In my last post, I said that I found some of Mr. Trump's behaviors to make him the less desirable candidate for President in the upcoming election. This time, I wish to share some additional thoughts relating to the upcoming election. First, I should point out that I don't believe that Mr. Biden, if elected, would, quickly and easily, resolve all of our difficulties and create the "more perfect union" which we might desire. But I DO think he might be able to start some movement in that direction.
So, why do I say that? Do I think that Mr. Biden has all of the answers and will be able to wave some sort of magic wand and resolve all of the differences and difficulties which our country faces? I don't think so. Could it be because I'm so committed to the Democratic Party that I believe that only the Democrats can restore America to greatness? No! In fact, I suspect that Will Rogers had it right when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." It's also true that I really don't buy into the idea which the Republicans have been so anxious to spread that the US has "fallen" from greatness and still has to be "made" great again, by them. (An obvious admission of their failure to do so in the past four years, which their reigning VP, Mike Pence actually suggested, but that's not the point, either.)
Be that as it may, I think what Will said is true, that it is hard to think of the Democratic Party as being particularly well-organized, so why would I want to be a part of that disorganization? To be honest, precisely because it IS disorganized! To me that suggests that the Democrats DON'T all agree with each other and move in some sort of lock step towards a defined utopian future where everyone agrees on everything and we are all likely to die of boredom because we are all just cookie cutter copies of the same sort of thinking.
I LIKE the idea that it's just possible that democracy isn't supposed to be a situation of conformity to the wishes of some sort of "supreme leadership council" (or, Heaven forbid, a "supreme leader") who will lead us to the "glorious future" of world envy, and/or domination. I find it very hard to accept that much of what has been preached by the current crop of "Trumpublicans" is really what the Founding Fathers intended, or even the Republican Party of the not too distant past envisioned as the destiny of our nation.
Now, the Republicans I remember from a few years ago tended to fit into the general category of what is called "Conservative." They tended to be anti-union, pro-business, against taxes, for "small" government (keep the government out of my personal business; also known as personal freedom), and (to go back a few years further) to believe that, if there were social problems in the country, the solution was to provide the wealthy with greater wealth and that they would allow/encourage that wealth to work its way down to those of us who might not be as well off. This was, generally, referred to as "trickle down economics." They also, generally, supported a policy of not getting the government involved in any form of "social engineering" as school integration, health care, employment, environmental concerns, job safety practices, etc.
Then things started to change. In order to attract traditionally white southern conservatives to the Republican Party, they created a "Southern Strategy," of attracting southern whites away from the Democrats, in large part by seeking to make laws which were anti-black, and which would appeal to religiously "conservative" ideas. So, limiting black voter's rights and being anti-choice was good, although the death penalty was still a good idea. Protecting the "right" of the white "Christian" Church to have significant influence on the political scene was also a part of this strategy, as it provided an excuse to be pro-segregation and to keep those "uppity" folks in their "proper" place. And, of course, in the process, they were protecting white, male supremacy by attacking efforts to grant women the right to equal pay, fair employment practices, etc.
Still, having lived through those years, I don't remember the changes which the Republicans seemed to desire actually having too much impact. In fact, the lot of a fair part of the middle and lower classes actually seemed to improve, although mostly in those periods when Democrats were in charge. (Check the records.) But even so, I also remember that most of those Republicans did, in fact, seem to think that the political system of argue, debate, and compromise worked reasonably well. It's true that nobody ever really got everything they wanted (which isn't, necessarily a bad thing) but solutions were reached which did seem to work reasonably well and we did, overall, move in the general direction of resolving some of the issues of civil rights, greater equality, and a general sense that the country was becoming fairer to all than it had been, say, 20-50 years earlier and it seemed that this sort of advancement, while slow, might continue.
Then something changed. I think the first big change was the Roe v Wade decision. All of a sudden, the, mostly white, male, politicians (very few of them with a medical background) felt they had lost control over "theirwomenfolk." After all, if a woman could actually CHOOSE not to have a baby (thereby making them unsuitable for employment outside the home) then men had lost some of their ability to dominate them. They might actually want jobs and equal pay for equal work and men might have to compete with women and prove the just being male didn't automatically make them better qualified for whatever job they wanted. So, they started all sorts of actions to say, "Okay, the Courts gave you that right, but we are going to do all we can to minimize your ability to exercise it." And they went and tried, and they are still doing so.
Then, to make matters worse, a BLACK guy named Barack Obama was elected to be President, and, with a tiny margin, the Democrats had control of the Congress and were able to start considering social legislation which was, generally, opposed by many "Conservatives." This led, a couple of years later to a Republican dominated Senate and the expressed desire of Majority leader Mitch McConnell that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." (I certainly can't prove it, but I have always suspected that this attitude had a lot to do with the fact that Obama was an African American.) I find it quite likely that some folks simply wanted to make sure that no "uppity N*****" was able to succeed as President, especially considering more recent developments.
Most of the next six years were dominated by attempts to "repeal and replace" the healthcare reforms which, in fact, had been legally made law and were, generally, approved of by most Americans. It is noteworthy, I think, that the Republicans, while anxious to repeal, never actually got around to offering up any sort of replacement. They still haven't done so, despite many promises to do so. In fact, I don't think it would be too much to say that, other than trying to abolish the gains of the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans really didn't do much of anything for about six years except to try to stall/defeat ANY action by the Congress, or the President.
Mitch, and the boys, even went so far as to refuse to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court for over a year because they couldn't stand the idea that they might even consider a person selected by a President not of their Party, "so close to the election." I think it was at that time that the Republican Party lost me completely, and I think I am justified in my belief that this was not just a political, but a racist action. It's worth noting that Mitch made a statement within hours of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg that "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate" in spite of the fact that the election will be in six weeks. And, of course, Donald desires a Senate vote "without delay" proving that neither he nor Mitch are honorable men. Julius Caesar III,2,52 ff comes immediately to mind to me.
Since I retired, I have been able to follow politics more closely than I had while I was working, and I must say that I have been appalled. Up until the past few years, while I often didn't agree with the Republican (Conservative) position on many issues, I frequently thought that the points they emphasized were worthy of consideration and were, often, of some value in preventing the Democratic positions (generally more Liberal) from becoming too dominate, which MIGHT be a good thing.
[An aside: When did "liberal" become a pejorative? I always thought it suggested open-mindedness, tolerance, etc. Now, many people use it like a curse word. I've even heard of folks objecting to the idea of a "liberal education." This seems sad to me.
And, by the way, the opposite of "radical," a word Trumpublicans use interchangeably with "liberal," is "reactionary." "Radical" and "Reactionary" are extremes, as opposed to more "middling" positions of liberality or conservativism.]
To continue, while current Republicans say that they are "Conservative," it seems to me that many of their actions tend more towards "Reactionary" than traditional "conservative" values. Okay, I understand nostalgia for the "good old days," but I'm afraid that the days of "Leave It to Beaver," "Ozzie and Harriet," or even "Happy Days" are gone and never really existed except on TV. I don't think that most American women really want to return to the days when they were expected to spend their lives as housewives and mothers, with little opportunity to ever hold a job, except, possibly, as a nurse, schoolteacher, secretary, or waitress. Even then, of course, the REAL goal, for a woman, was ALWAYS assumed to be marriage and family and taking care of (being dependent on) the "hubby." Anything else, of course made them a "failure as a woman."
I don't think that Black and Brown Americans are likely to be willing to return to segregation and the other, more obvious forms of racism. There's still plenty of racism around that hasn't been addressed in any meaningful way. I also doubt that the LGBTQ community is going to happily go back in the "closet." Nor do I think that many people would be happy to back to a "males only" "Selective Service" process to feed the need of the military. Do we really want to return to street corner abortions, or "duck and cover" drills in elementary schools?
Whether we like it, or not, the world has changed, and we really can't go back to those days even if we wanted to. I, for one, don't wish to do so. Yes, change is hard, but it is a FACT. Suggesting that we can reestablish those, "wonderful(?)," old days is, in reality, an "alternative fact," that is, an UNtruth.
In the current political climate, we seem to have two, conflicting points of view. One, represented by a group which claims to be Republicans, but which often displays behaviors and attitudes which tend towards exalting nationalism (and probably race) above the individual; that seems to stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader; and appears to advocate a fairly high degree of economic and social regimentation by an elite class; and the forcible suppression of opposition. It pains me to point out that these are the definitional characteristics of a political system known as Fascism. Which leads me to note that it is popular in "Trumpublican" circles to blame demonstrations (even when they can't be stirred up into riots, so that they can be suppressed more authoritatively), as being led by Antifa, which seems to be the current name for them to call anyone who protests anything they don't support.
As I understand it, after some brief research, there is NO specific organization which can be called "Antifa," because it isn't really that organized, as it's even less organized than the Democrats. About all it seems to stand for is "Anti-Fascism." Does that mean that the "Trumpublicans," who say they are anti-Antifa (therefore anti-anti-fascist) are actually PRO-fascist? The use of a double negative in English is usually considered to resolve into a positive. Oh, well.
To get to the real point of this post. I've watch Mr. Trump for over four years now as he has lied, name-called, bullied, bragged, ducked responsibility, etc. I find little to respect there. On the other hand, I've been aware of Mr. Biden for quite a while, certainly since he ran for Vice President, but even before that, during his tenure in the Senate, which began in 1973 and lasted until 2009. I didn't know a lot about him, but I did, occasionally hear about something he had done, or a position he supported. I've recently learned that he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English, and, later, obtained a Law degree from Syracuse University. (Remember, Trump's only education culminated with a B.S. degree in Economics.) I admit to a certain prejudice towards B.A. degrees, but a double major WITH a minor, and then a degree in Law as well. I find that moderately impressive. All things considered Joe's educational record seems more impressive than Donald's.
I confess that I have been impressed by Joe's having largely overcome the stutter he had as a child, which I know is a challenge. I find that making fun of it when it occasionally shows up, as Donald has done, to be offensive and certainly not becoming anyone who wishes to be thought of as a leader. I never had such a challenge, but I have studied such things just a bit, and have a very modest insight into how challenging it can be.
Joe has also overcome the personal challenge of dealing with the death of his first wife and their daughter shortly after being elected to the Senate and proceeding to serve effectively enough to be reelected multiple times while also raising his two motherless sons. I find those actions to be signs of strong character, dedication to dealing with adversity, and a willingness to face the future in spite of difficulties.
While I don't agree with everything that Joe has done in his career in the Senate and as Vice President, that doesn't surprise me. In fact, if I did, it would really surprise me. What his record tells me, however, is that he is a man who has a record of doing the people's business in a fashion which was good enough to get him reelected six times by his constituents in Delaware. I doubt that all of those voters always agreed with everything he did, but they trusted him to represent them at least most of the time.
Then, as Vice President, he, apparently, served Mr. Obama well enough to be kept around for a second term and was entrusted with a number of specific tasks for the Obama Administration in addition to his other duties. Perhaps the most valuable insight I have heard about Joe actually comes from President Obama, "The best thing about Joe is that when we get everybody together, he really forces people to think and defend their positions, to look at things from every angle, and that is very valuable for me." I think that's a great quality for a Vice President, and I think it would be valuable in a President, as well.
So, do I think Joe Biden is perfect? No! But we are dealing with a binary choice here. After all, there may be various other candidates on the ballot, but the Presidency is going to come down to one of two people. I think my choice is pretty obvious. I trust Joe Biden to consider the options and make a decision based on the best information available from a variety of sources, especially from those who actually know what they are talking about. I have enough academic and scientific training to think that it's generally wise to trust the opinions of those who have thoroughly studied whatever problem is under consideration. I don't think that "trusting your gut" because "I'm so smart" is likely to produce the best possible choices. Nor is relying on TV pundits instead of seasoned, qualified professionals.
If Biden is elected, do I suspect that I will agree with all of his decisions? No, but I think he is likely to try to get the best information available, make his decisions based on the advice of knowledgeable people, and give each matter careful thought. If (when) he makes a mistake, I expect he will admit it and try to rectify the problem he created. I don't think he will refuse to accept responsibility for it and blame others. I'm pretty sure that we really can't ask much more of any President. Except, of course, not to lie to us, because, in his opinion, we "...can't handle the truth." I think we can handle the truth just fine, it's the lies which we can't (and shouldn't) handle, but I won't go there.
Register & Vote! Vote EARLY, if possible! It's important! It's the essence of democracy.
LLAP
Dr. B
So, why do I say that? Do I think that Mr. Biden has all of the answers and will be able to wave some sort of magic wand and resolve all of the differences and difficulties which our country faces? I don't think so. Could it be because I'm so committed to the Democratic Party that I believe that only the Democrats can restore America to greatness? No! In fact, I suspect that Will Rogers had it right when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." It's also true that I really don't buy into the idea which the Republicans have been so anxious to spread that the US has "fallen" from greatness and still has to be "made" great again, by them. (An obvious admission of their failure to do so in the past four years, which their reigning VP, Mike Pence actually suggested, but that's not the point, either.)
Be that as it may, I think what Will said is true, that it is hard to think of the Democratic Party as being particularly well-organized, so why would I want to be a part of that disorganization? To be honest, precisely because it IS disorganized! To me that suggests that the Democrats DON'T all agree with each other and move in some sort of lock step towards a defined utopian future where everyone agrees on everything and we are all likely to die of boredom because we are all just cookie cutter copies of the same sort of thinking.
I LIKE the idea that it's just possible that democracy isn't supposed to be a situation of conformity to the wishes of some sort of "supreme leadership council" (or, Heaven forbid, a "supreme leader") who will lead us to the "glorious future" of world envy, and/or domination. I find it very hard to accept that much of what has been preached by the current crop of "Trumpublicans" is really what the Founding Fathers intended, or even the Republican Party of the not too distant past envisioned as the destiny of our nation.
Now, the Republicans I remember from a few years ago tended to fit into the general category of what is called "Conservative." They tended to be anti-union, pro-business, against taxes, for "small" government (keep the government out of my personal business; also known as personal freedom), and (to go back a few years further) to believe that, if there were social problems in the country, the solution was to provide the wealthy with greater wealth and that they would allow/encourage that wealth to work its way down to those of us who might not be as well off. This was, generally, referred to as "trickle down economics." They also, generally, supported a policy of not getting the government involved in any form of "social engineering" as school integration, health care, employment, environmental concerns, job safety practices, etc.
Then things started to change. In order to attract traditionally white southern conservatives to the Republican Party, they created a "Southern Strategy," of attracting southern whites away from the Democrats, in large part by seeking to make laws which were anti-black, and which would appeal to religiously "conservative" ideas. So, limiting black voter's rights and being anti-choice was good, although the death penalty was still a good idea. Protecting the "right" of the white "Christian" Church to have significant influence on the political scene was also a part of this strategy, as it provided an excuse to be pro-segregation and to keep those "uppity" folks in their "proper" place. And, of course, in the process, they were protecting white, male supremacy by attacking efforts to grant women the right to equal pay, fair employment practices, etc.
Still, having lived through those years, I don't remember the changes which the Republicans seemed to desire actually having too much impact. In fact, the lot of a fair part of the middle and lower classes actually seemed to improve, although mostly in those periods when Democrats were in charge. (Check the records.) But even so, I also remember that most of those Republicans did, in fact, seem to think that the political system of argue, debate, and compromise worked reasonably well. It's true that nobody ever really got everything they wanted (which isn't, necessarily a bad thing) but solutions were reached which did seem to work reasonably well and we did, overall, move in the general direction of resolving some of the issues of civil rights, greater equality, and a general sense that the country was becoming fairer to all than it had been, say, 20-50 years earlier and it seemed that this sort of advancement, while slow, might continue.
Then something changed. I think the first big change was the Roe v Wade decision. All of a sudden, the, mostly white, male, politicians (very few of them with a medical background) felt they had lost control over "theirwomenfolk." After all, if a woman could actually CHOOSE not to have a baby (thereby making them unsuitable for employment outside the home) then men had lost some of their ability to dominate them. They might actually want jobs and equal pay for equal work and men might have to compete with women and prove the just being male didn't automatically make them better qualified for whatever job they wanted. So, they started all sorts of actions to say, "Okay, the Courts gave you that right, but we are going to do all we can to minimize your ability to exercise it." And they went and tried, and they are still doing so.
Then, to make matters worse, a BLACK guy named Barack Obama was elected to be President, and, with a tiny margin, the Democrats had control of the Congress and were able to start considering social legislation which was, generally, opposed by many "Conservatives." This led, a couple of years later to a Republican dominated Senate and the expressed desire of Majority leader Mitch McConnell that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." (I certainly can't prove it, but I have always suspected that this attitude had a lot to do with the fact that Obama was an African American.) I find it quite likely that some folks simply wanted to make sure that no "uppity N*****" was able to succeed as President, especially considering more recent developments.
Most of the next six years were dominated by attempts to "repeal and replace" the healthcare reforms which, in fact, had been legally made law and were, generally, approved of by most Americans. It is noteworthy, I think, that the Republicans, while anxious to repeal, never actually got around to offering up any sort of replacement. They still haven't done so, despite many promises to do so. In fact, I don't think it would be too much to say that, other than trying to abolish the gains of the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans really didn't do much of anything for about six years except to try to stall/defeat ANY action by the Congress, or the President.
Mitch, and the boys, even went so far as to refuse to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court for over a year because they couldn't stand the idea that they might even consider a person selected by a President not of their Party, "so close to the election." I think it was at that time that the Republican Party lost me completely, and I think I am justified in my belief that this was not just a political, but a racist action. It's worth noting that Mitch made a statement within hours of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg that "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate" in spite of the fact that the election will be in six weeks. And, of course, Donald desires a Senate vote "without delay" proving that neither he nor Mitch are honorable men. Julius Caesar III,2,52 ff comes immediately to mind to me.
Since I retired, I have been able to follow politics more closely than I had while I was working, and I must say that I have been appalled. Up until the past few years, while I often didn't agree with the Republican (Conservative) position on many issues, I frequently thought that the points they emphasized were worthy of consideration and were, often, of some value in preventing the Democratic positions (generally more Liberal) from becoming too dominate, which MIGHT be a good thing.
[An aside: When did "liberal" become a pejorative? I always thought it suggested open-mindedness, tolerance, etc. Now, many people use it like a curse word. I've even heard of folks objecting to the idea of a "liberal education." This seems sad to me.
And, by the way, the opposite of "radical," a word Trumpublicans use interchangeably with "liberal," is "reactionary." "Radical" and "Reactionary" are extremes, as opposed to more "middling" positions of liberality or conservativism.]
To continue, while current Republicans say that they are "Conservative," it seems to me that many of their actions tend more towards "Reactionary" than traditional "conservative" values. Okay, I understand nostalgia for the "good old days," but I'm afraid that the days of "Leave It to Beaver," "Ozzie and Harriet," or even "Happy Days" are gone and never really existed except on TV. I don't think that most American women really want to return to the days when they were expected to spend their lives as housewives and mothers, with little opportunity to ever hold a job, except, possibly, as a nurse, schoolteacher, secretary, or waitress. Even then, of course, the REAL goal, for a woman, was ALWAYS assumed to be marriage and family and taking care of (being dependent on) the "hubby." Anything else, of course made them a "failure as a woman."
I don't think that Black and Brown Americans are likely to be willing to return to segregation and the other, more obvious forms of racism. There's still plenty of racism around that hasn't been addressed in any meaningful way. I also doubt that the LGBTQ community is going to happily go back in the "closet." Nor do I think that many people would be happy to back to a "males only" "Selective Service" process to feed the need of the military. Do we really want to return to street corner abortions, or "duck and cover" drills in elementary schools?
Whether we like it, or not, the world has changed, and we really can't go back to those days even if we wanted to. I, for one, don't wish to do so. Yes, change is hard, but it is a FACT. Suggesting that we can reestablish those, "wonderful(?)," old days is, in reality, an "alternative fact," that is, an UNtruth.
In the current political climate, we seem to have two, conflicting points of view. One, represented by a group which claims to be Republicans, but which often displays behaviors and attitudes which tend towards exalting nationalism (and probably race) above the individual; that seems to stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader; and appears to advocate a fairly high degree of economic and social regimentation by an elite class; and the forcible suppression of opposition. It pains me to point out that these are the definitional characteristics of a political system known as Fascism. Which leads me to note that it is popular in "Trumpublican" circles to blame demonstrations (even when they can't be stirred up into riots, so that they can be suppressed more authoritatively), as being led by Antifa, which seems to be the current name for them to call anyone who protests anything they don't support.
As I understand it, after some brief research, there is NO specific organization which can be called "Antifa," because it isn't really that organized, as it's even less organized than the Democrats. About all it seems to stand for is "Anti-Fascism." Does that mean that the "Trumpublicans," who say they are anti-Antifa (therefore anti-anti-fascist) are actually PRO-fascist? The use of a double negative in English is usually considered to resolve into a positive. Oh, well.
To get to the real point of this post. I've watch Mr. Trump for over four years now as he has lied, name-called, bullied, bragged, ducked responsibility, etc. I find little to respect there. On the other hand, I've been aware of Mr. Biden for quite a while, certainly since he ran for Vice President, but even before that, during his tenure in the Senate, which began in 1973 and lasted until 2009. I didn't know a lot about him, but I did, occasionally hear about something he had done, or a position he supported. I've recently learned that he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English, and, later, obtained a Law degree from Syracuse University. (Remember, Trump's only education culminated with a B.S. degree in Economics.) I admit to a certain prejudice towards B.A. degrees, but a double major WITH a minor, and then a degree in Law as well. I find that moderately impressive. All things considered Joe's educational record seems more impressive than Donald's.
I confess that I have been impressed by Joe's having largely overcome the stutter he had as a child, which I know is a challenge. I find that making fun of it when it occasionally shows up, as Donald has done, to be offensive and certainly not becoming anyone who wishes to be thought of as a leader. I never had such a challenge, but I have studied such things just a bit, and have a very modest insight into how challenging it can be.
Joe has also overcome the personal challenge of dealing with the death of his first wife and their daughter shortly after being elected to the Senate and proceeding to serve effectively enough to be reelected multiple times while also raising his two motherless sons. I find those actions to be signs of strong character, dedication to dealing with adversity, and a willingness to face the future in spite of difficulties.
While I don't agree with everything that Joe has done in his career in the Senate and as Vice President, that doesn't surprise me. In fact, if I did, it would really surprise me. What his record tells me, however, is that he is a man who has a record of doing the people's business in a fashion which was good enough to get him reelected six times by his constituents in Delaware. I doubt that all of those voters always agreed with everything he did, but they trusted him to represent them at least most of the time.
Then, as Vice President, he, apparently, served Mr. Obama well enough to be kept around for a second term and was entrusted with a number of specific tasks for the Obama Administration in addition to his other duties. Perhaps the most valuable insight I have heard about Joe actually comes from President Obama, "The best thing about Joe is that when we get everybody together, he really forces people to think and defend their positions, to look at things from every angle, and that is very valuable for me." I think that's a great quality for a Vice President, and I think it would be valuable in a President, as well.
So, do I think Joe Biden is perfect? No! But we are dealing with a binary choice here. After all, there may be various other candidates on the ballot, but the Presidency is going to come down to one of two people. I think my choice is pretty obvious. I trust Joe Biden to consider the options and make a decision based on the best information available from a variety of sources, especially from those who actually know what they are talking about. I have enough academic and scientific training to think that it's generally wise to trust the opinions of those who have thoroughly studied whatever problem is under consideration. I don't think that "trusting your gut" because "I'm so smart" is likely to produce the best possible choices. Nor is relying on TV pundits instead of seasoned, qualified professionals.
If Biden is elected, do I suspect that I will agree with all of his decisions? No, but I think he is likely to try to get the best information available, make his decisions based on the advice of knowledgeable people, and give each matter careful thought. If (when) he makes a mistake, I expect he will admit it and try to rectify the problem he created. I don't think he will refuse to accept responsibility for it and blame others. I'm pretty sure that we really can't ask much more of any President. Except, of course, not to lie to us, because, in his opinion, we "...can't handle the truth." I think we can handle the truth just fine, it's the lies which we can't (and shouldn't) handle, but I won't go there.
Register & Vote! Vote EARLY, if possible! It's important! It's the essence of democracy.
LLAP
Dr. B
RSS Feed