and Senate have abrogated their responsibility, and for the sake of the Republic Congress must reassert its constitutional role as a check and balance on the executive branch.

Since you intelligent, handsome readers were going to vote anyway, go get some friends who might not and make them vote, too. Make some calls to friends and have them get out, too.

Lord Acton’s Ghost

Saturday, October 7th, 2006

There really isn’t anything to add to self-evident fact that Republicans found protecting their majority more important than protecting the high-school pages for whom they were responsible.

Fortunately for us voters, the appropriate response doesn’t take any thought, either.

V for Thought-Provoking

Tuesday, March 21st, 2006

Saw V for Vendetta last night. Excellent movie, if a bit ponderous and slow at times. The movie is not the partisan invective that some have made it out to be, unless one feels that an attack on fascism is actually a shrill anti-Republican attack. And if you think that, perhaps the point has been proven, hmm?

Anyway, our protagonist V is a bit of an anti-hero; he does ruthless and almost inexplicable deeds, and shows the problematic nature of a means-justifying-ends figure. While he is acting to bring down the tyrannical government, it is unclear if that is actually a goal so much as an incidental benefit to his personal vendetta. Also, V is quite clearly a terrorist, and it does make one think about the questions of relative perceptions versus freedom fighters. The line is perhaps not always as clear as one might want.

Some beautiful scripting, including a 3 minute monologue near the beginning where practically every word began with V. The Anglo-Saxon poets (or Tom Stoppard) would have been proud.

Visually, it was quite striking, mostly thanks to V’s ominous and omnipresent masked visage. The knife fighting was beautiful, if sanguinary.

Highly recommend. Worth seeing and discussing over a beer.

Whew- LA is safe.

Thursday, February 9th, 2006

Must not be many triumphs to point to these days within the administration if they’re publicizing a foiled attack on LA’s biggest building. Hooray that it didn’t happen, of course; I may think LA is ugly, but her already dubious aesthetics would not be improved with a smoking crater in the middle of downtown.

I have to wonder, though, how any passengers could ever successfully hijack an airplane these days. I certainly would be happy to die via gun or knife rather than a huge fireball that could kill further thousands of fellow citizens. Well, happy isn’t exactly the word, I guess. Apparently they were going to blow off the armored cockpit door with “shoe bombs.” A foot in the door, indeed.

On the topic, I can’t imagine that terrorists will be likely to succeed again with the airplane-as-missile attack. Unless, of course, the terrorist is already the pilot. What with the fortified door and the prospect of armed pilots, at that point I would think it impossible to stop them. We should be thinking about other potential soft targets that they’ll go for next time.

Bin Laden is Still Alive

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

Doesn’t that bother anyone? Here we are 4 years after 9/11 and the most powerful nation in the world hasn’t hunted down and killed the perpetrator of the most deadly day on American soil since, what, Gettysburg? And he’s running free, filming videotapes.

This is a scandal.

Yes, I’m back, if anyone cares. I figure if bloggers people actually read take a week off, I can do a month.

Two years late and 2 hundred billion dollars short

Wednesday, November 30th, 2005

One might think that we would have had a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” sometime before our March 19th 2003 invasion of that long-suffering country. However, particularly after the rapid end of ‘major combat operations’ the mantra has simply been (all together, please) “stay the course… stay the course… stay the course.”

The obvious criticism that Kerry brought to the fore was the fact that the Bush administration had no plan for success in Iraq. Continuance of the same ol’-same ol’ is not a plan; it is inertia. The debate over the war has clearly deteriorated in the Administration’s eyes that another standard speech was insufficient. So they’ve released a National Strategy now. It has a glossy cover and everything.

Another example of how the criticisms of the Bush administration from the left have been entirely correct, as demonstrated by the fact that they have in the end taken the positions that the Kerry campaign advocated. The American public, as the smoke and mirrors of Rove’s campaign have faded away, are realizing how bad things are, and even the media are catching up. Welcome to the party, guys. Where were you a year and a half ago?

As a nice little aside, military officials report that we have doubled the number of trained Iraqi troops over the last year to 212,000. Funny; I remember Bush stating that we had trained 200K during the debates last year. Maybe they’re retiring.

An initial browse of the document doesn’t look very impressive. It’s available from the Washington Note I’ll read it see if I can any sense of it.

Initial comments, though: the Definition of Victory. Hooray- something we’ve been clamoring to hear for years. However, the short, mid, and long term definitions are hopelessly vague. Short term requirements include “making steady progress in fighting terrorists”. Mid term: “taking lead in defeating terrorists” and “providing an inspiration to reformers in the region”. And long term… er… let’s not even think about long term.

All of these are flabby and meaningless criteria. They could be considered achieved at any point, or no point. Are we “making steady progress in fighting terrorists”? According to the number of “No. 2″ leaders we have killed, loads and loads, but the casualty and suicide bombing rates would say the opposite.

The biggest problem is that this is another punt on the real need: setting deadlines, albeit flexibility ones, for withdrawal. Stressful as they may be, we all need ‘em. Deadlines are rapidly approaching for me with final exams and research papers; if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t have the impetus to get my work done. Not because I’m incompetent or evil (though that may be true) but task completion requires such deadlines. How much more so for a fledgling government needing to stand up on its own and prove its abilities to its own people?

Waaay off Target

Tuesday, November 15th, 2005

I’ve always liked Target. Good solid clothes and products, very reasonably priced. However, the thing that warmed my lil’ Minnesotan heart was the idea that they represented doing Good while doing Well. Target dumps a lot of money back into communities, tends to offer better than average medical bennies, and is generally not as bad as other corporations, most notoriously the Horrible Monstrous Steeped in Evil Beast of Bentonville.

However, I’m pissed off at them now. The have announced a corporate policy that permits pharmacists to not fill prescriptions of so-called “plan B” emergency contraceptives. These are not some sort of diabolical abortion pill; they are a way to prevent fertilization and thereby unwanted pregnancies. Anyone who is opposed to abortion should be in favor of permitting people to their hands on these quickly (and speed does matter, since it’s preventing conception, and is a race against the little spermies).

However, as Kevin Drum discussed in his post The White Hot Center it’s not really about abortion. It’s about sex. Anything that makes it easier, less consequence-free, or (most awfully) less dangerous is to be stopped.

The most terrifying example of this was the recent controversy over a simple vaccine that appears to completely block contraction of HPV, an extremely common sexually transmitted disease. In some cases, HPV leads to cervical cancer and death. However, wack-job Republicans have militated against it, since apparently the removal of the threat of death 30 years down the road will encourage people to engage in more wild orgies. I’m sure your typical 18-year old couple is really thinking about that at the time.

So back to Target. They claim that opposed pharmacists can not fill these prescriptions. It’s doubtless legal, but it is outrageous. So you should write them and complain. I did.

Go fill out a complaint email at

My bet is that they quietly reverse their decision in a week. It’s simply completely bone-headed.

Here’s my contribution:

Born and raised in Minnesota, there has been no company I have been more proud of than Daytons/Target. I have always seen your corporation as the exemplar of the responsible corporate citizen, and have loudly encouraged my socially concerned friends to shop with you.

Unfortunately, that ended today. I was shocked to hear that the pharmacist that refused to fill the prescription for the so-called “Plan B” emergency contraceptives was not dismissed. Instead, in a move I could never have imagined, you have enshrined that as corporate policy!

This is a truly ludicrous position. Do your check-out clerks have the right to prevent people from buying condoms? If I worked there, could chose not to sell R-rated DVDs that I feel are inappropriate? Of course not. If your pharmacists will not dispense your product, they should be reassigned to other positions.

Your position that “another location” can fill the prescription is ridiculous. For a product like this, time is of extraordinary essence, and not all of your customers can simply hop in a car and drive to the next town over.

This bizzare stand seems only possible on the grounds of a gross misunderstanding of “Plan B” contraception. It inhibits fertilization, thereby PREVENTING pregnancy. It does not “cause an abortion.” As such, the moral grounds is precisely that of a box of Trojans.

You are destroying a hard-earned reputation for being a better company, and risking the multitudes of us that chose Target as a more socially conscious alternative to Wal-Mart.

Please reconsider your decision.

Chris Doten

Words, Words, Words or: Bush Needs To Go

Monday, November 7th, 2005

While doing some reading for the previous WTO post, I came across these quotes from Bush in a bbc write-up, apparently a not-too-veiled swipe at Hugo Chavez.

“A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances move forward and risks sliding back into tyranny,” Mr Bush said. “A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence.”

As Atrios might say, “heh.” Why is it that people have problems with the credibility of politicians again?

OK, I’ll go on a bit longer, even though it’s late. Bush is irredeemably tainted. Nothing he says can hold any moral sway. From the day he took office on the back of a stinky election victory, he has been suspect, but since the public mendacity and bullying in the run-up to Gulf War II he has lost it all. Unfortunately he has tainted the honor of the US in the process, so any successor in the Oval Office will have to work to undo what he has sullied.

Chavez, because of this, need only laugh. Say what you want about the fact that are flaws are visible because of our open political process; they are still there, and as long as we haven’t fixed them (or are actively trying to reinforce them) we lose the moral suasion that is one of the strongest weapons in America’s arsenal.

Oh, and it matched No. 3 below.

Monday, October 31st, 2005

The Alito result matched possibility No. 3 below. I still don’t believe it was part of some Grand Strategy(tm), but it may work out for Bush in the long run.


Monday, October 31st, 2005

So our fear and hope is true, and Miers is out. She was an unworthy crony, but she didn’t seem to be a hard line ideologue. So that’s what we got. Actually, it’s what most folks have been expecting all along, so I don’t know why it should be a surprise. And of course SCOTUS needed another old white man to be on it.

This is going to be a bloody, expensive, divisive mess. Fortunately, the administration is a bloodied mess itself. The success or failure of this nomination depends on whether there are any Republican senators that will come out in opposition to Alito. If not, he’s probably in.

In any case, it’s gonna tie the Senate in knots. It will be a change of topic from the endless drip of White House scandal, but I wonder if they are strong enough to accomplish the same tricks they did in the early years of the Bush administration.

Bright Lines in Wartime

Thursday, October 20th, 2005

We back stateside shouldn’t be lightly second-guessing the choices of the folks fighting and dying for the US government in the sands of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan. However, there are going to be criminals in that population, as there are among accountants or priests, and when they break the rules and cross lines they need to be disciplined.

Shocking news reports allege that American troops may have burned the bodies of some Taliban fighters in an overt act of desecration (cremation is forbidden in Islam) before proceededing to taunt the locals with this act.

It appears was caught on video by an Austrailian reporter embedded with the unit

1) Terrible stuff is going to happen in wartime, and some of it is going to come from “our boys”. This is another reason you should be probably stop and think a bit before going out on a little imperial romp.

2) When Bad Stuff happens, it is imperitive that the perpetrators be strongly disciplined as an example to others and to the world that the US agrees that it is wrong.

3) If there was a stronger effort to establish bright lines of legality, it would be less likely that these abuses would happen. A further reminder of why the McCain amendment needs to be passed in the House pronto.

4) This is the Unaccountable Administration. No one has been made to pay for their crimes in Abu Ghraib that wasn’t a peon caught on camera. Chain of command? Er, what chain of command? Anyway, immediate and harsh disipline for those who have violated the law also reinforces an environment where things

5) This reinforces the fact that we, the United States of MTV, only believe what we can see.

I’m famous!

Wednesday, October 19th, 2005

My first op-ed published someplace that someone may read it. Our school ePaper, the Fletcher Ledger, has a longer version of my Miers post below.

Veto THIS: 90-9 for Anti-torture Amendment

Saturday, October 8th, 2005

There’s been a lot of stuff to be outraged about for the last few years- as the bumper sticker wittily puts it, “If you’re not completely appalled you haven’t been paying attention”. However, there’s nothing that I’ve found more depressing and infuriating than the shocking prisoner abuse scandals made legendary through the Abu Ghraib horrors.

Finally, finally, people seem to be waking up a bit. The mantra of “9-11, 9-11, 9-11″ is not sufficient to justify these barbaric and scandalous acts. Hooray for John McCain, obviously someone who has some experience with imprisonment and torture, and his stand against this behavior is wonderful, if rather late. I just can’t believe the question even emerges; it’s like asking if you are pro- or anti-AIDS. The amendment passed by the overwhelming margin of 90-9.

For those of you keeping score at home, the pro-torture troglodytes are the following:
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

Shocking. There’s some real winners in this list. Good to see that both Oklahoma senators are on board with torture.

The big scandal, though, is a threatened White House veto. No amount of pork or bad policy was worth a veto, but try to prevent the US from torturing people and then there’s some action. The administration has always spoken out of both sides of their mouth on this one, insisting there was not a problem while whitewashing the inquiries and squashing any new rules. Here’s McClellan:
“…it would be unnecessary and duplicative. And it would limit the President’s ability as Commander-in-Chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism.”

So which is it, Scotty? Are you torturing people or not? And if you are, you’re damn right I want to limit this Commander-in-Chief’s abilities.

Of course, there’s still the boneheads in the House to get this by. It’s unlikely it’ll happen. Bill Young, R-Thug, came out against it: “I don’t believe we have any obligation to these terrorists.” It’s the typical macho wink-wink, do-what-you-need-to that is eroding the soul and moral authority of this nation. More, talk like this from the top creates the atmosphere of ambiguity that has permitted abuses to flourish. It makes me so angry. And, by the way, he’s wrong.

We signed on to the UN Convention on Torture in ’84 under notorious bleeding-heart lefty Ronald Reagan. It not only prohibits abuse of all people under control of a government, but it prohibits the “extraordinary rendition” that we’ve been doing, outsourcing our torture to countries that’ll rough ‘em up for us.

This is the morally right thing to do. Anyone who opposes it has lost all grasp of the difference between good and evil.

The Miers Nomination

Monday, October 3rd, 2005

Fascinating- the maximalist Bush administration has again tapped someone that appears to be less bad than we had supposed to join The Supremes.

What to do?

We liberals were left somewhat bewildered by Roberts; he was so obviously a smart man, and seemed to be of a conservative-but-not-out-of-Bedlam-asylum bent. What to do with such a person? Filibustering anyone who is not a liberal is absurd; our nation picked (much as it pains us progressives to admit it, and flawed as our processes may be) a conservative president and congress. The SCOTUS positions are some of the plum spoils that go to the president. People that are not way out of line (as many of the Prez’ filibustered lower court picks in fact were) are hard to justify blocking.

The right-wing blog world is seriously underwhelmed. There are great sighs of disappointment going up from everyone; this is not the triumphal candidate they had hoped for to take back the court from those damn “activist judges.” Or so we assume. Bush obviously has known her for years; presumably he believes she will take the court in the direction he wants. That leaves a few possibilities:

1) She’s a closet Scalia. Seems unlikely, considering she used to be a Democrat, has donated to liberal campaigns (heck, I didn’t donate to Al Gore) and has worked with moderate orgs like the ABA. None of that indicates the ideological passion that Scalia and Thomas bring to the bench.

2) Bush doesn’t want another Scalia. That would indicate, again, that Bush actually doesn’t care much about the religious right. He won on the back of their labor, but apart from a bit of jawboning about the gay inequality amendment, what has he done for them? This may be savvy politics on his part- the nation that the religious fundies would put us in is actually a wildly unpopular vision of the future.

3) He doesn’t expect her to get confirmed. I can’t see that, unless there’s a big ol’ skeleton in the closet and he’s setting her up for a fall. That doesn’t fit his overall MO, since she’s a long time friend. In any case, a defeated nominee would be a real sign of Bush’s weakness. However, if the Dems torpedo one candidate, the second one could be far worse.

The FT opened with this quote:

President George W. Bush dismayed his conservative base yesterday by nominating his own White House counsel, Harriet Miers, for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court, bypassing conservative judges in favour of a loyal lieutenant with no judicial record.

That sums up the media spin so far.

Seems to me that this is another sign of the wheels coming off of the Invincible Administration.

Much to be learned in the confirmation process. This should be interesting. Not least in the liberal blog scene; considering the amount of digital ink spent salivating for the filibuster of Roberts, they’re really gonna wanna pull the trigger on No. 2.

North Korean News

Tuesday, September 20th, 2005

So, the press was full of the big North Korean breakthrough yesterday. Let me start by saying that any progress on this years-old staring match is very welcome and is long, long overdue. Also, I haven’t seen any text yet; if anyone knows what it is, please let me know.

The rough outline of the agreement from press reports appears to be the following:
- The United States recognizes the sovereignty of the North Korea – maybe even a peace treaty for the Korean War
- We agreed not to attack them.
- Various economic and energy incentives (large power flows from South Korea)
- Consideration of a light water nuclear reactor

In return,
- They give up their nuclear program. Presumably both plutonium and uranium.

Now, the ordering of the events is undefined. There are no dates attached to these events. Therefore, it has the feel of an interim agreement to me. These things don’t just appear like this. There’s still more work to be done before this thing is really a done deal. The North Koreans have a history of bluffing and brinkmanship, of course. I expect there’s another round to come

Within a day, the North Koreans were claiming that they wouldn’t even twitch on disarmament until they had their nuke plant. Watch that space; that’ll be the next round of negotiations.

Interesting positon, though; the North Koreans have gotten us to agree to all of their important demands (no offense, energy and aid, etc, etc.) and have left only the negotiations over their trophy item, the nuke reactor, which will enable them to stay in the nuke game and keep some prestige. It certainly puts a big huge hole in the concept of “regime change” for North Korea. More on that later.

So what’s it mean? Mad props for the Bush team? Congrats on their negotiations prowess? Let’s see.

There has been great cries from the right about the capitulation Clinton made in the October 21, 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea. What was it?

an agreement…to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors. The agreement also called upon the United States to supply North Korea with fuel oil pending construction of the reactors.
(Arms Control Association factsheet)

It also had clauses for normalizing political and economic relations, etc. It ended an 18-month standoff on the issue, and permitted the seals and inspections that kept the program in check until the current crisis kicked off.

In the end, Kim welshed on his agreement, playing according to type, and he didn’t get his reactors. Afterwards, conservative critics have lambasted Clinton for caving to a tyrant, and not forthrightly dealing with the problem, merely kicking the can down the road.

Notice many similarities with the new agreement?

This doesn’t mean that it’s a bad thing. Indeed, it’s probably the best we could do. The neocon fantasies of deposing Kim were always rather farcical. Regime change is a beautiful sentiment, but surely Iraq has removed some of our illusions there. How to do it- invade? A nuclear armed, heavily militarized mountain country? With Seoul, the capital and largest city of a good, prosperous, democratic ally within artillery range of the north? And with what army? We can’t even stop looting in NOLA. OK, so how about sanctions? Er, on a nation already starving to death? That’d be fun. So it looks like realpolik has taken the day, and Kim will still be around for a sequel to “Team America”

The best part of the deal, though, is that it looks like the grown ups are back in charge of foreign policy again in the State department. This agreement is a total defeat of the neocons’ hubristic claims of being able to shape their own reality, crushed against the shoals of, er, reality.

So who’s the winner here, the US or DPRK? Trick question. I think the one who gains the most is China. The last thing they would want is a war on that peninsula, and they’ve always wanted the US to keep it nuke-free. They got that. Further, they have a big enough problem with North Korean refugees; they want them to be able to stay home, and having them not starve is a good start. As the source for much of the fuel and electricity that keeps North Korea shambling along, they could have turned off the taps at any point, so they have enormous leverage over the north. Apparently, though, Beijing forced both Washington and Pyongyang to sign at the last minute, warning that they would say that the US scuttled the talks if we wouldn’t cooperate. It’s another push by the Chinese to get the thing they most crave on the international scene: legitimacy as a real power. They want to be seen as a cooperative member of the international community, and brokering this deal will give them credibility and undermine their reputation as a irascible belligerent.

The agreement’s still a good thing, though. If it sticks. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and it doesn’t look like they’ve even decided on them yet.

Happy 4th

Monday, July 4th, 2005

I love this country. Got lots ‘o flaws, as do I, but I would still rather be a citizen of the United States than anywhere. More freedom, more economic opportunity, more diversity. A fantastic place to be – and try to make better.

Organic Farming and the American Farm

Monday, June 27th, 2005

Saw the very cute Store Wars pro-organic farming short the other day. It’s a hoot- Cuke Skywalker saves the day through the power of the Farm under the wise tutelage of Obi Wan Canoli. Take a look.

I did get into some good discussions of organic farming with friends over it. I haven’t held forth here yet about my opinions on the tragic demise of the Jeffersonian ideal of the family farm, though I doubtless will at some point. However, I think that organic foods could be the salvation of these small operations. Standard evolution- can’t out-compete the big boyz with modern mass-production of food, so you have to move up the value-add chain. Small plot, pesticide and fertilizer free organic farming is just that kind of special addition that can command higher prices to justify their inefficiency, and people are willing to pay for the ecological and alleged health benefits of it.

Now, organic food ain’t the answer for everything. Actually, I think it’s the answer for very little, apart from those of privilege or high idealism who are willing to pay for it. Cheap food is a good thing- the fact that 5% of our population can feed the US and a lot of the world with modern farming techniques is positive. Even more people would be going hungry around the world if everyone used high-intensity, low-yield organic techniques. So for now it has to remain a niche product.

The unsubstantiated fearmongering of organic backers is my other problem with the industry. We’ve been genetically modifying organisms since the we first wandered out of the trees- grafting, crossbreeding, manipulating for specific genetic traits. However, we’re a lot better at it now. If genetically modified corn has the potential to feed the starving, how dare people try to prevent it in the absence of any evidence that it is a problem? This field seems to hit the hot buttons that cause people to become irrational. I particularly love the scenes in Europe- rich folks talking about the dangers of genetically modified organisms while taking drags on their cigarettes and eating food from their ridiculously subsidized farmers.

As an aside, did you know that about half of the EU budget goes to these distorting farm subsidies (largely within France) which prevent developing countries from competing on an even playing field?

The thing I’m most interested in is the corollary to organic farming with animals: free range/humanely treated meats. I’m carnivore who loves a tasty steak, but I am willing to pay extra to know that the animal was well cared for when alive, and treated acceptably when slaughtered.

Dot.Demarche is proudly powered by WordPress
theme designed by ebjuris web directory
Entries (RSS)and Comments (RSS).