Billionaire 'Good Club' Talks Overpopulation

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby smiths » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:11 pm

"If you can tell me something else where the fundamentals are so attractive...I'd be happy to put my money there," said Jim Rogers, the famed investor and self-made billionaire in a recent interview. "But I don't know of any other place."


investment fundamentals, no emotions, no theories of how humans should live in a fantasy scenario

just logic sequences,

growing population
constraints on arable land for food production
profits for parasite investors who get rich off things like this
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:53 am

Hi Smiths,

I agree that population growth is an issue. Not a very big one, though. And for different reasons than our billionaire 'good club'. I am trying to understand why some people make it the top issue - billionaires, for example, with ties to eugenics and economic policies that are destroying a planet that is being increasingly gated off for the pleasure of the few.

My beef isn’t that population or overpopulation can’t or won’t be a problem, and I don't contend that we have infinite resources. My beef is that thrusting population into the headlights as the key problem draining our not-so-imaginative energies is a dangerous misframing and misdiagnosis of the problem at this point in time.

Why isn’t the question more urgently focused on how we are using (sharing/not sharing) our finite resources rather than on how many of us are using them? I think the exclusive focus on population growth resurrects the banality of Malthus.

Population growth is a socio-economic problem; I think that a just economic system will go a long way towards helping people regulate their population, though that should be the least of our reasons for a just economic system. A top-down population system based on the political economy of physics, however, will only further pervert social and economic justice.

Hard science does not exist when there’s so much money, power and control at stake.

So what are the limits of population?

I don’t know, and neither do the billionaires or technocrats. But that will not stop them from inventing the limits we are to abide by or determining where the threat ought to lay. Are you not the least bit wary of the agendas of those whose policies/plans are aimed directly at the poor teeming masses, as if they haven’t been screwed enough as it is? I find it morally repugnant that we in the over-consuming, privileged world take it upon ourselves to get out our population calculators and assume the role of human bean counters.

What are the limits of population? Shouldn’t we ask instead: what are the limits of our consumption? What are the limits of economic growth, or the limits of this entire economic system?

These immediately strike me as the more urgent questions.

When do the ‘physics’ of population and carrying capacity come into play? Now? I don’t think so. It is not the hard laws of nature causing famine and misery for millions. It is our visible economic hand. Iain Boal is quite right that we do not live in a world of natural scarcity, but in a world of artifice, force, and manufactured scarcity. There is more than enough for everyone, but not everyone is allowed to partake. The problem is not population growth, but the hungry beast we know as economic growth. And the powerful, kept fat on this growth, are trying to keep it that way. The over-population scare tactic is one way to avoid the truth about manufactured scarcity and dodge the heart of the problem: global capitalism.

So until we do reach 100 billion people, let's focus on how we live together here and now.

We can go the way of Via Campesina, or the way of Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and the World Bank. Take a microcosm: Israel vs. Gaza. We can fret about (over)population in Gaza, for example, say they need better family planning (or worse) – but we can also look at the underlying policies and the reasons for their lack of water, food, health care, depleted resources and large families - and the reasons for their rather tight quarters. Limits indeed. Even in the West Bank, their resources happen to be on the other side of a prison wall, controlled and enjoyed by a smaller population per square inch. But anyway.

As Via Campseina says, you don't risk environmental degradation or catastrophe with small farmers exercising food sovereignty and localized, sustainable farming.

As Amartya Sen concluded, you don't get famine where there's "democratic" entitlement to food.

----

Edit: small edits and link added
Last edited by Gouda on Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:17 am

Anyway Smiths, we need more people. More of us against them! :wink:
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sounder » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:58 am

Smiths wrote…
framing an arguement in terms of finite resources is not malthusian,
its conforming to known physical laws, thermodynamics baby

There was a high placed physics yuckty-yuck, Thomson maybe, who in the latter 1800’s who declared something like; the principles of physics are well known and all that is left is to increase precision further past the decimal point. The point being, any system that has internal coherency can exhibit the appearance of Truth. Even with the apparent revolution in physics that followed shortly thereafter, a primary assumption, that the ‘spiritual’ has no extension in space, was retained (yet driven into unconsciousness). Because of this limitation, we still have no idea of how the causal chain might extend into or be coming from the implicate. The potentials of our physical modeling are limited by assumptions, like they always were and always will be.


we are not perpetual motion machines, nor are potatoes or chickens

That reminds me of what might be an Onion headline; SUN RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

we require chemical energy which we convert to thermal energy, we produce waste,
without drinkable water we are dead within four days, without food we are dead within forty

Until we move past this static picture of reality we will have poorly formed ideas about greater potentials within reality (nature).

Gouda wrote…
Hard science does not exist when there’s so much money, power and control at stake.

I have always loved science and deeply regret its current manifestations, and even more so the religious dependency that many seem to have for those manifestations.
What are the limits of population? Shouldn’t we ask instead: what are the limits of our consumption? What are the limits of economic growth, or the limits of this entire economic system?

These immediately strike me as the more urgent questions.

Say it again Brother!! (revival style)

As Amartya Sen concluded, you don't get famine where there's "democratic" entitlement to food.

Surely we need to identify and then imitate the framework that our ‘wise’ people put to larger questions rather that accepting the talking points and framework imposed through saturation imprinting via money interests.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:47 am

Say it again Brother!! (revival style)

Oh no, it's like that? Damn it! And I've been trying so hard to exorcise preachy polemics from my preachy polemics.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lupercal » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:54 pm

And the powerful, kept fat on this growth, are trying to keep it that way. The over-population scare tactic is one way to avoid the truth about manufactured scarcity and dodge the heart of the problem: global capitalism.


Yes absolutely, but what's even scarier is that the kleptocrats and war profiteers believe this stuff. Others here have said it more eloquently, but the fact is that reichwing bazillionaires and oil barons are as nutty as they come, and there's no one to tell them they're not. They're also getting rich off war via KBR and Blackwater type profiteering and selling oil to its largest consumer, the US military, so practicing a religion of population "control" is a convenient way of rationalizing the total evil and destruction they are inflicting on the planet.

Long and short: it's an extremely sick and dangerous pathology with lots and lots of apologists.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tazmic » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:52 pm

They've already 'done' the math:

From COPENHAGEN: "..., she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles."

and the calculator says double-plus-good

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

"The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy"

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

tick tock...
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:58 pm

Wow. It sounds as if a coupla decent world wars with a bit of friendly eugenics thrown in for good measure might take care of the whole climate-change problem, and the captains of industry can just continue marching to their own drum.

Image
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smiths » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:07 am

Why isn’t the question more urgently focused on how we are using (sharing/not sharing) our finite resources rather than on how many of us are using them?

Gouda i completely agree with this as you would well know by what i write,

i am just saying that this is not some binary choice that we have to make,

i think we have to fundamentally change the way we live in terms of our relations with each other and our relations with the biosphere,
i also think that population is a very important factor in working out how we are to do that
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:28 pm

Smiths wrote:
this is not some binary choice that we have to make
Agreed.

i think we have to fundamentally change the way we live in terms of our relations with each other and our relations with the biosphere

You, Iain Boal and I agree:


***

DM: So how do you answer the question of carrying capacity? Are you saying that the earth's resources are infinite? That we're just going to go on and on and on?

IB: No, not at all. I want to make this very clear: I am not in any way saying that the earth's resources should be used up willy-nilly, that societies shouldn't concern themselves with how to live on the planet in the most sane and sustainable way possible. But it's always – historically – an empirical, local, question: How much water is available? How much grazing will a pasture allow? Who's encroaching? How much mast for the pigs or firewood is X entitled to? Will we have to send Y away to work in the city?

What I'm trying to say here is that the vulgar error made by modern Malthusians is to assume that the human story hasn't in fact been about dealing with this problem of the carrying capacity, if you want to put it that way, of particular patches of land. There's a word for it. It's called stinting. Commoners have "use-rights" - say, to pasture animals, to take fodder, to gather firewood, to harvest fruits and berries and nuts - but only if you live there, and only certain amounts, depending on the ecological, historical knowledge of the local community about what would stretch it too far. Action informed by local knowledge, typically, is not going to cause ecocide. I'm not saying ecological destruction hasn't occurred in the human past - the deforestation of the coastal areas around the Mediterranean sea is a classic case, caused by centuries of Imperial Roman overfarming - but it tends to be by non-locals and elites. Let's call it the state. The major culprit in modern times is capitalist farming in private hands.

Despite this reality, the blame is laid at the door of the world's commoners. Take for example Garrett Hardin's famous 1968 essay, "The tragedy of the commons", published in the journal Science. This was an enormously influential text by a Texan zoologist, based on no sociological research whatsoever, and in profound ignorance of the actual history of commoning. Hardin asserted that all common resources (such as pasture, a favorite example) will inevitably end in ruin because of over-exploitation by selfish individuals. Hardin's fable was taken up by the gathering forces of neo-liberal reaction in the 1970s, and his essay became the "scientific" foundation of World Bank and IMF policies, viz. enclosure of commons and privatization of public property. The plausibility of Hardin's Malthusian claims doesn’t survive a moment's scrutiny. Ask yourself - was the disaster of the Dust Bowl a tragedy of the commons or of capitalist agriculture under private ownership?

But the historical facts are irrelevant. The case is an ideological one, and Hardin was holding up a mirror to modern homo economicus. The message is clear: we must never treat the earth as a "common treasury". We must be ruthless and greedy or else we will perish.

Carrying capacity is now very hard to discuss in a context of extensive agriculture under a capitalist regime which by any accounting (by anyone other than a capitalist economist) is extremely inefficient. It is not well known, for example, that by a unilateral act of Congress the navy seized dozens of small islands around the world in the late 19th century to secure supplies of guano, in order to fertilize the US continental soil which was being ruthlessly depleted by the Western farmers. Today instead we are dependent on fossil fuels, and that too goes along with vast subsidies, price fixing, tax breaks, and hidden costs. What would the price of a gallon of gasoline be if you factored in the cost of the Sixth Fleet and all military bases around the world?

So there's no denying that capitalism is now threatening the basis of life on earth. Certainly that's true. But I refuse to cave in to Malthusian assumptions. Why is it not possible to imagine a reorganization of agriculture, and I don’t mean some new technofix from Monsanto. It will surely mean agrarian revolutions, though the content of those revolutions would be contested, to say the least. Marxists have always thrilled to the sight of really big tractors. They don't much like to hear about watersheds and foodmiles and small Kropotkinian communes. I will guess that among the non-negotiable requirements will be a transvaluation of soil (stripped, by the way, of any fascist metaphysic), along with a revolution in biology which will need to find new roots in microbial ecology, while at the same time reviving the disparaged arts of the naturalist.

***
i also think that population is a very important factor in working out how we are to do that

I am still not clear on how you mean we ought to go about that, however.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:20 pm

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/80331.html

SIRAKANO, Uganda — At age 45, after giving birth to 13 children in her village of thatch roofs and bare feet, Beatrice Adongo made a discovery that startled her: birth control.

"I delivered all these children because I didn't know there was another way," said Adongo, who started on a free quarterly contraceptive injection last year. Surrounded by her weary-faced brood, her 21-month-old boy clutching at her faded blue dress, she added glumly: "I fear we are already too many in this family."

On a continent where fewer than one in five married women use modern contraception, an explosion of unplanned pregnancies is threatening to bury Adongo's family and a generation of Africans under a mountain of poverty.

Promoting birth control in Africa faces a host of obstacles — patriarchal customs, religious taboos, ill-equipped public health systems — but experts also blame a powerful, more distant force: the U.S. government.

Under President George W. Bush, the United States withdrew from its decades-long role as a global leader in supporting family planning, driven by a conservative ideology that favored abstinence and shied away from providing contraceptive devices in developing countries, even to married women.

Bush's mammoth global anti-AIDS initiative, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, poured billions of dollars into Africa but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

The restrictions flew in the face of research by international aid agencies, the U.N. World Health Organization and the U.S. government's own experts, all of whom touted contraception as a crucial method of preventing births of babies being infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

The Bush program is widely hailed as a success, having supplied lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to more than 2 million HIV patients worldwide.

However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa's epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world's poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility.

"It was a huge missed opportunity to integrate HIV/AIDS and reproductive health in ways that made sense," said Jotham Musinguzi, a Ugandan physician who heads the Africa office of Partners in Population and Development, an intergovernmental group that promotes sexual health in developing countries.

In some countries that received substantial PEPFAR funding, such as Uganda and Kenya, health surveys have found that fertility rates remained constant or even rose slightly over the past decade. In Uganda, where many men want large families and abortion is illegal except to save a woman's life, the average woman bears 6.7 children, one of the highest rates in the world.

This small nation of rolling hills and banana trees is at the epicenter of Africa's demographic boom. Uganda is roughly the size of Nebraska, but in 40 years its population is projected to triple to 96 million, surpassing Japan, according to the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington research center.

Stanching that tidal wave will require a dramatic increase in contraceptive use, currently practiced by only 18 percent of married women.

"There hasn't been a country in the world where the birth rate came down without it," said Carl Haub, a senior demographer with the population bureau.

AN UPHILL BATTLE

A woman has to be strong to have a small family in Uganda.

The high-fertility cues start from the top: The longtime president, Yoweri Museveni, has often said that a large population could turn his landlocked nation into an economic power. His wife, Janet Museveni, is a born-again Christian who's urged women not to use birth control because it goes "against God's clear plan for your life."

Opposition to birth control also comes from the Roman Catholic Church, the country's largest, and from husbands who consider big families badges of masculine accomplishment, health workers say.

In national surveys, 41 percent of married women say they want to practice family planning but aren't. Every year, some 775,000 Ugandan women get pregnant without intending to, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive-health advocacy group.

With these domestic challenges, "PEPFAR was like a death blow," said Angela Akol, the Uganda director for Family Health International, a reproductive-health aid agency.

While global U.S. family planning funding flat-lined at roughly $430 million a year, PEPFAR's 2003 authorization of $15 billion for five years created "a giant sucking sound" as governments and relief agencies rushed to grab chunks of the new AIDS funds, in the words of a former U.S. health official, who like several current and former U.S. officials requested anonymity in order to speak more candidly about the Bush policies.

PEPFAR pumped $285 million into Uganda this year, a flood of money in an extremely poor nation, which eventually helped pay for some nine out of 10 AIDS projects. By contrast, Ugandan health officials said they spent $7 million this year on family planning supplies such as injections and pills.

In three-quarters of the country's health clinics, at any given time, at least one type of birth-control device is out of stock, officials said. During one six-month period two years ago, the national medical warehouse had no supplies of Depo-Provera, a quarterly injection that's become the most popular form of female contraception in Uganda because it's simple, infrequent and discreet.

"The U.S. had been a major funder of family planning in the past. Their absence meant that a lot of programs suffered," said Musinguzi, the physician. "They don't get adequate supplies; training of health workers doesn't take place; the skills aren't there. The impact is great."

Last year in Kampala, the capital, one PEPFAR-funded agency conducted a series of counseling sessions with HIV-positive teenagers. Several of the girls turned up pregnant, and when they asked about birth control the counselors were stumped; they hadn't received any training on the subject.

Akol sighed: "We have a whole generation of counselors and project managers who know about HIV but not how it's linked to family planning."

'ADDING POVERTY TO POVERTY'

At a hospital in Busia, a sleepy town in the green hills of eastern Uganda, Agnes Lojjo, a matronly health worker, sat with a handful of pregnant women one recent morning and asked how many were practicing family planning.

Fewer than half the hands went up. One woman in her 30s, wearing a man's oxford shirt and a colorful wrap around her head, said that a mother who used birth control would bear a deformed child.

Lojjo cocked her head and shot the woman a disapproving look.

"Everyone just has children without thinking," she said afterward. "It's adding poverty to poverty."

In the nearby village of Sirakano, as roosters clucked and the acrid smoke of a charcoal cooking fire wafted from a hut, Beatrice Adongo seemed to be staggering under the weight of her family.

Adongo, who has short hair and serious, wide-set eyes, had her first child at 17 and spent the next three decades in a near-constant state of fertility, barely pausing between weaning one baby and conceiving the next.

Now 46, she has 10 children — three didn't survive infancy — and their one and a half acres can't sustain all of them. She and her husband recently began renting part of a neighboring plot, but two of their children were sent home from school recently because they couldn't come up with a few pounds of maize and grains to pay their tuition.

The family gets by thanks to the eldest child, 29-year-old Frederick, who works as a security guard in the capital. His monthly salary, barely $50, also has to help feed his wife and 2-year-old, however, who live on the family plot in Sirakano.

"This one must learn from me and produce fewer (babies)," Adongo said, pointing her chin at her daughter-in-law, who smiled nervously. "We don't have enough land."

Much of Uganda is starting to suffocate. Public school classrooms that were built for about 40 students often burst with 100 or more. Large families are dividing their farmland into smaller and smaller parcels for their children, running afoul of neighbors and triggering a growing number of land disputes in local courts.

"Population growth undermines everything we're trying to do here, all our development efforts as well as political stability," a senior American official in Uganda said. "The economy isn't going to have enough jobs for all the people we're saving through PEPFAR."

'IT'S NOT TOO LATE

When Congress reauthorized PEPFAR in July 2008, to the tune of $48 billion over five years, religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fought to keep the family-planning restrictions.

Conservatives equated birth control with abortion, U.S. officials said, even though aid agencies are prohibited from spending federal money on abortions, and the procedure is illegal in much of Africa.

"Nobody is saying we shouldn't be putting money into HIV, but there was little done to mitigate the effects on the other health priorities," said the former U.S. health official, who served in the Bush administration U.S. Agency for International Development, which administers most American foreign aid.

President Barack Obama has begun to roll back some of the restrictions. In a sharp turnaround, the administration has called family planning "an important component of the preventive-care package of services" for HIV patients.

In March, Congress raised global family-planning funding by 18 percent, to $545 million, the first substantial increase after more than a decade of stagnation. The Obama administration has called for another 9 percent hike in 2010 and issued guidelines encouraging PEPFAR-funded agencies for the first time to link family-planning services with the anti-AIDS effort.

Ugandan officials said that with additional support they could educate more men and women about the need to keep their families to manageable sizes.

In 2004, after she delivered her third child in Busia, Catherine Naka began taking contraceptive shots over her husband's objections, calling a local health worker to her home while he was at work. A year ago, though, her husband found her hospital card, with the injection dates ticked off in ink, and ordered her to stop.

On a recent afternoon, with her fourth child nearly due, Naka, 29, sat in a bare concrete room in the Busia hospital, looking fraught. She was worried about feeding her family with her husband struggling for work and their patch of farmland threatened by drought.

"Can you help me?" she pleaded with a health worker.

Akol finds a glimmer of hope in stories such as these. "For many families, it's too late," she said, "but for many others, it's not too late."
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:56 pm

Birth control with family planning education are essential. (Though keeping in mind that large families are essential in some cultures, providing community, security, and economy).

But what is birth control, really, outside an umbrella of radical land reform; food sovereignty; health care, education, food and water as a right; and a depopulation of billionaires, millionaires and eichmanns - in essence, everything Malthusian capitalists are against?

Birth control with family planning education are essential, but not because we are running out of oil or pristine vacationing beaches.
Last edited by Gouda on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:01 pm

Does this article go here?
    The 19th Duggar Came Early (Really Early)

    Image

    Michelle Duggar gave birth to a teeny tiny baby girl last night after doctors performed an emergency c-section. No, the reason for the c-section was not because Michelle's vagina padlocked its doors and provided no forwarding address. Michelle had to have an emergency c-section, because her daughter is only 25 weeks old. Their new daughter weighed in at only 1lb., 6 oz.

    The Duggars have of course, kept with the "J" theme by naming baby #19 Josie Brooklyn Duggar. The Duggars name-dropped the borough I currently terrorize so I'll raise my mug of Sanka (the machine is broken again) to them.

    A rep from TLC tells TMZ that Josie Brooklyn is in stable condition in the neonatal intensive-care unit at the University of Arkansas' medical center.

    The rep added: "Michelle, who has been in the hospital recovering from a gallstone, was taken to the OR for an emergency c-section. The most important thing right now is for Mom and baby Josie to get as much rest as possible. The family is grateful for all the prayers and well wishes during their recovery."

    Hopefully, Josie Brooklyn will go home to the other members of the Duggar child army very soon. And also, let's hope someone gives Jim Bob a fleshlight for Christmas this year.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:10 pm

That guy smiling in the back row right (the father?) looks like he could use some sovereignty from his brood.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smiths » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:04 pm

there are two children missing, eaten by the others because of scarcity of resources no doubt,

seriously though, how much would it cost to feed a family of 21, the mind boggles
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 174 guests