Molly Ivins passed away today. America will miss her, but I, for one, will smile when I think of her.
Update: At a dinner in her honor, Lewis Lapham said, ""She reminds us that dissent is what rescues democracy from a quiet death behind closed doors." Amen.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Man's inhumanity to man, and woman
Day after day we hear of suicide bombings and car bombings and mortar shellings, and after a while it is hard to remember that people--real people, with hopes and dreams and worries and families--are being hurt and killed. So maybe if we look at some lesser inhumanties we can regain our perspective.
Two examples:
The New York Times notes that the cost of the Iraq debacle includes, in addition to 34,000 Iraqis killed last year alone, 1.8 million who have been driven from their homes and 2 million who have left the country entirely. Many of these are people who committed themselves to the American cause: politicians, policemen, soldiers and ordinary people who bought into the idea that the United States would bring them and their nation a better life. So, are we welcoming them to our shores now that the scope of the Iraq disaster has become clear? No. At least not in any numbers. While we spend $8 billion a month on the war, the Bush administration proposes a paltry $20 million for Iraqi refugees in fiscal 2008. For our special friends, we have a special visa program--50 slots a year, for both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are thousands of desperate people out there, and most of them are desperate because of our blundering. The least we could do is to offer some of them refuge.
Now let's shift our attention to South Dakota. You may recall that a statewide referendum rejected the draconian anti-abortion law that the state legislature passed last year--and did so by a comfortable margin of about 10 points. Unfazed by this, anti-abortion legislators have introduced a new bill. This one would make the narrowest possible exception to protect the life and health of the mother. The true motives of the bill's sponsors may be deduced from this description: "In the case of incest, a doctor would have to get the woman's consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed." Think about that for a moment: a girl who has been raped, perhaps for years, by her father, brother or uncle has to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or to turn in the offender for prosecution. How many young women--often girls--who have not left the home already will be willing to do that? Even if she has left the home, the victim (and that's what she is) probably depends on the family for at least social and emotional support, which is likely to be cut off if she agrees to help prosecute the person who attacked her. People who want to impose that kind of condition on incest victims are not interested in them or the unborn fetus; they want to keep women in their place.
Two examples:
The New York Times notes that the cost of the Iraq debacle includes, in addition to 34,000 Iraqis killed last year alone, 1.8 million who have been driven from their homes and 2 million who have left the country entirely. Many of these are people who committed themselves to the American cause: politicians, policemen, soldiers and ordinary people who bought into the idea that the United States would bring them and their nation a better life. So, are we welcoming them to our shores now that the scope of the Iraq disaster has become clear? No. At least not in any numbers. While we spend $8 billion a month on the war, the Bush administration proposes a paltry $20 million for Iraqi refugees in fiscal 2008. For our special friends, we have a special visa program--50 slots a year, for both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are thousands of desperate people out there, and most of them are desperate because of our blundering. The least we could do is to offer some of them refuge.
Now let's shift our attention to South Dakota. You may recall that a statewide referendum rejected the draconian anti-abortion law that the state legislature passed last year--and did so by a comfortable margin of about 10 points. Unfazed by this, anti-abortion legislators have introduced a new bill. This one would make the narrowest possible exception to protect the life and health of the mother. The true motives of the bill's sponsors may be deduced from this description: "In the case of incest, a doctor would have to get the woman's consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed." Think about that for a moment: a girl who has been raped, perhaps for years, by her father, brother or uncle has to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or to turn in the offender for prosecution. How many young women--often girls--who have not left the home already will be willing to do that? Even if she has left the home, the victim (and that's what she is) probably depends on the family for at least social and emotional support, which is likely to be cut off if she agrees to help prosecute the person who attacked her. People who want to impose that kind of condition on incest victims are not interested in them or the unborn fetus; they want to keep women in their place.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
(Fast) Rising star
First Jim Webb told off W at a White House event for new members of Congress. As Stacy Schiff put it, when Bush asked about Sen. Webb's son, who is serving in Iraq, Webb didn't really intend his brusque answer. "Evidently, he meant to slug the President." Wouldn't that have been something?
That was just for openers. A couple of weeks ago, Webb asked Condi if she thought that the President could move against Iran without prior congressional approval. The Secretary of State, showing talent for the diplomatic bob and weave that I didn't think she had, demurred. Instead of answering, she promising to give the Senator a response in writing. Now, everyone knows that she had no intention of replying to the question by speech, writing or smoke signals. Webb got what he intended from asking the question; Rice's refusal to answer made the response clear as day.
But Jim Webb is looking distinctly different from other politicians, even other anti-war Democrats. So, he's written to the Secretary of State to pose his question again, and added this helpful comment: "This is, basically, a 'yes' or 'no' question regarding an urgent matter affecting our nation’s foreign policy." More details here.
You've got to love this guy. He seems to have watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and taken it seriously. After a career in the Marines including a record in Vietnam that makes John Kerry look like a draft-dodger, a stint as Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a hard-fought senatorial campaign in which he knocked of a man who had been considered a leading contender for the Republic nomination in 2008, he still appears to have the unsullied faith in democracy of a Frank Capra hero. The Democratic candidates for President had better watch out--no one's going to be talking seriously about Jim Webb in 2008, but he's going to make a lot of them look like wimps.
That was just for openers. A couple of weeks ago, Webb asked Condi if she thought that the President could move against Iran without prior congressional approval. The Secretary of State, showing talent for the diplomatic bob and weave that I didn't think she had, demurred. Instead of answering, she promising to give the Senator a response in writing. Now, everyone knows that she had no intention of replying to the question by speech, writing or smoke signals. Webb got what he intended from asking the question; Rice's refusal to answer made the response clear as day.
But Jim Webb is looking distinctly different from other politicians, even other anti-war Democrats. So, he's written to the Secretary of State to pose his question again, and added this helpful comment: "This is, basically, a 'yes' or 'no' question regarding an urgent matter affecting our nation’s foreign policy." More details here.
You've got to love this guy. He seems to have watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and taken it seriously. After a career in the Marines including a record in Vietnam that makes John Kerry look like a draft-dodger, a stint as Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a hard-fought senatorial campaign in which he knocked of a man who had been considered a leading contender for the Republic nomination in 2008, he still appears to have the unsullied faith in democracy of a Frank Capra hero. The Democratic candidates for President had better watch out--no one's going to be talking seriously about Jim Webb in 2008, but he's going to make a lot of them look like wimps.
Too sweet to be true, but....
The new White House executive pastry chef, Bill Yosses, is the author of Desserts for Dummies.
2008--Another Issue
Josh Marshall has an extremely important post at talkingpointsmemo.com. "[T]he virus of anti-constitutionalism President Bush has injected into the body politic is now so deepseated that a renewed constitutionalism should now be a central element informing our political priorities and political identification." He's absolutely right. The Bush administration has so damaged our political and legal condition that constitutional principles must be a leading campaign issue for the first time since 1860 (for those who aren't too good on dates, that's before the Civil War).
To begin with, every candidate for President in 2008 should be asked hard questions about where he or she stands on the issue of executive power. Will he or she insist on the same prerogatives that W and Cheney have: the right to imprison secretly, the right to hold prisoners without resort to legal process, the right to spy on Americans and legal residents without warrants, the right to control every move of the executive branch? Or, will the candidates agree to a recession of presidential power?
I also suggest that you read Adam Cohen's trenchant analysis of Congressional war powers--the first such article that I have read in a mass-circulation publication. And, don't miss Garry Wills' discussion of the militarization of the presidency; he notes that Ike, who had spent 35 years in the Army, never gave the hand-to-the-brow salute as President, because he wasn't in uniform. That gesture was started by the actor, Reagan and, regrettably, followed by all since. These pieces make Marshall's point even more clear.
To begin with, every candidate for President in 2008 should be asked hard questions about where he or she stands on the issue of executive power. Will he or she insist on the same prerogatives that W and Cheney have: the right to imprison secretly, the right to hold prisoners without resort to legal process, the right to spy on Americans and legal residents without warrants, the right to control every move of the executive branch? Or, will the candidates agree to a recession of presidential power?
I also suggest that you read Adam Cohen's trenchant analysis of Congressional war powers--the first such article that I have read in a mass-circulation publication. And, don't miss Garry Wills' discussion of the militarization of the presidency; he notes that Ike, who had spent 35 years in the Army, never gave the hand-to-the-brow salute as President, because he wasn't in uniform. That gesture was started by the actor, Reagan and, regrettably, followed by all since. These pieces make Marshall's point even more clear.
2008--The Idea of America
In an earlier post, I suggested that Democrats should articulate an American ideology. In response to that idea, MS emailed, "I don't think America has or needs an ideology. Does any country have an ideology? Certainly not any as diverse as diverse as this country. We do have founding principles: individual liberty, self-government, equality of opportunity, separation of church and state, to name a few."
Fair enough, but I suggest that the idea of America has always been the key to our national identity. People came here because of the American ideal, more than they did because of the streets that were supposed to be paved with gold. The Thanksgiving myth centers around the Pilgrims at Plymouth, not the wealth of the present day. Even our imperializing is cloaked not in national glory but in the belief that we are making the world a better place. That kind of moralizing is deeply offensive to some in other countries, and a cause for ridicule in others, but it expresses a difference between the United States, that is, Americans, and the citizens of other nations, at least of those that have been major international powers.
Most Americans, even most of those who concern themselves with politics, don't think of themselves as ideological. Indeed, one of the most important contributors to our success in the 20th Century was a hostility to fixed ideologies. That characteristic enabled bipartisanship--a concept almost unknown in other democracies, even Britain. Still, I suggest that that non-ideological politics really expressed a general agreement on an overarching framework of ideas on which American politics and policy were grounded.
Thanks to the "conservative" [reactionary is a better term] movement of the past three decades, much of that agreement has been torn apart. But that does not mean that Americans cannot come together to express the American idea. Indeed, the obvious failure of the "conservatives," especially of the Bush administration, provides an opportunity to rebuild a consensus around the basic propositions that gave the United States its great influence for decades.
So what should America stand for? I don't claim to have thought the answer through completely, and to say what we stand for could fill a thick book and leave plenty of room for argument, but let me start with a few ideas:
--That all individuals are entitled to dignity and respect.
--That individuals have the right to free thought and free expression.
--That government depends on the consent of the governed, and that government should be based on law.
--That government's first mission, after preserving the nation, is to protect the rights of its citizens.
--That government should act to protect those who have the least before it aids those who have more than they need.
--That democratic government is best, but that at least government should be responsive to the needs of the populace, and should work to progress toward true democracy.
--That the United States has no territorial ambitions.
These represent only a beginning, of course. I'll try to add to them and to form them into some more coherent framework, and I'd be happy to have your ideas. But I hope you can see from this small start how we could construct an ideology that would allow us to contest with those who view the United States as their enemy.
Fair enough, but I suggest that the idea of America has always been the key to our national identity. People came here because of the American ideal, more than they did because of the streets that were supposed to be paved with gold. The Thanksgiving myth centers around the Pilgrims at Plymouth, not the wealth of the present day. Even our imperializing is cloaked not in national glory but in the belief that we are making the world a better place. That kind of moralizing is deeply offensive to some in other countries, and a cause for ridicule in others, but it expresses a difference between the United States, that is, Americans, and the citizens of other nations, at least of those that have been major international powers.
Most Americans, even most of those who concern themselves with politics, don't think of themselves as ideological. Indeed, one of the most important contributors to our success in the 20th Century was a hostility to fixed ideologies. That characteristic enabled bipartisanship--a concept almost unknown in other democracies, even Britain. Still, I suggest that that non-ideological politics really expressed a general agreement on an overarching framework of ideas on which American politics and policy were grounded.
Thanks to the "conservative" [reactionary is a better term] movement of the past three decades, much of that agreement has been torn apart. But that does not mean that Americans cannot come together to express the American idea. Indeed, the obvious failure of the "conservatives," especially of the Bush administration, provides an opportunity to rebuild a consensus around the basic propositions that gave the United States its great influence for decades.
So what should America stand for? I don't claim to have thought the answer through completely, and to say what we stand for could fill a thick book and leave plenty of room for argument, but let me start with a few ideas:
--That all individuals are entitled to dignity and respect.
--That individuals have the right to free thought and free expression.
--That government depends on the consent of the governed, and that government should be based on law.
--That government's first mission, after preserving the nation, is to protect the rights of its citizens.
--That government should act to protect those who have the least before it aids those who have more than they need.
--That democratic government is best, but that at least government should be responsive to the needs of the populace, and should work to progress toward true democracy.
--That the United States has no territorial ambitions.
These represent only a beginning, of course. I'll try to add to them and to form them into some more coherent framework, and I'd be happy to have your ideas. But I hope you can see from this small start how we could construct an ideology that would allow us to contest with those who view the United States as their enemy.
Monday, January 29, 2007
RIP
Rev. Robert Drinan, S.J. has died at the age of 86. For 10 years, from1970 to 1980, he was my congressman. He came to Congress as an opponent of the Vietnam War. Having been dean of Boston College Law School--an institution that he did much to improve--Father Drinan was put on the House Judiciary Committee, and on the special House Committee that considered whether to impeach President Nixon. I met with him in his district office in 1973 or '74. He was very pleasant, and probably the most honest politician I have ever met. I've known some politicians who would not lie--or whom I thought would not lie--but who might not tell you something they thought you didn't want to know. Drinan would. We discussed how the Massachusetts delegation would vote on impeachment (Massachusetts actually had a couple of Republic congressmen then). Of one old-line Democrat who shall remain nameless (not the least because I can't recall the name), Drinan said something like, "He's a good old duffer. He'll vote the right way when the time comes." And then, "I probably shouldn't have said that." But he was a compulsive truth-teller.
Drinan left Congress in 1980, after Pope John Paul II decreed that active priests should not serve in elective office. He taught at Georgetown Law School and just a few weeks ago celebrated a special mass in honor of Nancy Pelosi's accession to the speakership.
Drinan left Congress in 1980, after Pope John Paul II decreed that active priests should not serve in elective office. He taught at Georgetown Law School and just a few weeks ago celebrated a special mass in honor of Nancy Pelosi's accession to the speakership.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Moderation
An editor's note: TONE has got popular enough (apparently, it doesn't take much) to have received a number of comments that are spam. As a result, the editor is now moderating comments. All of which means that it may be some time before your comment actually appears, because the editor is not always as diligent as he should be in checking for comments. (He will try to do better.) If your comment is substantive, it WILL be published, even if it is highly critical of what appears here.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Forgotten but not gone
Katherine Harris, who has a large number of reasons to stay out of the public eye--indeed, to keep from going out in public--is still hanging around the house. Not her house, our house: the House of Representatives. Showing how truly shameless she is, Harris was on the floor of the chamber before the State of the Union speech Tuesday night, handing out business cards to people who were too polite or too clueless to refuse them. There are even photos. (I thought of posting one, but I thought that there might be readers who had just eaten.)
Bad for democracy
Four big states--New Jersey, Florida, Illinois and California--will probably move their 2008 presidential primaries to early February, perhaps only a week after New Hampshire.
Many progressives and good-government advocates disagree with me, but I see a real value in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, even given the small number of minority voters in those states. The retail politics--though diluted in recent campaigns by media coverage that makes TV advertising (and also Internet campaigning) a major force--permits relatively unknown candidates without huge warchests to make a run, viz. Howard Dean in 2004. It also allows for movement during the campaign--remember that John Kerry was down and out nationally in late 2003.
Moving the big-state primaries to the front of the campaign, especially four of them, across the nation, will put a premium on money and national media attention. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani will probably be able to contest; John Edwards and Mitt Romney are likely to be there, too (although Romney's inconsistent positions may lead him to self-destruct before the end of this year). But can Bill Richardson (whom I think to be the best of the "second-tier" candidates), Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Tom Vilsack raise enough money to be in the race on this new Super-Duper Tuesday? If Chuck Hagel declares his candidacy on the Republic side--he would be the REAL maverick in that field--he'll probably be doomed by the size of his treasury even more than his position on the war.
The present primary system is not very good, but it's a lot better than what seems to be shaping up for 2008.
Many progressives and good-government advocates disagree with me, but I see a real value in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, even given the small number of minority voters in those states. The retail politics--though diluted in recent campaigns by media coverage that makes TV advertising (and also Internet campaigning) a major force--permits relatively unknown candidates without huge warchests to make a run, viz. Howard Dean in 2004. It also allows for movement during the campaign--remember that John Kerry was down and out nationally in late 2003.
Moving the big-state primaries to the front of the campaign, especially four of them, across the nation, will put a premium on money and national media attention. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani will probably be able to contest; John Edwards and Mitt Romney are likely to be there, too (although Romney's inconsistent positions may lead him to self-destruct before the end of this year). But can Bill Richardson (whom I think to be the best of the "second-tier" candidates), Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Tom Vilsack raise enough money to be in the race on this new Super-Duper Tuesday? If Chuck Hagel declares his candidacy on the Republic side--he would be the REAL maverick in that field--he'll probably be doomed by the size of his treasury even more than his position on the war.
The present primary system is not very good, but it's a lot better than what seems to be shaping up for 2008.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
All we are saying/Is give war a chance
So W wants us to give his "strategy" in Iraq time. And what about the last 3 years and 9 months?
Monday, January 22, 2007
There is no joy in Mudville
Permit me to dilate upon something different. Something more important than politics and perhaps as important as cats: football.
Gloom pervades New England as our Patriots went down to defeat last night at the hands of the Indianapolis Colts, a team that the Pats once dominated, at least psychologically--which is more important than dominating physically.
It was a game of if onlys.
If only the Patriots still had David Givens or Deion Branch (or better yet, both of them).
If only the Patriots had rushed Peyton Manning more in the third quarter.
If only Corey Dillon had played more in the 2nd half. (Was he hurt?)
If only Ellis Hobbs had made an 80-yard kickoff return when the score was 21-13, not 21-21. (Going up by 15 points after the other team has cut the lead to 8 is a more powerful psychological statement than going ahead by a single score after the game has been tied.)
If only the refs had called pass interference when Reche Caldwell was mugged in the end zone. (The Pats would have had the ball 1st and goal on the 1, with about a 95 percent certainty of scoring a touchdown, and the best the Colts could have done on their final drive would have been to tie.)
If only the Patriots' coaches had smelled out a run on the play that led to the winning touchdown. I did, and I'm no football whiz.
and finally: If only the Pats had won.
If nothing else, this game confirms my football superstition: I believe that if you score fewer points than the other team, you're going to lose.
Gloom pervades New England as our Patriots went down to defeat last night at the hands of the Indianapolis Colts, a team that the Pats once dominated, at least psychologically--which is more important than dominating physically.
It was a game of if onlys.
If only the Patriots still had David Givens or Deion Branch (or better yet, both of them).
If only the Patriots had rushed Peyton Manning more in the third quarter.
If only Corey Dillon had played more in the 2nd half. (Was he hurt?)
If only Ellis Hobbs had made an 80-yard kickoff return when the score was 21-13, not 21-21. (Going up by 15 points after the other team has cut the lead to 8 is a more powerful psychological statement than going ahead by a single score after the game has been tied.)
If only the refs had called pass interference when Reche Caldwell was mugged in the end zone. (The Pats would have had the ball 1st and goal on the 1, with about a 95 percent certainty of scoring a touchdown, and the best the Colts could have done on their final drive would have been to tie.)
If only the Patriots' coaches had smelled out a run on the play that led to the winning touchdown. I did, and I'm no football whiz.
and finally: If only the Pats had won.
If nothing else, this game confirms my football superstition: I believe that if you score fewer points than the other team, you're going to lose.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Turning point
I always mark the day I notice light in the sky at 5:00 p.m. as the first sign of spring. That day has arrived. My joy is tempered, however, by the fact that this week saw our first winter weather.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Which poll d'ya read?
Hillary Clinton (R-NY) jumps into the race and she's being anointed the frontrunner. ABC reports that in a hypothetical (remember that word) primary, Clinton bests Barack Obama (D-IL) 41 percent to 17 percent, with John Edwards third at 12 percent. Fair enough.
But then there's Newsweek's poll with this little gem. In those hypothetical races, McCain edges Clinton by a point, but loses to Obama by 2 percent and Edwards by 5 points. Contests where Rudy Giuliani is the hypothetical Republic nominee turn out pretty much the same way.
Such early polls are so close to meaningless that you need a powerful magnifying glass to tell the difference, but if results continue this way, it will be bad news for Hillary. She doesn't inspire many people with her oratory or her ideas; electability has to be her catchword.
A caution, however: as the candidates say, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Like all cliches, that's true. Campaigns, especially presidential campaigns, depend on a lot more than polls. And the early stages, in particular, depend on organizational ability and retail politics more than on oratory or positions on particular issues. The race hasn't even entered the starting gate--we're only seeing the post parade.
It's going to get interesting. Stay tuned.
But then there's Newsweek's poll with this little gem. In those hypothetical races, McCain edges Clinton by a point, but loses to Obama by 2 percent and Edwards by 5 points. Contests where Rudy Giuliani is the hypothetical Republic nominee turn out pretty much the same way.
Such early polls are so close to meaningless that you need a powerful magnifying glass to tell the difference, but if results continue this way, it will be bad news for Hillary. She doesn't inspire many people with her oratory or her ideas; electability has to be her catchword.
A caution, however: as the candidates say, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Like all cliches, that's true. Campaigns, especially presidential campaigns, depend on a lot more than polls. And the early stages, in particular, depend on organizational ability and retail politics more than on oratory or positions on particular issues. The race hasn't even entered the starting gate--we're only seeing the post parade.
It's going to get interesting. Stay tuned.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Better check the bunker
From the NYT:
" Yevhen Kushnaryov, a deputy leader of the pro-Russian Party of Regions and a close ally of Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich, died of a gunshot wound suffered while hunting on Tuesday. Mr. Kushnaryov was shot under circumstances not yet fully explained. Ukrainian news agencies said he was with a group that had just finished a boar hunt when a wolf appeared, prompting at least one unidentified hunter to fire and strike Mr. Kushnaryov."
Has anybody seen Dick Cheney the last few days?
" Yevhen Kushnaryov, a deputy leader of the pro-Russian Party of Regions and a close ally of Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich, died of a gunshot wound suffered while hunting on Tuesday. Mr. Kushnaryov was shot under circumstances not yet fully explained. Ukrainian news agencies said he was with a group that had just finished a boar hunt when a wolf appeared, prompting at least one unidentified hunter to fire and strike Mr. Kushnaryov."
Has anybody seen Dick Cheney the last few days?
Law of the jungle
The New York Times analyzes how the administration's changing stance on matters such as wiretapping, the legal rights of alleged terrorists and such present a moving target to defenders of civil rights and liberties. In cases such as those of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, the government has mooted legal challenges. It is attempting to do the same to suits attacking the warrantless wiretapping program.
These tactics demonstrate that the administration has no respect for law, only for power; it does not act because of law, but because political reality has changed and compels it to. Indeed, the Bush administration is the most lawless in our history, exceeding even Nixon's.
These tactics demonstrate that the administration has no respect for law, only for power; it does not act because of law, but because political reality has changed and compels it to. Indeed, the Bush administration is the most lawless in our history, exceeding even Nixon's.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Pardon me if I don't cheer
Advocates for civil liberties and privacy are claiming victory now that the administration has announced that it will seek warrants from the FISA court for the NSA's wiretapping program.
I suppose this is some kind of an advance (albeit made to defuse hearings that congressional Democrats have scheduled for the spring), but am I the only one who thinks that a secret court-- even the identities of the judges on the court are withheld--is contrary to the American system of justice and, very possibly, the Constitution?
I suppose this is some kind of an advance (albeit made to defuse hearings that congressional Democrats have scheduled for the spring), but am I the only one who thinks that a secret court-- even the identities of the judges on the court are withheld--is contrary to the American system of justice and, very possibly, the Constitution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
