Midday Open Thread

This thread is still recovering from multiple food comas, but the leftovers still abound. And now for some links:

• The Onion, spreading around more truth in the form of humor:

  WASHINGTON—Having admittedly "reached the end of [his] rope," President Barack Obama sent a rambling 75,000-word e-mail to the entire nation Wednesday, revealing deep frustrations with America's political culture, his presidency, U.S. citizens, and himself.

  ...

  Excerpts indicate an erratic use of capitalized and underlined words, with the phrase "Stopped a second Great Depression" mentioned 14 times in a bolded red font double the size of surrounding text. In addition, the e-mail contained multiple links to the Wikipedia entry for Social Security and line graphs of Ronald Reagan's year-by-year approval ratings.

• You know what's funnier? Fox didn't realize that it was satire.
• For anyone who missed, it, Paul Krugman compared the situations of Ireland and Iceland, and actually found that the Irish are in worse shape:

  Part of the answer is that Iceland let foreign lenders to its runaway banks pay the price of their poor judgment, rather than putting its own taxpayers on the line to guarantee bad private debts. As the International Monetary Fund notes — approvingly! — “private sector bankruptcies have led to a marked decline in external debt.” Meanwhile, Iceland helped avoid a financial panic in part by imposing temporary capital controls — that is, by limiting the ability of residents to pull funds out of the country.

  And Iceland has also benefited from the fact that, unlike Ireland, it still has its own currency; devaluation of the krona, which has made Iceland’s exports more competitive, has been an important factor in limiting the depth of Iceland’s slump.

  None of these heterodox options are available to Ireland, say the wise heads. Ireland, they say, must continue to inflict pain on its citizens — because to do anything else would fatally undermine confidence.

  But Ireland is now in its third year of austerity, and confidence just keeps draining away. And you have to wonder what it will take for serious people to realize that punishing the populace for the bankers’ sins is worse than a crime; it’s a mistake.

• Sarah Palin engages in the historical revisionism that is so typical of the right--this time, regarding the leaders of American feminism:

  But reading Palin’s new book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag, it’s clear that in order to claim feminism as her own, she’s had to radically distort its history. In a chapter on feminism that’s sure to be widely discussed, she mischaracterizes the views of nearly every historical feminist she mentions.

  Sometimes she does it to defame them, other times to make it seem as if they shared her ideology. As so often with Palin, it’s hard to tell whether ignorance or dishonesty is at work. Perhaps neither she nor her ghostwriter had time to read up on women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, presented here as a pious Christian conservative. But couldn’t one of them at least have perused her Wikipedia entry?

• A judge in Tennessee argues that it's a good thing for lesbians to serve in the military--but only so that they can be converted to straightness by their straight male comrades-in-arms.

  I'll tell you what. Between this, the repeated incidents about mosque protests, arson against that same mosque and against a lesbian couple, and now this...Tennessee seems to be ground zero for the more extreme elements of Islamophobia and homophobia.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/52TzxmwBuzA/-Midday-Open-Thread

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

The Sharks Move In On Portugal

The Portuguese government isn't as deeply committed to keeping the banking system afloat as the Irish government, but the banks are experiencing significant liquidity problems as a result of the contracting economy and the increasing pressure from[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/IaHpmB6PaUI/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Jon Hykawy Sees Downstream Value in Rare Earths

Source: Brian Sylvester of The Gold Report

Byron Capital Markets Analyst Jon Hykawy sees the rare earth elements (REE) sector for what it is—something much different from mining copper or gold. He believes the keys to making money in rare earths involve metallurgy, deposit location, marketing and downstream integration. In this Gold Report . . . → Full Story: Jon Hykawy Sees Downstream Value in Rare Earths

Read The Full Article:
http://jutiagroup.com/2010/11/27/jon-hykawy-sees-downstream-value-in-rare-earths/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Limbaugh's attack on Obama's Thanksgiving message
pushes the racist envelope even farther

Click here to view this media

Heather has already talked about the right's revisionist history around Thanksgiving that cropped up this year, but the story isn't complete without discussing Rush Limbaugh's sneering attack on President Obama's Thanksgiving proclamation:

Every cliche that is wrong about Thanksgiving shows up in his proclamation. The Pilgrims show up at Plymouth. The Indians had been there for thousands of years. We get off the boats. We don't know how to feed ourselves. The Indians show us how. They shared their skill in agriculture, which helped the early colonists survive and whose rich culture continues to add to our nation's Heritage. Is it possible he believes it? I don't doubt that he believes it, and even if he doesn't believe it, he wants everybody else to believe it. Obama believes that this nation is fatally flawed since its founding, even before its founding, so it stands to reason -- you know, a lot of people did not hear the true story of Thanksgiving until I wrote it in my book in the early nineties. I can remember Snerdley and H.R. were stunned when they heard the first story of Thanksgiving, the real story, because we'd all been taught a variation of the Indians saved us. We had to draw pictures of it in school, that's exactly right, art projects of the Indians saving us.

Well, that would be because they actually did save us -- largely through teaching white settlers agricultural techniques:

Time and familiarity has reduced to quaint memory the crucial nature of Indian agriculture for white settlers on the Atlantic coast early in the seventeenth century. Every American school child can recite the story of Squanto and his service to the Pilgrims at Plymouth. It is a charming incident in our historical texts culminating in a grand feast of thanksgiving. The harsh reality of the time, as William Bradford well knew and recorded, inscribed a bleaker circumstance. Without the seed corn and beans Bradford's fellow adventurers unearthed in November 1620, survival of the colony was doubtful. Without Squanto to teach them the arts of New World agriculture the Pilgrims' future was likely to be short indeed. The settlers' failure to master Squanto's teaching forced the colony to rely on food supplies purchased from successful Indian farmers. Not until the second year did the Pilgrims' own fields produce in sufficient abundance to assure survival.

To the south, in Virginia, the Jamestown settlement had already benefited from Indian agriculture. On at least two occasions the imperial chieftain, Powhatan, provided Jamestown with sufficient food to stave off disaster. The Jamestown settlers and later commentators seldom understood Powhatan's motivation and apparent inconstancy toward the settlement. A broader view of the chief's effort to establish an empire in the Chesapeake area might shed some light on the seeming enigma, but for the Englishmen at Jamestown the fact that lie came and with food was enough.

To the good fortune of Plymouth and Jamestown the coastal Indians produced food in quantity. The coastal tribes' ability to feed themselves and the white settlements belied the popular conception of Indian agriculture in that region as bare subsistence. Indeed, where investigators have explored the question a different picture emerged. In southern New England at least, Indian agriculture accounted for over 65 percent of the native population's diet and surplus production for trade and storage was common. In any event, it did not take the Plymouth colony long to discover that their gift from the Indians had a value beyond feeding the settlement.

Within four years after their arrival at Plymouth settlers profited from Indian agriculture and entered into relationships that dominated Indian-white contacts for the next two hundred years and more. In the fall of 1625 Governor William Bradford sent a boatload of corn up the Kennebec River to trade with the interior tribes for furs. His men returned with a store of beaver and other furs that financed the colony's needs for the next year. In later years Massachusetts further developed its fur trade, raised its own corn for export, and purchased corn from the Indians for resale.

You can also read William Bradford's eyewitness account for more.

Now it is true that Bradford's account also details how the Pilgrims discovered that communal farming was a distinctly inferior scheme to private farming, which is where Stossel and Limbaugh obtain their claim that the first Thanksgiving was about the failure of socialism -- which, as Brian at RightWingWatch has detailed already, is a load of bollocks and a deliberate misreading of the history.

As Digby says:

At this point it's clear that according to Rush, there's literally nothing good you can say about a racial minority in America (unless they are dutifully serving as right wing poster children.)

Of course not. Because in Rushtopia, white people are the cream of creation, and any suggestion that their inferiors might actually have helped them survive and thrive is an outrageous slander upon the race.

Karen Famigheti at Media Matters has more.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/limbaughs-attack-obamas-thanksgiving

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Saturday hate mail-a-palooza

What I really want for Christmas is better hate mail.

Last week's haul is, as always, below the fold.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/lV3wzlYDwPo/-Saturday-hate-mail-a-
palooza

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Did the US Issue a Prior Restraint Request to the
NYT, Too

The only way the British Defence Advisory notice to UK media makes sense,in my opinion, is if Britain's partners are making similar efforts to request prior restraint from the other major news outlets that have the Wikileaks dump.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/pbYgiZWhEcY/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Are We Actually Going To Bring Russia Back Into
The Afghanistan War

If Russia's Soviet Union-destroying war against Afghanistan started on Dec. 27, 1979 and ended, ignominiously, on Feb. 15, 1989, guess who's been looking for the light at the end of the Salang Tunnel as long as the Russians? Earlier this week, in a NY Times OpEd, Worse Than Vietnam, Robert Wright pointed out that the U.S. War in Afghanistan, already the longest war in our nation's history, passes another milestone today: we're eclipsing the amount of time the Soviets were mired in that hellhole. Happy anniversary. It's cost about $345 billion so far, not counting the billions of dollars it will cost to treat the soldiers whose physical and mental health is being destroyed on a daily basis. It will reach over a trillion dollars by the time we get out of Dodge-- with nothing whatsoever to show for it but two shattered countries-- theirs and ours. The Wall Street Journal reminds us that we just keep increasing what we spend in Afghanistan monthly:

Between 2009 and 2010, the average monthly cost of the Iraq war fell $1.8 billion to $5.4 billion, a 25% drop. But increased spending in Afghanistan ate up that savings-- and a bit more. Monthly costs rose $2.2 billion to $5.7, billion, a 63% increase... In Afghanistan, where the military has built up additional infrastructure to accommodate the surge units, the average cost per service member is expected to rise to $694,000.

Wright's main point, though, isn't about the cost. It's about the tragedy. "The Afghanistan war," he writes, "is as bad as the Vietnam War except for the ways in which it's worse." He points out that although the Vietnam War killed far more people and was far more destructive in human terms, "strategically it was just a medium-sized blunder. It was a waste of resources, yes, but the war didn?t make America more vulnerable to enemy attack."

The Afghanistan war does. Just as Al Qaeda planned, it empowers the narrative of terrorist recruiters-- that America is at war with Islam. The would-be Times Square bomber said he was working to avenge the killing of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Major Nidal Hasan, who at Fort Hood perpetrated the biggest post-9/11 terrorist attack on American soil, was enraged by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

And how many anti-American jihadists has the war created on the battlefield itself? There?s no telling, but recent headlines suggest this admittedly impressionistic conclusion: We?re creating them faster than we?re killing them. And some of these enemies, unlike the Vietcong, could wind up killing Americans after the war is over-- in South Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, in America.

Hawks sometimes try to turn this logic to their advantage: It?s precisely because our enemies could remain dangerous after the war that we have to deny them a ?platform?-- an Afghanistan that?s partly or wholly under Taliban control; Communists weren?t going to use Vietnam as a base from which to attack America, but we saw on 9/11 that Afghanistan can be used that way.

Actually, we didn?t. The staging ground for the 9/11 attacks was Germany-- and some American flight schools-- as much as Afghanistan. The distinctive challenge posed by terrorism is that the enemy doesn?t need to occupy much turf to harm us. (For a good deflating of the various catastrophe scenarios that would supposedly unfold after American withdrawal from Afghanistan, see this handy list of myths about the war, part of a highly sensible report published recently by the Afghanistan Study Group.)

Both the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars were fought in the name of a good cause. There was indeed a hostile force that had to be kept at bay-- communism and terrorism, respectively. And in each case the mistake was overestimating the intrinsic power of that force.

In the case of communism, this mistake became vivid to me in 1990, when I walked into the finest department store in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), went to the home appliance section and saw no washing machines but only stacks and stacks of washboards. Our enemy had wed its fate to an economic system that was bound to drag it further and further behind us. All we really had to do was stay vigilant and wait for it to self-destruct.

So too with jihadism; Al Qaeda?s ideology offers nothing that many of the world?s Muslims actually want-- except, perhaps, when they feel threatened by the West, a feeling that isn?t exactly dulled by the presence of American troops in Muslim countries.

There are, of course, people who say that it wouldn?t have been enough to let communism self-destruct. This view, which credits Ronald Reagan with turning up the heat on the Soviets in Latin America and Afghanistan, has a grain of truth: imposing costs on a crumbling economic system can hasten the crumbling.

But look at the price we paid for slightly accelerating the inevitable. In Afghanistan, we now realize, our proxy war against the Soviet Union-- our support of the mujahedeen-- helped create Al Qaeda. In retrospect, this was a kind of segue between the cold war and the war on terrorism, and it illuminates that crucial difference between the two: when you?re dealing with state-based communism, nonessential intervention is wasteful; when you?re dealing with non-state-based terrorism, such intervention can be actively counterproductive.

It doesn't look like al Qaeda and their Taliban allies are interested in a negotiated settlement unless that settlement is for foreign forces to withdraw... period. That whole ruse with the impostor negotiator was about British wishful thinking, not diplomacy. Diplomacy, on the otherhand, has actually started the process of NATO bringing Russia back into the Afghanistan War! No, I swear I'm not joking:


video details and more



It's never worked before-- and it'll never work this time. Are our strategic planners ignorant or stupid? Or brimming over with hubris? Or do they have something entirely unrelated up their sleeves? I'm afraid that with Alan Grayson effectively targeted and removed, there's no one in Congress with the will or the ambition to ever find out for us. Oh well...

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-we-actually-going-to-bring-russia
.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Torture Promoter Marc Thiessen Bashes
'Illegitimate' Democrat-led Lame Duck Session. Because '98 Didn't Happen.

Click here to view this media

Torture promoter Marc Thiessen did his best to continue to earn his spot as number 6 on Salon's The War Room Hack Thirty during this interview on Fox's America Live. Thiessen adds his name to the list of conservatives who are bashing the current lame-duck session of Congress as somehow corrupt or, as Thiessen says here, that "they have no legitimacy". As our friends at Media Matters pointed out back in August, conservatives seem to have some selective memory when it comes to how Republicans spent their time when they were in charge of Congress during the lame-duck session when Bill Clinton was president.

Conservatives disappear GOP's Clinton impeachment to bash "corrupt" Democrat-led lame duck session:

Conservative media figures have repeatedly claimed or suggested that it would be unprecedented and "corrupt" for Democrats to address "controversial" issues during Congress' lame duck session following the 2010 elections. But in 1998, Republicans impeached President Clinton during such a post-election congressional session.

Conservatives fearmonger about supposedly unprecedented use of lame duck session to address "controversial" issues

Gingrich: "[A]ny attempt by the outgoing Congress to pass legislation they were unwilling to defend in an election would be an attempt to thwart the will of the people." Writing in Human Events on August 4, Newt Gingrich wrote that "Democratic leaders today have been sending clear signals that they are willing to use the lame duck session of Congress to pass the most unpopular and destructive parts of their agenda," and that, "Like the Federalists' actions in 1801, any attempt by the outgoing Congress to pass legislation they were unwilling to defend in an election would be an attempt to thwart the will of the people." Gingrich continued, "It is hard to think of an attitude more fundamentally at odds with the spirit of our democratic republic than the idea that an elected representative should feel 'liberated' to pass bills the American people do not support once he or she is freed from the burden of having to face the voters." Gingrich urged his readers to asked their members of Congress to sign a pledge not to participate in such a lame duck session because it "smacks of the worst kind of political corruption" and "is an abusive power grab."

Rove: "We've never had a lame duck session that has dealt with a highly controversial and extremely consequential item." Appearing on the August 9 edition of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto, Karl Rove said that "we've never had a lame-duck session that has dealt with a highly controversial and extremely consequential item," adding that it "would really be unusual" for Democrats to deal with issues like cap and trade, card check and tax cuts during the session.

Fund: "It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session." In a July 9 Wall Street Journal column, John Fund wrote, "It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control."

Geraghty: "Lame-duck sessions are not designed to be shortcuts to ignore the will of the people and erase any sense of legislative culpability." Jim Geraghty wrote in National Review Online's "Campaign Spot" blog on June 16 that "Every Republican challenger ought to be demanding that their Democrat incumbent opponent pledge in writing that they will not pass an energy bill in a lame-duck session if they are defeated" and that "When the people make their opinion clear, fundamental concepts of accountability and responsibility require that the opinion not be ignored." Geragthy added, "Lame-duck sessions are not designed to be shortcuts to ignore the will of the people and erase any sense of legislative culpability."

Beck: Democrats "ramping up civil unrest" with lame duck session. On the July 15 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck discussed the proposed lame duck session with Rep. Michelle Bachmann (D-MN) and said, "[Y]ou tell me what stops these people. Because this is my real fear. They are ramping up civil unrest."

Read on...

And we can now add Thiessen here.

THIESSEN: If I'm thankful for anything this Thanksgiving I'm thankful for the America people for electing this Congress. The American people just fired this Congress. This was the largest shift in seats since 1948. What that means is there has not been a lame duck Congress that has been more discredited in more than six decades. They have no legitimacy. They should not be doing anything of substance. The only thing they should be doing is keeping the doors of government open while they pack their bags and prepare their resumes and let anything that of substance be taken care of by the new Congress that's coming in that was just elected by the American people. They should not be tackling any controversial issues or doing anything other than keeping the government working. [...]

Well, I think if you look at the... what is the job of Congress? The job of Congress, Congress has about the Constitution the power of the purse. Their job is to pass spending bills. They have not passed a single spending bill as we come up on the last few weeks of this session. So they have not done their job. What they did for the last two years was focus on a government take over of health care, government take over of the banks and all of the other things that led the American people to fire them and so if they go into this lame duck session saying hey, let's take on Don't Ask Don't Tell, let's take on an arms control treaty with Russia, let's change the tax structure of this country, they have no legitimacy to do any of that. So they need to focus on keeping the doors of government open.

Thiessen acts like the Democrats lost the Senate as well. I'll give the Republicans credit for one thing, they've got their lies and they're sticking to them dammit. And the media is happy to let them repeat them over, and over and over again.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/torture-promoter-marc-thiessen-bashes-ille

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Torture Promoter Marc Thiessen Bashes
Illegitimate Democrat-led Lame Duck Session

Click here to view this media

Torture promoter Marc Thiessen did his best to continue to earn his spot as number 6 on Salon's The War Room Hack Thirty during this interview on Fox's America Live. Thiessen adds his name to the list of conservatives who are bashing the current lame-duck session of Congress as somehow corrupt or, as Thiessen says here, that "they have no legitimacy". As our friends at Media Matters pointed out back in August, conservatives seem to have some selective memory when it comes to how Republicans spent their time when they were in charge of Congress during the lame-duck session when Bill Clinton was president.

Conservatives disappear GOP's Clinton impeachment to bash "corrupt" Democrat-led lame duck session:

Conservative media figures have repeatedly claimed or suggested that it would be unprecedented and "corrupt" for Democrats to address "controversial" issues during Congress' lame duck session following the 2010 elections. But in 1998, Republicans impeached President Clinton during such a post-election congressional session.

Conservatives fearmonger about supposedly unprecedented use of lame duck session to address "controversial" issues

Gingrich: "[A]ny attempt by the outgoing Congress to pass legislation they were unwilling to defend in an election would be an attempt to thwart the will of the people." Writing in Human Events on August 4, Newt Gingrich wrote that "Democratic leaders today have been sending clear signals that they are willing to use the lame duck session of Congress to pass the most unpopular and destructive parts of their agenda," and that, "Like the Federalists' actions in 1801, any attempt by the outgoing Congress to pass legislation they were unwilling to defend in an election would be an attempt to thwart the will of the people." Gingrich continued, "It is hard to think of an attitude more fundamentally at odds with the spirit of our democratic republic than the idea that an elected representative should feel 'liberated' to pass bills the American people do not support once he or she is freed from the burden of having to face the voters." Gingrich urged his readers to asked their members of Congress to sign a pledge not to participate in such a lame duck session because it "smacks of the worst kind of political corruption" and "is an abusive power grab."

Rove: "We've never had a lame duck session that has dealt with a highly controversial and extremely consequential item." Appearing on the August 9 edition of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto, Karl Rove said that "we've never had a lame-duck session that has dealt with a highly controversial and extremely consequential item," adding that it "would really be unusual" for Democrats to deal with issues like cap and trade, card check and tax cuts during the session.

Fund: "It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session." In a July 9 Wall Street Journal column, John Fund wrote, "It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control."

Geraghty: "Lame-duck sessions are not designed to be shortcuts to ignore the will of the people and erase any sense of legislative culpability." Jim Geraghty wrote in National Review Online's "Campaign Spot" blog on June 16 that "Every Republican challenger ought to be demanding that their Democrat incumbent opponent pledge in writing that they will not pass an energy bill in a lame-duck session if they are defeated" and that "When the people make their opinion clear, fundamental concepts of accountability and responsibility require that the opinion not be ignored." Geragthy added, "Lame-duck sessions are not designed to be shortcuts to ignore the will of the people and erase any sense of legislative culpability."

Beck: Democrats "ramping up civil unrest" with lame duck session. On the July 15 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck discussed the proposed lame duck session with Rep. Michelle Bachmann (D-MN) and said, "[Y]ou tell me what stops these people. Because this is my real fear. They are ramping up civil unrest."

Read on...

And we can now add Thiessen here.

THIESSEN: If I'm thankful for anything this Thanksgiving I'm thankful for the America people for electing this Congress. The American people just fired this Congress. This was the largest shift in seats since 1948. What that means is there has not been a lame duck Congress that has been more discredited in more than six decades. They have no legitimacy. They should not be doing anything of substance. The only thing they should be doing is keeping the doors of government open while they pack their bags and prepare their resumes and let anything that of substance be taken care of by the new Congress that's coming in that was just elected by the American people. They should not be tackling any controversial issues or doing anything other than keeping the government working. [...]

Well, I think if you look at the... what is the job of Congress? The job of Congress, Congress has about the Constitution the power of the purse. Their job is to pass spending bills. They have not passed a single spending bill as we come up on the last few weeks of this session. So they have not done their job. What they did for the last two years was focus on a government take over of health care, government take over of the banks and all of the other things that led the American people to fire them and so if they go into this lame duck session saying hey, let's take on Don't Ask Don't Tell, let's take on an arms control treaty with Russia, let's change the tax structure of this country, they have no legitimacy to do any of that. So they need to focus on keeping the doors of government open.

Thiessen acts like the Democrats lost the Senate as well. I'll give the Republicans credit for one thing, they've got their lies and they're sticking to them dammit. And the media is happy to let them repeat them over, and over and over again.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/torture-promoter-marc-thiessen-bashes-ille

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Open Hesse

[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/W8yaIk3thOY/open-hesse

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!