Richard said: “It’s actually a pretty clear-headed piece and I can’t take issue with any of its key points.”

I’ll take that as an invitation. Fisking is my M.O. around here anyway.

This part is just weird: “Paradoxically, it was Mao himself, the great enslaver, who in his own way taught the Chinese people to think and act for themselves. In the Cultural Revolution… In one magnificent stroke, the Great Helmsman had delegitimized almost all forms of authority.”

So… Chinese people couldn’t think for themselves during the Republican period? The Qing reform period? The Boxer Rebellion? The some odd couple of thousand years before that?

Besides that, since when does delegitimizing any authority (Mao didn’t delegitimize his own Godlike status) count as teaching people to “think for themselves”? It works the other way around, but if you delegitimize authority without teaching people to think critically, all you get is an environment of pure cynicism. Which, I think, it’s what really happened.

Come to think of it, creationists delegitimize the authority of science. Does that automatically make them critical thinkers?

As for the numbers on protest, ESWN and others have pointed out that some of these public incidents are things like a punch-up at the KTV.

He refers to good ol’ Stainless Steel Mouse’s arrest and release as “a dangerous precedent for a government that relies on fear”. Two ways I question this: first, they put her in solitary confinement for a year before releasing her – I don’t think “the mouse roared and the government backed down” is a fair assessment – and second, where is it written that the PRC relies on fear? They use it, but I think too often this is suggested as the only leg they have to stand on. Economic growth, nationalism, and a lack of political choice are other tactics they use to maintain viability.

“Already the leadership is busy chasing down secret societies, political parties, and private armies dedicated to bringing down the Communist party.” Private armies?!? What, some Chinese William Cooper is running around claiming that the Chinese Second Continental Army has buses full of AKs buried in Shanxi?

“China is dangerous not because it is China but because it is Communist” – um, Cold War much? I’m no fan of Maoism, but this sort of glib “ideology is the source of all good and evil” crap always makes me hurl baozi.

Chang goes on: “the nationalism so recklessly stirred up by the Chinese leadership for purposes of self-preservation” as opposed to the Japanese nationalists, who, not recklessly but responsibly, no doubt, open a museum that calls WW2 a war of liberation, and drive black vans (technically illegal, by the way) through Tokyo every day. Or the Koreans who decided that a war criminal can be pardoned – if they’re Korean. Yes, the reckless nationalism is definitely only coming out of China.

The implications of the article are clear: China would be the next world-devouring Evil Empire if it didn’t have internal problems. At it’s heart, the article is another bit of old school Cold War thinking.

December 6, 2006 @ 4:12 pm | Comment

Thanks Dave, you’re right and I appreciate it. My only excuse is that, like ESWN and his Rape of Nanjing link last week, I was running out the door when I blogged it and didn’t read every line, or at least not with enough analytical thought. It’s Commentary, so I expect it to be Cold War in its thinking.

December 6, 2006 @ 5:41 pm | Comment

Dave,

Well done. Indeed, a common misperception Chang and other analysts make about China is that most animus toward the government results from the CCP’s illiberalism. From what I’ve read, much rural outrage comes from side-effects of China’s privatization efforts and the steady erosion of the “iron rice bowl” regime.

I’m sure many educated and urban Chinese would prefer its government to grant basic freedoms and liberalize the economy further, but for the vast majority, this just doesn’t seem to be the case.

December 7, 2006 @ 4:52 am | Comment

Dave,

As usual, this is nothing personal, but, in your above comment, you’re the one who’s putting the “hyper” into “hyperbole.”

Where do I start.

1. “This part is just weird: “Paradoxically, it was Mao himself, the great enslaver, who in his own way taught the Chinese people to think and act for themselves. In the Cultural Revolution… In one magnificent stroke, the Great Helmsman had delegitimized almost all forms of authority.”

So… Chinese people couldn’t think for themselves during the Republican period? The Qing reform period? The Boxer Rebellion? The some odd couple of thousand years before that?”

Answer: you’re overinterpreting. The operative phrase in that passage is, “in his own way.” That’s a cue that the author is suggesting provocative food for thought, not making sweeping rigid conclusions as you’re rashly implying.

2. “Besides that, since when does delegitimizing any authority (Mao didn’t delegitimize his own Godlike status) count as teaching people to “think for themselves”?”

Answer: I’d say this is exactly what happened in the Protestant Reformation, wouldn’t you? Whether it always led to good results is a different question.

3. “As for the numbers on protest, ESWN and others have pointed out that some of these public incidents are things like a punch-up at the KTV.”

Answer: (cough, cough), oh yes, Saint Roland of ESWN is true and pure and unbiased. (Dripping with sarcasm here.) By the way, the operative word there is “some”, and statistics of embarassing incidents are generally under-reported in China. Or else spun by propaganda-meisters. Not that I would ever suggest ESWN is one of them. No. Never.

4. “where is it written that the PRC relies on fear?”

Answer: Um. Ummm. Dave? Ah, I want to be respectful about this, but now you have me worried that you’re slipping into some kind of wilful self-delusion about China. Where is it WRITTEN that the PRC (or rather the CCP) relies on fear? Well, you can start with all of the written works of Lenin, passim. Leninism advocates state terror. Leninism IS state terror. Anyway, it’s written all over the history of the Communist Party and the Leninist doctrines to which it still subscribes.

5. “Economic growth, nationalism, and a lack of political choice are other tactics they use to maintain viability.”

Answer: I notice that you sandwiched the crucial phrase “lack of political choice” among those other nice things. Dave, do you need a close shave with Occam’s Razor? That “lack of political choice” is based on fear, on state terror.

6. “”China is dangerous not because it is China but because it is Communist” – um, Cold War much? I’m no fan of Maoism, but this sort of glib “ideology is the source of all good and evil” crap always makes me hurl baozi.”

Answer: Again, you’re overinterpreting. Being anti-Communist is not necessarily the same thing as being a Cold-Warrior. (And even then, not all Cold-warriors were alike.) And regardless of whether you want to delude yourself into believing that today’s CCP is “no longer REALLY Communist”, the fact remains that it’s a brutal dictatorship, and it remains a fanatical one in the one respect that really matters: it’s fanatical about keeping its own unchallenged power, by any and all means, including lies and state terror.

7. “Chang goes on: “the nationalism so recklessly stirred up by the Chinese leadership for purposes of self-preservation” as opposed to the Japanese nationalists, who, not recklessly but responsibly, no doubt, open a museum that calls WW2 a war of liberation, and drive black vans (technically illegal, by the way) through Tokyo every day. Or the Koreans who decided that a war criminal can be pardoned – if they’re Korean. Yes, the reckless nationalism is definitely only coming out of China.”

Answer: The author didn’t draw any comparison between Chinese nationalism and Japanese and Korean nationalism. YOU did. In this respect, you’re beginning to argue like some of our resident Chinese nationalist trolls who respond to every criticism by pointing out the faults of others.

8. “The implications of the article are clear: China would be the next world-devouring Evil Empire if it didn’t have internal problems. At it’s heart, the article is another bit of old school Cold War thinking.”

Dave, again, you’re putting words into the author’s mouth. (And that, too, is a typical CCP habit of fallacious rhetoric.) And finally, SOME “old school Cold War thinking” was very good, clear thinking indeed (such as that of George Kennan, whom not enough policy makers followed.) Acknowledging the essentially criminal nature of the Communist Party – acknowledging its AVOWED reliance on political terror, and its long sordid history of doing so (the end of which has not yet come) – is not the same thing as mindless Joe McCarthy style “Cold War thinking.” However, Dave, your strained apologetics for the Communist Party DO bear some similarities to the self-delusions of former American Communist sympathisers of the Cold War era.

All that said, you still have my personal respect (not least because even when you’re wrong, you always offer great food for thought – and I of all people should appreciate that 😉 But you’re way off on this one.

December 7, 2006 @ 11:34 am | Comment

Ivan should post links to more stories about how Russia is better off than the U.S.

December 8, 2006 @ 9:59 am | Comment

“Ivan should post links to more stories about how Russia is better off than the U.S.”

What the hell does that comment have to do with this thread?

December 8, 2006 @ 10:38 am | Comment

There is no doubt that Chang’s writing caters for a conservative audience in the US who is potentially hostile to China and its communist ideology. But we should not completely discard the validity of the author’s view on China simply because it feeds into a neo Cold War conservative rhetoric. In fact, a reviewer of Chang’s earlier work The Coming Collapse of China correctly points out that Chang’s view on China is decidedly differently from a hawkish alarmism perspective, which sees China as a major threat to world peace. Nor does Chang share the shaky optimism of some business lobbies, which go out of their way to promote China as a reformed totalitarian now unconditionally embracing market reforms and matching in strides towards democracy.

Dave, as usual, you gave very detailed and insightful comments of Chang’s article. But your way of dissecting the article picking out minute points for criticism have somehow left me with an impression that you are deliberately or unintentionally avoiding the main arguments raised by Chang in this article. To me, Chang’s main focus is on how the failure of the Chinese Communist Party to adequately deal with public dissent will inevitably lead to political instability. He highlights how desperate attempts of the CCP to manipulate public opinion have already backfired badly. The failure of the CCP to adopt a more liberal attitude towards political reforms, as pointed out by Chang, has left the ruling regime as vulnerable to upheaval as previous Chinese imperial dynasties.

In short, one can criticize Chang as overtly fatalistic. But he also provides a much needed (and adequately substantiated) caution to the business communities against potential risks, which they need to factored into their investment plans when they are venturing into the brave new world of China trade.

December 8, 2006 @ 11:23 am | Comment

I feel Chang provides an adequate perspective and his arguments does have a lot merits. The CCP is still repressive regime in terms of freedom of expressions and of course challenges to their power. But as all analyses it is also oversimplifying the CCP inability to adjust their policies in the face of new realities that leads to it’s fatalist conclusions. While they(CCP) may wish to hold on to power and by many means( repression of free press etc) , I believe there are many pragmatists in their midst that recognise when th need to let go of some power to maintain the longer term control. They are slowly deregulating some parts of the economy in a controlled manner( but in most parts of China self deregulation is happening at a great pace in chase of the almighty yuan), looser investment regime and we hope eventually more vent for the peoples feelings(as stated by Chang it is happening whether the CCP like it or not)

While I agree with quite a lot of Changs assesments but the conclusions is not definite or inevitable.

December 8, 2006 @ 12:31 pm | Comment

I read the Commentary piece (my dear old dad, a retired college professor, has been a subscriber since as long as I can remember).

I completely side with Davesgonechina (DGC), to the point that I have to wonder whether Ivan is even serious, or if he is just throwing stuff out for the hell of it.

1. Chang did make it seem as though Mao taught the Chinese people to think for themselves and DGC is right to have called him on this absurd comment. The “in his own way” part was used to qualify the kind of teachings Mao gave to the people, not to in any way qualify the statement that pre-Mao the Chinese people could not think for themselves.

2. Ivan completely misses DGC’s point by bringing in the Protestant reformation. Delegitimizing authority is not the equivalent of teaching people to think for themselves. delegitimizing authority is the taking away of something, not the giving of anything. The Protestant reformation is irrelevant to this discussion, but if it were relevant, I would have to say it was very different from the cultural revolution because it both reduced
fealty to an established authority (the taking away part) and also gave people a new, more independent way to view the world (the giving part).

3. I too believe statistics on protests in China are under-reported (this almost has to be the case), yet it does appear that the numbers are down quite a bit from last year and there is no proof nor reason to believe that the under-reporting is greater this year than last year. If anything, increased use of the internet leads me to believe that it is probably the opposite, if anything. Chang can talk all he likes, but the overwhelming number of the elites in China are extremely happy with the way things are there right now and a large chunk of the aspiring elites feel likewise. Revolutions tend to be led by a middle class that feels stifled and China’s middle class generally feels it is in its ascendency.

4./5. It cannot be disputed that the CCP oftentimes relies on fear to support its rule, but fear is seldom even necessary and is usually a last resort. I am not in any way justifying the CCP’s use of fear, but at the same time, your pulling from Lenin to describe today’s China is indeed rather weird. The CCP is incredibly sensitive to public opinion and though China is not a democracy, that does not mean its government can afford to or does ignore its people. DGC is exactly right to point out the economy and nationalism as critical components of CCP rule. And the CCP knows this and that is why it fights so hard to keep the economic engine running. As long as things keep looking up economically in China, the CCP will be fine. “It’s the economy stupid.”

6. DGC is right to challenge Chang’s idea that China is dangerous simply because it is Communist. Your response is to bring in the Cold War (I have no clue why you do that, but so what) and then you assail China as “a brutal dictatorship, and it remains a fanatical one in the one respect that really matters: it’s fanatical about keeping its own unchallenged power, by any and all means, including lies and state terror.” On this I sort of agree with Ivan, but certainly not 100%. China is a dictatorship, no doubt, and all dictatorships are bad. I have no idea where one draws the line between a brutal dictatorship and a benevolent one (I actually hate that term, but it is a common one, so I will use it here) but there are plenty of dictatorships out there (just in the Arab World alone) that make China’s look like a walk in the park. But that too really is not the point here. The point is whether or not China is dangerous, not whether or not it is a brutal dictatorship, and Ivan, you have not done a thing to advance the argument you seem to want to make that all brutal dictatorships are dangerous. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Of course they are dangerous to their own people and I generally agree with Natan Sharansky that dictatorships are far more likely to start wars than democracies, but if that is what you are trying to say here, you need to say it. Is that what you were trying to say?

7. China is nationalistic. So is Korea, probably at least as much. I am saying this simply to try to dislodge Ivan from his apparent view that China is somehow uniquely evil and worthy of especial ridicule and scorn or as Ivan so crudely puts it, “Chinese trolls.” There is nationalism and there is hatred. Americans (myself included) tend to be nationalistic. To quote Marcus Garvey, “the uplifting of one race is not the denigrating of another” and replace “race” with country.” Nationalism is not inherently evil. Is using language like “Chinese trolls” nationalistic or just condescending and mean-spirited?

8. DGC never apologized for nor defended the CCP. All he did was try to put everything into perspective and I for one think he succeeded.

Oh, and I do think the CCP will do just about anything it can to hang onto its power, but that is not a predictor of the future, because I think there will come a day (just as that day came in Russia) when the people will force it to give up its power. I have no idea when that day will come, but I think there are those in the CCP who also see it coming and are trying to prepare China for that day so China can do better with it than Russia has. I see the Great Nations TV series as one small attempt to prepare.

December 9, 2006 @ 2:59 pm | Comment

@ China Law Blog:

It is bad enough for Dave to ignore the main issues raised by Chang and attempts to paint the article as a neo Cold War alarmist mouthpiece. You are even worse by turning the debate into an Ivan-bashing exercise.

May I repeat what I said earlier: Chang’s view on China is entirely differently from a hawkish alarmism perspective. He does not see the ascent of China as a threat at all. What Chang is doing is to point out the inherit problem of a regime that relies too much on the control of its population and the manipulation of information to stay in power. Chang in fact is making exactly the same point as you are making in the last paragraph of your comment: “… the CCP will do just about anything it can to hang onto its power ….(but) there will come a day (just as that day came in Russia) when the people will force it to give up its power.”

Last but not least, if you really think that the Great Nation TV series is CCP’s ingenious attempt to prepare for a smooth transition to power sharing, then you are either very naïve or you are, hmmm, a self-professed apologist.

December 9, 2006 @ 6:26 pm | Comment

I’m debating with myself, whether and how much to respond to that comment by “China Law Blog”.

But for now, this line in “China Law Blog’s” above comment, really does deserve highlighting, followed by hysterical mockery. You wrote:

“Ivan, you have not done a thing to advance the argument you seem to want to make that all brutal dictatorships are dangerous.”

HA! HA! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, GOD! If THAT isn’t a shameless apologetic for the CCP, then nothing is.

December 9, 2006 @ 8:15 pm | Comment

The problem is, who cares?

Moreover, Ivan is wrong in asserting that the proposition “China Law Blog” put forward is self-evident. You have to be a subscriber of the “Toward Perpetual Peace” to buy into the Neo-Conservative rant that only global liberalization could lead to peace among the nations.

P.S. I could smell the stench of Orientalism here.

December 10, 2006 @ 5:48 am | Comment

Ivan — You really are taking what I said out of context as I went on to explain why dictatorships are more dangerous (see the bit about Natan Sharansky’s theories on war). Here I was only noting your complete lack of any factual support.

It would seem then that what you find hysterical is simply my pointing out your having failed to engage in any real analysis and I find that rather strange.

December 10, 2006 @ 6:59 am | Comment

Well, in writing rather hastily, I forgot to point out the genealogy of the Neo-Cons train of thought, which apparently mirror that of Ivan’s.

Kant’s “Toward Perpetual Peace” –> democratic peace theory –> more wars against “Oriental” or “Asiatic” despots, ala Saddam Hussein (and Hu Jintao as well, in certain variations of the Orientalist wet dreams.)

I sincerely hope that Ivan is not one of those – beating off to their own delusions of “world peace.”

“HAHAHAHAHA…” (quoting our great leader and comrade Ivan Ivanovich!)

December 10, 2006 @ 7:02 am | Comment

It’s interesting how self-appointed apologists here kept trying to turn the discussion into an Ivan-bashing exercise. But none of them want to address the central issues raised in Chang’s article.

I could smell the stench of rats here. Ah, but rats with Chinese characteristics, of course.

December 10, 2006 @ 7:13 am | Comment

Hm, China Law Blog? I’ve just looked in my Black’s Law Dictionary – a special edition, “Black’s CHINA Law Dictionary”, which is written on half a sheet of toilet paper – and next to the entry,

“Boutique Law Firm”, it defines it as,

“Failed hacks who couldn’t make it in real law firms, who can’t get any scraps of business unless they abase themselves to CCP officials.”

For everyone else’s edification: real lawyers (including those at major law firms in Beijing and Shanghai) do not pretend to “specialise” in “Chinese Law”, largely for the obvious reason that China HAS NO law. Pretending to “specialise” in “Chinese Law”, is a glaring sign of desperation.

Desperate hacks.

December 10, 2006 @ 12:53 pm | Comment

Now, regarding “James” comment – ah, aside from the sheer idiocy of comparing a paleoconservative/reactionary like me to the neo-cons who represent everything I detest – aside from that, should I even bother acknowledging a troll like James who writes filth like THIS comment he made on the thread about foot-binding? James wrote:

“This kind of Orientalist crap is stupid. It’s like the Brits protesting the custom of Sati as a pretext for their prolonged colonial rule in India.

Yeah right, “Western” women lead much better lives back then. Hahahahahaha…

P.S. Also, have y’all noticed how it’s mostly “Western” men who fume over this sh-t? Why that is so is not so beyond me. It is a variation of the Asian fetish. Oh those poor lil’ Asian dolls mistreated by “their” men. They soooo need “our” help and maybe some lovin’ as well. Loving my arse. Yeah right, that Bankok-ian prostitute you slept with really love’ya “long time.” Very funny.”

….so, should I (or anyone) even acknowledge this creep’s comments at all?

And James, you wouldn’t have any connections with Hangzhou, would you?

December 10, 2006 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

Ivan,

Your quoting of James and his Orientalism just made me throw up all over my desk. James had been littering TPD with this crap since very early this morning.

Having said that, I had to say that James’ calling you a Neo-Con was one of the most hilarious jokes that I’d heard so far.

I won’t be surprised if James is indeed a blood relative or even a “simulacrum” of our Hangzhou mate.

December 10, 2006 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

Haha…interesting take. Trolling. But we’re all trolls in one sense or another. We type furiously behind our veil of anonymity, trashing one another, pretending as though we are better people than we really are.

But that’s healthy to a certain extent. Yes, I did call Ivan a dog of an Orientalist. But that’s at my good pleasure. I do this as a recreation. So what?

Neo-con, Paleo-con, these are merely labels. The fact that you might be a Paleo-con does not mean you can’t have Neo-con ideas. It’s like property right. What is a right in property? It’s a bundle of sticks. What is Paleo-conservatism, it’s a bundle of ideas.

[deleted by Richard for vulgarity and lots of other reasons]

As to Harris and Moure, that China Law Blog works at, it is a very respected firm in the Pacific Northwest. Ivan. Shut your mouth up if you don’t know anything about the practice of the law. Watchtell started as an M&A boutique and it arguably still is. Some areas of the law, like admiralty and bankruptcy, requires so much expertise that lawyers have to form boutiques to practice them.

As to your China has no law argument, it is beside the point. So what if China has no enforceable law. That’s not the point. As long as China Law Blog could counsel his client well, that’s okay. Rule 2.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer, in addition to legal advice, may give advice based on economic and moral concerns. That’s what China-specialists do. Some of the pre-eminent legal scholars of America, Jerome Alan Cohen of NYU and Bill Alford of Harvard Law School, are among them.

[deleted ad hominem]

December 12, 2006 @ 12:19 am | Comment

Thank you James for saying what I wanted to say.

December 12, 2006 @ 7:37 am | Comment

some of the worst ideas Allan Bloom and Pat Buchanan has ever come up with

You’re obviously a fan of Said, James, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t group Allan Bloom with a freak like Buchanan, thanks.

I have no idea what a “boutique law firm” is, but how about everyone just cool off for a bit?

December 12, 2006 @ 8:16 am | Comment

@ James, good, just keep it coming. Your tail has dropped out of your trench coat as you’re speaking. You even managed to convert t_co, the king of all morons, as your secret admirer. Well done.

By the way, has your problem with Ivan got anything to do with a Russian partner in that “Boutique Law Firm” in question? What is her name? Yelenna or something? Hmm. You must be a very good buddy, an admirer or something.

As for my interest, you freaking moron: I’m the one who quoted Chang’s article first in an earlier thread. I was glad when Richard picked it up as a separate thread. I thought that we could have a decent discussion about the points raised. Dave did a very good job at starting the debate. Even though I don’t agree with what he said. But then for some bizarre reasons, the fixation of the China Law Blog and James on Ivan has completely destroyed the discussion. Both you and the China Law Blog still haven’t had the decency of addressing any of the points that I made. Is it because Gordon Chang is such a formidable competitor that you won’t dare to cross his path? But then of course you don’t want us to discuss his writings because we are giving too much publicity to your competitor, a very formidable one indeed. So you are turning this into a name calling exercise instead. If you want a game of name calling, I’ll give you one. That goes with the China Law Blog too. You are not the only one who has legal training and you’re certainly not the only one who can do legal research. So bring it on.

@Nausicaa, a friendly advice: stay out of this battle. PM me if you want to.

December 12, 2006 @ 10:02 am | Comment

The problem is, I don’t care. The reason I paired Allan Bloom with Pat Buchanan is because I really couldn’t come up with a Paleocon who could be Bloom’s intellectual match. The ones like Israel Kirzner and the folks down in Mises Institute are all Paleo-Libertarians. Maybe Paleocons really are stupid. Who knows?

Regarding you or Gordon Chang’s “formidable” knowledge of the law. Who gives a flying f–k?

[deleted by Richard for vulgarity and inapprorpriateness]

Honestly, I’m so busy that I don’t even have time to read either Gordon Chang or Ivan’s diatribe. I insult them for fun, at my good pleasure.

December 12, 2006 @ 1:39 pm | Comment

Plus, come on, you gotta admit it. The way Ivan phrased his argument. It is kind of “too simple, sometimes naive.” Writing China Law Blog (who, btw, is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Washington) off with phrase like “hahahaha…” shows how immature he is.

P.S. Fat Cat’s English is rather terrible. It confuses at least this Chinaman.

December 12, 2006 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

James,

You picked on Ivan because he upsets your Russian friend. You didn’t pick on me until I deliberately provoked you several times. The reason for this is very simple: I’m not your target. I didn’t make any comments remotely related to Russia or America. And you also know very well that you can’t beat me when it comes to my stand on China. In fact you agreed with most of what I said.

You can make as much comment about my terrible English as you like. I’m not going to get angry about it. And you’re not going to get any reaction from me over my poor English whatsoever. CHINAMAN.

What I’m going to do: I’m going to tease you as much as I want to because I can. Give my regards to Irina, Yelenna or Elena, whoever she is.

December 12, 2006 @ 2:32 pm | Comment

P.S. Adjunct Professor at Washington Uni? Is that all? It says a lot about his academic standing.
HaHaHaHa….

No wonder he is picking a Chinaman as his black knight. Bad choice and bad taste.

December 12, 2006 @ 2:38 pm | Comment

James, I am suspicious of you and am going to delete some of your more inappropriate personal swipes. I’m watching carefully. (And this is not based on your not being in agreement with my own POV; as fat Cat can attest, I am trying to ask everyone on all sides to tone down these nasty personal attacks.

December 12, 2006 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

Thanks Richard.

December 13, 2006 @ 6:00 am | Comment