Balkinization  

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

The Wizard of Oz--Did You Know?

Brian Tamanaha

Every now and then I read something that comes as a complete surprise. You might have the same reaction to the following passage from Jack Weatherford's The History of Money (1997), which comes out of his discussion of the late nineteenth century debate over adding silver to the gold monetary standard:

The most memorable work of literature to come from the debate over gold and silver in the United States was The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, published in 1900, by journalist L. Frank Baum, who greatly distrusted the power of the city financiers and who supported a bimetallic dollar based on both gold and silver. Taking great literary license, he summarized and satirized the monetary debate and history of the era through a charming story about a naive but good Kansas farm girl named Dorothy, who represented the average rural American citizen. Baum seems to have based her character on the Populist orator Leslie Kelsey, nicknamed "the Kansas Tornado."

After the cyclone violently rips Dorothy and her dog out of Kansas and drops them in the East, Dorothy sets out on the gold road to fairyland, which Baum calls Oz, where the wicked witches and wizards of banking operate. Along the way she meets the Scarecrow, who represents the American farmer; the Tin Woodman, who represents the American factory worker; and the Cowardly Lion, who represents William Jennings Bryan. The party's march on Oz is a re-creation of the 1894 march of Coxey's Army, a group of unemployed men led by 'General' Jacob S. Coxey to demand another public issue of $500 million greenbacks and more work for common people.

Marcus Hanna, the power behind the Republican party and the McKinley administration, was the wizard controlling the mechanisms of finance in the Emerald City. He was the wizard of the Gold Ounce--abbreviated, of course, to Wizard of Oz--and the Munchkins were the simpleminded people of the East who did not understand how the wizard and his fellow financiers pulled the levers and strings that controlled the money, the economy, and the government.

In the Emerald City ruled by the Wizard of Oz, the people were required to wear green-colored glasses attached by a gold buckle. Beyond the city, the Wicked Witch of the West had enslaved the Yellow Winkies, a reference to the imperialist aims of the Republican administration, which had captured the Philippines from Spain and refused to grant them independence.

In the end, all the good American citizens had to do was expose the wizard and his witches for the frauds they were, and all would be well in the bimetal monetary world of silver and gold. In the process, the farmer Scarecrow found out how intelligent he was, the lion found his courage, and the working Tin Man received a new source of strength in a bimetallic tool--a golden ax with a blade of silver--and he would never rust again as long as he had his silver oil can encrusted with gold and jewels.

I'm sure others know about this, and maybe I'm exposing my particular ignorance, but I had no idea that The Wizard of Oz was a political allegory. What makes this discovery especially jolting, for me at least, is that its meaning at the time--when many people would have recognized Baum's allusions--was so radically different from its taken-for-granted meaning today.

I hesitate to sully a discovery that is fascinating for its own sake, but I will use this example to quickly make a serious (albeit tangential) point. The original meaning theory of constitutional interpretation has prominent contemporary advocates--including, famously, Justice Scalia--who point to solid political theory arguments in support. But we must be mindful of the elusiveness and haze that envelops original meanings. Unless we turn constitutional interpretation over to trained historians with ample resources and time (and even then there will be problems), our assumptions about original meaning will be precarious.

Comments:

In the book, Dorothy's slippers are silver, which along with the yellow brick (i.e., gold) road represent the bimetallic money standard of the time. (Silver didn't show well on screen, so they changed them to ruby.)

Also, the Wizard's palace appears white when seen through the green glasses -- the White House, where the seemingly ominous but actually puny President, er Wizard, resides.
 

I think the original meaning is widely known, at least in academic circles. I first heard this in 1991 when I assisted in an American politics course taught by Sid Milkis (now of U. Va.), who got it from the late political theorist Wilson Carey McWilliams, who got it from...

Milkis's account was more detailed than the one given here.

I've used it in American politics courses, and I can say that almost all students are generally surprised by it.
 

Gretchen Ritter makes much of the Wizard of OZ analogy in her book "Goldbugs and Greenbacks: The Antimonopoly Tradition and the Politics of Finance in America, 1865-1896" (Cambridge: 1997). You can find an extensive interpretation of the yellow brick road, silver slippers, the tin man, the straw man, and etc., woven in her narrative.
 

Wikipedia has a lot on this, and suggests that this "original meaning" is possible but highly uncertain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
 

I had heard the Oz was an allegory, though not that the Wicked Witch of the West who enslaved yellow Winkies represented our imperialist designs on Asia. (Although it does make sense). I had heard she represented a drought ruining western farmers, and that was why Dorothy killed her with water.

Does anyone else know?
 

I found this interesting, so I went hunting for more details. I found several sources that say the scholars have speculated on the meanings, but that there is no real conclusive proof.

Interestingly, it seems that Baum himself said, "Having this thought in mind, the story of 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' was written solely to please children of today. It aspires to being a modernized fairy tale, in which the wonderment and joy are retained and the heartaches and nightmares are left out."

Straightdope has a bit, debunking the "Baum really meant it as an allegory!" theory as well as link to "The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a 'Parable on Populism,'" by David B. Parker.

So I am now in the "huh, I didn't realize you can read it that way," camp, as opposed to the "This is what Baum really meant" camp.
 

While the "original meaning" of the Wizard of Oz is interesting, more interesting to me is the matter of the "serious point" raised regarding constitutional interpretation and originalism. I hoped to read comments on this from the "usual suspects" constitutional commenters at this blog. The reference to historians is a good one, while recognizing that even historians may have problems determining "original meaning". Perhaps some comments from historians would be welcome. By the way, didn't historian Charles Beard address the Constitution in some detail early in the 20th century?

But once the true, really, really true, original meanings are discovered, that should not end interpretation, as perhaps unanticipated events subsequently have to be kept in mind in applying the Constitution today. Pulling the curtain back to reveal the founders, ratifiers, etc, and their original meanings is not going to solve many of the constitutional problems we have today.

So let's see some comments on the "serious point."
 

See The "Wizard of Oz" as a Monetary Allegory
Hugh Rockoff
"The Journal of Political Economy" Vol. 98, No. 4 (Aug., 1990), pp. 739-760

I've also read that the 2nd Oz book, The Marvelous Land of Oz is an allegory about the women's suffrage movement.

You can read informed speculation in Wikipedia, here or the entry on L. Frank Baum
 

Marcus Hanna, the power behind the Republican party and the McKinley administration, was the wizard controlling the mechanisms of finance in the Emerald City. He was the wizard of the Gold Ounce--abbreviated, of course, to Wizard of Oz.

And who grew up wanting to be Mark Hanna? Karl Rove.

Delicious.
 

shag: So let's see some comments on the "serious point."

"Original meaning" and "plain meaning" folks might not know they are lying. But when one claims to deny the invocation of context all that is really happening is critical, honest, analysis of one's preferred context is avoided.

Can anyone deny the need for context in finding meaning? Can anyone deny the effect on meaning of shifting contexts? How, then, can anyone seriously consider "plain" or "original" meanings findable without reference to the shifting contexts of time, person, place?

Here's how: Where the goal is persuasion rather than wisdom then this illegitimate denying of contextual issues is quite effective. But such churlish tricks have no place in the discourse of grown-ups.
 

Robert Link said:

Can anyone deny the need for context in finding meaning? Can anyone deny the effect on meaning of shifting contexts? How, then, can anyone seriously consider "plain" or "original" meanings findable without reference to the shifting contexts of time, person, place?

Robert,

Do you believe that is equally true for both constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation? Just curious, because statutes are commonly interpreted according to the "plain meaning" of words unless the text is ambiguous. While clever lawyers will always work to find ambiguity in the interests of their clients, judges nonetheless often seriously and honestly believe that they can find the plain meaning of a statute or regulation by the text alone. Do you believe that is mere self-delusion?
 

American Heritage Magazine had an article in it Dec. 1964. written by Daniel P. Mannix about L Frank Baum. He tells of how the story started. He was telling children a made up story when a kid asked him the name of this land. "Stumped, Baum looked around him for inspiration. In the next room were filing cabinets, and one bore the letters O-Z." He also tells a Russian version where Dorothy lives in a trailer in Kansas, and knows little about American life because American books she has are such shoddy productions. The whole article is really interesting.
 

adam: Do you believe that is mere self-delusion?

If by "plain meaning" they mean some non-context-reliant meaning, yup. Problem is that most of the time we can safely take for granted a great amount of context, textual and cultural. Think of it this way, if there were a "plain meaning" what would there be to argue about? The illusion of plain meanings comes to the fore when the players share sufficient cultural, perceptual and historical context. But even then, those ostensibly "plain" meanings are context dependent.

This is why you'll see me frequently citing the four criteria in the Preamble: I find it useful to consider certain topics in the context of "form a more perfect union" and weigh the difference from how things parse in the context, say, of "provide for the common defense."

And, of course, there is a species of "thinker" who will use the common illusion of plain meaning as a way to illegitimately foist off their pet assumptions about the way of the world.
 

nice info very useful, http://acne-fight.blogspot.com/
 

Dear Professor Balkin, Balkinization Contributors, Balkinzation Commenters,

Perhaps my single greatest complaint about blogging is how close it comes to creating community...without ever quite getting there. Nonetheless, I feel what follows is apt, and due.

In keeping with general thread shelf-life I will be winding down my participation here until the new year. Saturday I travel out of country, net access will be spotty, and my time is probably more wisely spent celebrating the holidays with my wife and in-laws. Anyone who feels I owe them an answer on anything hanging loose is free to email me (check my profile for the address.)

I also want to take a moment to explain myself a bit. Keeping in mind that that the comments feature on a blog isn't really designed to create community, nonetheless certain community features can arise therefrom. Part of our community is defined by agreement with the main ideas offered by the primary contributors. Another part of our community is defined by virulent disagreement with same. Part of our community is defined by interaction between these first two parts.

I have been trying for quite some time to better understand what I think of as the "No Spin Zone" dynamic, in which people I love come to not only hold views I find repugnant but come to feel that intense passive aggressive browbeating of all who disagree with them is an appropriate means of discourse. Perhaps the best example of this behavior is Bill O'Reilly himself. I've discussed part of that phenomenon, here, and here.

To repeat, part of the Balikinization community is formed by the interaction of folks who agree in general with the ideas offered by our host and primary contributors and folks who strongly disagree. I would divide this second camp into two sub-groups, and forgive my obviously slanted labeling, but it's the best I've got at present. I would sub-divide the group of folks who generally disagree with our hosts as being either honest or dishonest. In the former category are folks who are capable of answering a question directly even if that answer comes at a loss of face. In the latter category are folks who would not agree 2+2=4 if there was any chance it could cause them a loss of face in the zero-sum contest they construe life to be.

I have been studying, practicing, testing how to interact with this latter group. I have had moments I am proud of. I have had moments that embarrass me. My general advice still stands: "Don't feed the troll," in old-school usenet terms, or "Take a pass on the bait." This last, of course, presupposes the ability to notice when one is being offered a poisoned pill in the first place. Learning to assess with whom one can beneficially engage remains perhaps the most important lesson in bridging ideological gaps.

Blessings of the season on all who would be so blessed, well wishes for all. See ya in '07.

rl
 

Robert,

Thank you for your response to my questions. I agree that judges who purport to interpret statutes (or contracts or other legal texts) according to the "plain language" canon would be wise to examine the word or phrase in contention in a text in relation to other words in the text. Taking a word out of context in this sense would almost certainly disort the "plain meaning" of the statute--that is not controversial. My question for you is about the effect of shifting cultural contexts on statutes. I apologize, but I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that the judge or lawyer interprets the statute according to his own cultural context, and therefore the meaning of the statute shifts according to the reader? Or that when interpreting the statute, the judge should consider the meaning of the words at the time they were written, or the circumstances leading to the statute's enactment? For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1798 provides a cause of action for alien plaintiffs who have harmed by a violation of the "law of nations." Should judges interpret "law of nations" according to what that phrase means in 2006 (and the 2006 definition is by no means obvious), or should they look to the "plain meaning" of the term in 1798?

you said: Think of it this way, if there were a "plain meaning" what would there be to argue about?

There are hard cases and easy cases. Often, a statute (or contractual provision) is clear enough that there is no serious argument about its meaning. A litigator may stretch to find an argument anyway if it's in the interests of his client, as long as he can do so without risking sanctions for making a frivolous argument. I guess you might say that we are deluding ourselves that the language is so clearly determinative of the outcome, but I am skeptical--that seems too easy and too abstract an argument to make without showing clear examples that would support your statement. I would invite you to show me why my skepticism is misplaced if you are so inclined.

Other times, statutes or regulations are frustratingly opaque or just poorly drafted. Or perhaps one party is attempting to apply the statute in a novel, but plausible situation. In these cases, the judge has a more difficult task to determine what the legislature "meant" and by its own terms the "plain language" rule might not apply. But while these cases show that sometimes stautory language is ambiguous or difficult to apply, they don't prove that, because a text is by nature indeterminate, it is impossible to find meaning without looking beyond the text.

Best,

adam
 

@adam: In keeping with my note above, but not wanting to leave you hanging, let me leave it at "Plain meaning and original meaning proponents would seem too willing to deny the vast complexities of interpretation, most often to the benefit of their world-view which, under such doctrines, need not be evaluated in any objective manner" or "Plain meaning and originalists would seem inclined to self-servingly deny the complexity of legal hermeneutics." There are, of course, counter examples to the generalization.

Peace.
 

Adam, if you don't mind me interrupting....

I agree that judges who purport to interpret statutes (or contracts or other legal texts) according to the "plain language" canon would be wise to examine the word or phrase in contention in a text in relation to other words in the text. Taking a word out of context in this sense would almost certainly disort the "plain meaning" of the statute--that is not controversial.

IMO, they also need to consider the larger context, e.g., the purpose of the statute, cultural factors, the status of the parties (if a contract), etc.

Do you mean that the judge or lawyer interprets the statute according to his own cultural context, and therefore the meaning of the statute shifts according to the reader?

I would say yes.

Or that when interpreting the statute, the judge should consider the meaning of the words at the time they were written, or the circumstances leading to the statute's enactment?

Yes again, along with other factors (precedent, intervening facts, etc.).

Should judges interpret "law of nations" according to what that phrase means in 2006 (and the 2006 definition is by no means obvious), or should they look to the "plain meaning" of the term in 1798?

The former in my view.

But while these cases show that sometimes stautory language is ambiguous or difficult to apply, they don't prove that, because a text is by nature indeterminate, it is impossible to find meaning without looking beyond the text.

IMO, and I suspect in Robert's, we find shared meaning in a text because we share an unspoken common background and experience beyond the text. One consequence of this is that these shared assumptions, rather than the text itself, provide a strong reason to enforce what appears on the surface to be a "plain meaning".

Where people like Scalia err is in believing (or pretending) that those shared assumptions don't exist and that meaning exists sui generis in the text alone rather than from the interaction of writer, text, and reader. They then insist the meaning is "plain" even though people of good faith believe otherwise. It is plain to him, he's just not willing to investigate the implicit assumptions he makes to reach that conclusion.
 

And did you know that the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" was really about marijuana? (go ahead, dude, puff the magic. Yeah, drag on, it's awesome!) Or how about that "Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie" by Don Maclean was really about JFK dying?
Or how about all the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln? All of these theories were made up to fit facts that had already occurred. Baum, who wrote the Oz books, said the theory of the Progressive allegory (the first of these Oz urban myths) was hooey and so are any others that have been dreamed up since. It was a children's story and nothing more. Of coure, it is also said that if you start playing the Pink Floyd CD "Dark Side of the Moon" at just the right instance while "The Wizard of Oz" is playing on your DVD player(with the sound off) the experience is a 'trip' (no blotter needed.) So anything is possible....
 

Robert Link referenced legal hermeneutics, a subject I have long been interested in. For a while there was significant movement in the legal scholarship on hermeneutics but it seems to have dwindled. I had been exposed to Francis Lieber's "Hermeneutics" published originally several years prior to the Civil War when I was a law student back in the early 1950s. In more recent years, I audited a course at a Boston area university on Hermeneutics, for which Hans-Georg Gadamer's "Truth and Method" was the primary text. Gadamer opened my eyes wide on the subject, not only as it applies to ancient text but also to art, and to interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps more constitutional scholars posting at this website and commenters can occasionally inject the hermeneutical approach to interpretation.

The founders and ratifiers of the Constitution did not pop up in a vacuum of knowledge. They relied upon Locke and so many others who had written centuries, decades earlier. Did the founders and ratifiers in understanding Locke et al approach their understanding in the sense of "originalism", i.e., what Locke et al intended, meant or were understood back when they wrote, or did the founders and ratifiers take into consideration the experiences of subsequent events? Or did the founders and ratifiers build on the earlier knowledge of Locke et al? If so, shouldn't we similarly build on the knowledge of the founders and ratifiers based upon subsequent events and experiences?
 

Ah, but the truly interesting question is what was the original intent of Dark Side of the Moon?
 

The Wizard of Oz

I hope that you all don't think me out of line; but the interpretation of the actual information behind this book is actually more incredible than the book itself; but I only learned the truth about this "fairytale" from someone who you all would find far removed from Oz; but not the true Oz which Mr. Baum so kindly knew so much about.
Who taught me about Frank L. Baum? St. John the Divine. While writing my book my brother John who lives on Patmos showed me how Frank L. Baum's book was used to find one particlular child who would unlock the true meaning of it's story and the allegory it really uncovers: the Yellow Brick Road has another name in the Revelation of St. John the Divine: it is the street of pure gold in the Holy City. This has another name in the Bible: it is called the Path of the Just; the one which is walked by those who ascend through the 7 heavens; as Dorothy did in her whirlwind.
Of course at the beginning I thought my brother John was kidding me: many years later I now know that no man has ever entered the Kingdom because only as a child can one enter within; and the fact that Frank L. Baum knew the idnetities and the Emerald behind the Throne of God in the midst of the 4 living creatures and their 4 colors in chapter 4 of the Revelation of St. John the Divine after going throught the 7 heavens means that the "open door" John went through was also the one Dorothy went through as well.
Who are the 4 creatures of Oz? They are first a Scarecrow; mindless; a Tin Woodsman; heartless; a cowardly Lion: souless. But who is the 4th creature? Toto; the dog. He signifies Dorothy's strength; "All"
At this point you probably all think I am crazy; unfortunately Mr. Baum and his story have more to do with one figure than you would possibly believe: the Son of Man. How can that be? I suggest you look at the 4 creatures of the Revelation; each of them guards an object of the Throne behind which is a Emerald. The Manfaced creature guards the Lampstand: the Mind of Christ. The Calf faced creature guards the Censer: the Heart of Christ. The Lion faced creature guards the Altar: the Soul of Christ. Self-sacrificial; "greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends". All of us might be said to be cowardly in light of that simple standard. In the coming of the Son of Man which I discuss in my book from the perspective of a man who dies and is reborn as a child I relate what I learned about the 4th living creature: the flying one Dorothy has with her in that "House'; the Eagle: the "House" is the "Church of the Living God" which is the unity of the 7 churches in which each one represents an old heaven becoming "new". Nor is this all; it's not even scratching the surface. The Eagle guards a Reed like "unto a Rod"; the Strength of Christ. Remember that Jesus called John "a Reed shaken by the Wind". The Reed like unto a Rod is thus someone unshaken by the Wind of Doubt from the Devil as John was. The 4 colors of the Revelation are a little different that the 4 of Oz; but this was done to disguise what they represented until the Child would arrive who would unlock the allegory and prepare us for the journey we all must take: for we all must reach the Kingdom or perish as mortal men and women; but this is not the Destiny of Woman; to transcend the Fate of a Clown is to find one's soul is only immortal if it performs the Will which is it's Destiny: the Soul is female; even as Eve was Adam's visable Soul; as Dorothy was Baum's; or Balm to the Soul.
The 4 colors of the Throne are white; red; black and "pale- yellow" . On earth we find they are the four races; at the Chariot of the 4 winds; the white horse is the east wind; the red horse is the south wind; the black horse is the west wind; and the pale horse is the North wind on which sits Death. What has this to do with us? Everything; because the 4 races all lack something that they can only find from the One on the Emerald Throne in the Holy City. The Center. What is the kiss on Dorothy;s forehead? It is the seal of the Living God; which is why she could not be killed or harmed while she goes through the 7 overcomings which are the 7 steps on the Path of the Just by which one ascends the Ladder of Jacob: on the Yellow Brick Road; the Street of Pure Gold in the Holy City: who overcomes in the 7 churches in their now revealed charcater walks with God through the Door of Translation and is "not"; like Enoch. The White Race is Souless; which is why it has not the Zeal which fears not Death; but it learns of the Soul from the Black Race; the Red Race is Heartless; (which Cortez discovered when he saw them cutting out their defeated warriors hearts of the stone mountains at whose summit were the temples to the sun who is Death), they learn of the Heart from the yellow race when Death is destroyed by the Second Death; you'll find him on the White Horse with a name no man knows but he himself: "The Word of God" it is called. Well if God created all things with the Word then that Word can be used to unmake them: ergo the Word itself is the Second Death. In fact this is how John introduced me to the Word of God because all the Lord's people are to be prophets: but only if they follow a little child: as little children follow their Sheperd. The Black Race is mindless; they get that from the White Race when they are giving them their "soul" back.
Obviously the Scarecrow as the Black man or "mindless"; the Tin Woodsman as the Red Man or "heartless" (with that Ax: or is it a Tomahawk) and the Cowardly Lion as "souless" would bother some people; the fact they they all have to overcome Death to gain their "rewards" has much to do with the 7 rewards of the 7 churches of Revelation in light of the Tabernacle of God.
And the shoes? They are those of the Prodigal Son who comes home to the Father; and the Prodigal Son is Solomon: the Lost Sheep of Israel: Ephraim; the Northern Kingdom which became the lost 10 tribes when it followed Solomon into the Abyss.
 

This article is fantastic; the information you show us is very interesting and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it... Glass Bongs and Bong featuring Herbal Smoke, water bongs, bongs online head shop, Marijuana Alternative,glass water bongs, Hashish, Ganja, homemade bongs, Smokeshop, cannibis, legal smoking alternatives for herbal highs and aphrodisia. http://www.headshopinternational.com
 

These articles are fantastic; the information you show us is interesting for everybody and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it...:Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: Jaco Rental Beach Condo, Jaco Rentals Beach Condo,Vacation Condos in Jaco Beach for Rent. Visit us for more info at: http://www.jaco-bay.com/
 

The Wizard is one of the characters in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unseen for most of the novel, he is the ruler of the Land of Oz and highly venerated by his subjects. Believing he is the only man capable of solving their problems, sportsbook, Dorothy Gale and her friends travel to the Emerald City, the capital of Oz, to meet him. Oz is very reluctant to meet them, but eventually they are granted an audience. Every time the Wizard appears in a different form, once as a giant head, once as a beautiful fairy, once as ball of fire, and once as a horrible monster. http://www.enterbet.com
 

I like this blog is fantastic, is really good written. Congratulation. Do you want to see something more? Read it...:Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: beach real estate, condo, condos for sale. Visit us for more info at: http://www.costa-ricarealestate.com
 

The bottom line people, is that the money allegory in the Wizard of Oz is real and relevant to us today. The folks who fought the banks in the 1800's over the issue of money (including Presidents Jefferson and Jackson) warned us about what would happen to our democracy if private banks were allowed to take this power from the government. Their message is clear, we would lose our freedom, and here we are today...
 

When the Wow Gold wolf finally found the Buy Wow Goldhole in the chimney he crawled wow gold cheap down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was cheapest wow gold the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.
The next day the cheap wow gold little pig invited his mother over . She said "You see it is just as mygamegoldI told you. The way to get along in the world is to do world of warcraft gold things as well as you can." Fortunately for that little pig, he buy cheap wow gold learned that lesson. And he just k4gold lived happily ever after!
 

When the Wow Gold wolf finally found the Buy Wow Goldhole in the chimney he crawled wow gold cheap down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was cheapest wow gold the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.
The next day the cheap wow gold little pig invited his mother over . She said "You see it is just as mygamegoldI told you. The way to get along in the world is to do world of warcraft gold things as well as you can." Fortunately for that little pig, he buy cheap wow gold learned that lesson. And he just k4gold lived happily ever after!
 

When you need a great model home to tour, try the ones with Jaco rentals. They build fantastic houses.
 

Post a Comment

Home