Saturday, October 25, 2008

Fuzzy math

Sandy Levinson

In a very interesting column that presumes an Obama victory and calls on Republicans to invest all of their energy (and dollars) in saving senators, David Frum writes,

2. We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House -- and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government. There's a lot of poll evidence that voters prefer divided government. By some estimates, perhaps as many as 8 percent of voters consciously cast strategic votes in favor of division. These are the voters we need to be talking to now.

His argument that Repuablicans should be talking to such voters strikes me as sensible. What is nonsensical, though, is the assertion that "voters prefer divided government." If only eight percent "consciously cast stratetic votes in favor of division," that entails, at least by the old traditional math that I learned many decades ago, that 92% of the voters don't vote strategically to preserve divided government--some of them may vote for an opposite party senator because he/she is good at getting earmarks, but that's quite different from Frum's point. This exemplifies not only a propensity for fuzzy math (do Republicans know any other kind?), but the ability of "median voters," whether in the electorate or the United States Supreme Court, to create governmental incoherence and gridlock. Now maybe it is true that most voters prefer divided government to one controlled by the opposition. But that is a distinctly second-best preference, and if that is his argument, he should note that the overwhelming number of voters in fact have a first preference for unified government (controlled by their own party).


Where were all these voters in 2004? Where, specifically, was Frum?

This comment has been removed by the author.

All I know is that if every voter in this country was a decent, rational human being, not one single Republican would be elected to any office, be it federal, state or local.

Not one.

This comment has been removed by the author.

I agree with Prof. Levinson that few voters actually vote in such a way as to implement this strategy. But I think the idea appeals to a much larger number. Its appeal reflects genuine frustration with the kind of government that results from winner-take-all election rules and a two party system.

People try term limits, redistricting reform, super-majority requirements for passing budgets and bond measures, open primaries, "non-partisan" elections -- all kinds of things -- hoping to mitigate the twin evils of domination by one party and bi-partisan gridlock. The idea that divided government is a good thing is just another one of these chimeras.

I'm actually one of the voters he speaks about that vote in a way to try to even out if one party is getting a bit too powerful. However, what he fails spectactularly to take into consideration (of course) is that we don't vote that way when we're pissed off. This election, it's all about punishing for the past 8 years and the current financial collapse... not providing checks. And it's also hilarious how many Republican/Right bloggers are now warning about how the left can't be trusted with too much power, when they certainly weren't worried about it when it was the other way around. Well, not actually hilarious so much as hypocritical....

Um, I hate to bring this up, because I agree with Sandy Levinson's post nearly in its entirety, but, um, fuzzy mathematics is a valid branch of mathematics, comprising fuzzy logic, fuzzy set theory, and fuzzy arithmetic.

What David Frum is engaged in, by the same traditional measures that gave Prof. Levinson his 92%, isn't fuzzy math, it's erroneous math.


Wow. Is that maybe just a little extreme? Neither Demsocrats nor Republicans have the corner on evil, nor good. It's in the details of individuals and the acts they perform, isn't it?


Gee Robert, I think it's just matter of plain facts: the Republican Party has degenerated into a criminal organization. I don't think every Democrat is a saint, but the Republicans are new-age Nazis --- the RAPE of Iraq, kidnappings, torture, murder, systematic subversion of the law...

They've basically committed every crime the Nazis did except for genocide. They haven't been as indiscriminate as the Nazis were, but then the Nazis were fighting a real war with folks who could actually fight back, and regardless, they have in fact been trying to establish precedents for future use. The fact that they aren't so obviously repulsive as the Nazis just makes them that much more dangerous, especially since they're domestic not foreign.

The only thing that's extreme here is the extent to which they have betrayed both the nation and humanity.

Just when I thought that Frum was jumping the shark with the paranoia about the coming Dem commissars seeking to eradicate conservatives, there comes charles with one of his rants comparing conservatives to nazis who need to be eradicated.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.


What I want is to hold these disgraceful war criminals accountable to the law for their crimes. Wouldn't mind seeing every corrupt lawyer like you disbarred for life either.

I have no illusions that we will be able to defeat you fascists in every election, but that's what you deserve, and it's also what would be best for the country. Your dishonestly is just absolutely repulsive and disgraceful.

What I found interesting about David Frum's op-ed in the Washington Post was his special pleading for his own livelihood.

Frum wrote:-

"Unchecked, this angry new wing of the Democratic Party will seek to stifle opposition by changing the rules of the political game. Some will want to silence conservative talk radio by tightening regulation of the airwaves via the misleadingly named "fairness doctrine"; others may seek to police the activities of right-leaning think tanks by a stricter interpretation of what is tax-deductible and what is not."

Frum first pleads for the continued unrestrained existence of conservative talk radio and by implication for the continued "fair and balanced" coverage of Murdoch's "Faux" News.

While this not quite the "special pleading" of advocating for the continued abuse of charitable status by the organisation that pays your stipend (see below), I do not suppose that the Neocon pundits who line up to appear on 'Faux News' and talk radio do so for free. Frum does not disclose his earnings from his media appearances.

I think there is a case for revisiting the now-repealed 1949 "fairness doctrine" (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]) that was part of FCC regulation of the broadcast media - upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The doctrine was dismantled under the Reagan administration, and while there is no plausible argument to be made for any restraint on press or internet freedom (other than the general law of defamation), the broadcast media are different and I would argue for a "public service" obligation for broadcasters as part of the price for being given a licence to print money.

Frum is, of course, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Although it was founded in 1943, the AEI was transformed by donations from extreme right wing billionaires as part of the "shift to the Right" of American politics inspired by the Powell Memorandum.

Ronald Reagan said of the AEI in 1988:-

"The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks--and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."

In an address to the AEI on 26 February 2003 George W Bush Jnr said:-

"At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds. I want to thank them for their service, but I also want to remind people that for 60 years, AEI scholars have made vital contributions to our country and to our government, and we are grateful for those contributions.".

Indeed: one has only to look at the present List of AEI Scholars (sic) to see the extent to which the AEI is a propaganda vehicle for Neconservatism, an advocacy vehicle for the Bush Administration and a refuge for Neocon personalities as they jump ship from Republican administrations or otherwise leave office.

According to the AEI 2006 Annual Report the AEI had revenues of US$28.4 million of which 21% came from corporate America and 16% from the foundations (of the far right) - all of which was tax deductible because the AEI claims to be a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

As the US IRS web site the tax exemption afforded is that for charitable purposes still very broadly those originally defined by the words the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses Act 1601, 43 Elizabeth I c. 4:-

"Whereas Landes Tenementes Rentes Annuities Profittes Hereditamentes, Goodes Chattels Money and Stockes of Money, have bene heretofore given limitted appointed and assigned, as well by the Queenes most excellent Majestie and her moste noble Progenitors, as by sondrie other well disposed persons, some for Releife of aged impotent and poore people, some for Maintenance of sicke and maymed Souldiers and Marriners, Schooles of Learninge, Free Schooles and Schollers in Universities, some for
Repaire of Bridges Portes Havens Causwaies Churches Seabankes and Highwaies, some for Educacion and prefermente of Orphans, some for or towardes Reliefe Stocke
or Maintenance of Howses of Correccion, some for Mariages of poore Maides, some for Supportacion Ayde and Helpe of younge tradesmen Handicraftesmen and persons decayed, and others for reliefe or redemption of Prisoners or Captives, and for aide or ease of any poore Inhabitantes concerninge paymente of Fifteenes, setting out of
Souldiers and other Taxes..."

The IRS web site sets out Exemption Requirements the supposed limitations on 501(c)(3) organisations and I suggest that it is high time that the tax exempt situation of bodies such as the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society be revisited. There can be no objection to persons donating to advocacy groups for a particular political viewpoint, but I question whether it should be at taxpayer expense.

I'm sure the likes of John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Irving Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolofwitz and John Yoo (to name but a few of the many "loathsome spotted reptiles" who infest the AEI) all being advocates of "small" government and lower taxation would be content to see the tax exemption abolished - and perhaps take reduced stipends from the AEI propaganda machine instead.


As a Brit, you may not be aware of the underlying purpose of the Dem intent to revive the Orwellian named "Fairness Doctrine."

Conservative news and opinion media on have been significantly outdrawing its liberal counterparts in audience share.

Conservative talk radio dominates the ratings while the leftist experiment Air America is alway on the verge of bankruptcy.

In cable news, Fox has been the clear ratings leader for years while the Dem outlet MSNBC is an afterthought. CNN has managed to stay afloat by bringing in conservative content providers.

This ratings differential arises from the fact that conservatives are the leading consumers of news and now have several viable alternatives from the major Dem news media outlets.

The Dem intent on resurrecting the "Fairness Doctine" is to destroy conservative opinion media by forcing stations to concurrently run equal amounts liberal opinion that no one wants to see. Meanwhile, the major Dem news media outlets will continue to offer liberal opinion under the guise of "news" and will be free of this equal time requirement.

The cable TV news opinion programming will most likely be subject to the same "equal time" requirement. Fox News will have to play the same game the Dem media has been playing for years and bury their opinion into the "news."

In sum, the intent of restroring the "Fairness Doctrine" is to restore the virtual monopoly of the Dem news media dominated by Dem reporters which even the Russians can see acts as a propaganda arm for the Dem Party along the lines of Putin's state media.

The corpse that wouldn't die....:

"Bart" DePalma:

Conservative talk radio dominates the ratings while the leftist experiment Air America is alway on the verge of bankruptcy.

You were gloating about its imminent demise a couple of years ago, IIRC.

But I do hear that Bill O'Lielly is dropping his radio show.

Then again RW foamer talk radio serves its purpose. It's going to be "welfare" for all the unemployed former Republican elected officials....



It's actually "fuzzy logic" that's a recognized area of study. Calling it fuzzy math is just so demeaning.

This indeed seems to underlie a lot of right-wing thought. Analysis is beyond them, so they apply an ill-defined set of descriptive terms, apply simplistic reasoning, and come to a questionable conclusion.

It is generally understood among people for whom fuzzy logic is one of a set of tools for solving control problems that it works reasonably well in quite a few cases if done well. Done poorly, or in circumstances where it is inappropriate, it is a recipe for disaster.

Not to disagree with the core of Charles' point, but I'm not sure this would lead me to vote for some loser Dem for city council of East Pookersville against a respectable Republican sort, who has nearly no part in the crimes he references.

Ron Paul has his advocates in the blogosphere, but apart from some distressing sentiments that lead me not to support the guy generally, his continual support of the Republican brand warrants disgust. His parties leaders in Congress warrant him to be an I, even if he joins their caucus ala the gentleman from Vermont.

But, I think various local Rs, who in various cases warrant more respect than some Democrats, cannot be put in that category.

Anyway, Rob makes good sense. Divided gov't does as well, but it is helpful if the other side is more credible than they are now.

And, not have the likes of Frum support it, though as with those opposing Bush for their political lives in November, sometimes checks and balances are reflected in some less savory sorts.

Well Ron Paul is a wing-nut who's endorsed the wing-nut Constitution Party candidate. From what I know of him, it appears he's a really nice guy who was an exemplary physician, but laissez-faire economics are pure insanity, and the social axes these people grind are pure bigotry, whether religious, racial, and / or sexual. These clods are "states rights" advocates who think the South was right in the Civil War. That should tell anyone all they need to know.

IMO Bob Barr has been by far the best of these "libertarian" types because of his clear opposition to the Bush administration's torture and detainee policies, but he's still a wing-nut who believes in laissez-faire economics. I have no patience with such folks: the love of money is the root of all evil, and it's just pure insanity.

i've been advocating the same thing for several years m. mourad.. but with less eloquence and historical grounding ..

I can only tell you that I'm splitting my ticket between Obama and Congressional Republicans. But that's more because I'm a Republican who's extremely disenchanted with McCain than because of some kind of penchant for divided government. About Frum, though, I think you kind of acknowledge that his point's a little stronger than you let on when you mention the median voters. Most voters don't split tickets, much less strategically split tickets in favor of division, but I'm guessing that a lot of undecided, persuadable, and median voters do. And they're the only ones whose votes are left for the taking. So Frum's argument makes some sense.


I do not think it is altogether true that our resident LSR is yet a "corpse" although, hopefully, he may be somewhat depressed.

As the Christian bible says:-

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them"
(Matthew 7:15-20).

It is becoming increasingly clear that notwithstanding the best efforts of the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, 'Faux' News, and the other constituent parts of the extreme right's propaganda machine, in this general election campaign, the great American public is not buying the "greed is good" message. The political fruits of the extreme right's corrupt tree are now in evidence and the people seem on the brink of cutting down the tree and casting it into the fire.

Although there is still more that a week to go to election day, the polls look good. Nate Silver puts the electoral vote at 349.1to 188.1 with McCain having just a 4,3% chance of winning. There are distinct signs of "sauve qui peut" in the ranks of the Republican Party.

Obviously, this may not appeal to Bart. Just as there are still some in Spain who regret the passing of the Franco dictatorship and those in Italy who mourn the passing of "Il Duce", there will always also be those of a like political mind in the USA, but I shall be perfectly happy for Bart to spend the next four years gnashing his teeth in the outer darkness.

Although in my book Obama is on the centre-right of the political hemisphere and is most certainly not my idea of a "liberal", I am now hopeful that we are not going to see in 2009-2012 a US Administration so far to the right that no meaningful dialogue with the rest of the world will be possible.

But, I also hope that in the course of the next four years the windows will be flung open, and the sunlight let in to shine upon the evil doings of the Bush Administration. There can be no better remedy than exposure to public scrutiny: whether by way of impeachment, prosecution, public enquiry or whatever.

I refuse to believe that Americans are inherently immoral or disposed to wrong-doing. The extraordinary generosity of the American people towards Europe during WW2 and in the post war reconstruction gives the lie to that. I believe that such a people can once again provide leadership and inspiration to the rest of the world - and with the mess we are all in at this time, that leadership is going to be just as necessary as it was in 1945 at the end of WW2.


The fact that someone like Shrum is advocating ticket splitting should give you food for thought.

It would be a very bad thing if the Republican Party where to wither away. Healthy democracy requires there to be an alternative for the people to turn to - indeed, I would argue that there should be a change every 8-10 years if only to recall to the political classes that it is the people who decide who shall govern them.

But just as the UK Conservative Party needed some time in the wilderness to reform and renew, there is a powerful argument that a time in the wilderness would be good for Republicanism too.

mourad: "...Although in my book Obama is on the centre-right of the political hemisphere and is most certainly not my idea of a "liberal"..."

You can say that again. Only in juxtaposition to PNAC can someone advised by Zbigniew Brzezinski pass themselves off as "liberal". But it is indeed PNAC to which the Obama/Biden team is juxtaposed, and, while it is only the difference between scary and abhorrent, it is a salient difference indeed.

mourad: "I refuse to believe that Americans are inherently immoral or disposed to wrong-doing."

Nor any other group. But we are all pretty much equally prone to the manipulations by which we become Goebbels' pawns. It can happen here or anywhere else, and indeed the laws have been enacted under the PNAC which legalize most anything the rulers deem necessary. I can only hope the new rulers think it is in their best interest to undo some of those laws, rather than rationalizing to themselves that such power is safe so long as it is in their hands. No one should have the kind of power found in the 2001 AUMF or the 2006 MCA or HSPD-20, least of all in a land constituted on the belief that prevention of tyranny is government's first job.

Uh, can someone clue me in, wtf is LSR?

The American Enterprise Institute is a longtime and I would say effective mouthpiece for the far right and big business. Frum carries water for both in trying to maintain their power in the Congress.

Frum's bushwa about voters wanting divided government is the usual AEI pretense that their PR is supported by evidence. Of course no amount of evidence would bring an AEI piece to utter that the voters want a government tough enough to rein in the extraction industries.

Frum's just doing his job. There's no reason we need to pretend he what he presents is analysis, or is based on evidence, or merits discussion. His crappy math is an example of the weakness of his position, but he doesn't care; he gets paid to advance and protect the interests of those with weak positions every day. Hell, if their positions had merit, perhaps they wouldn't need the hired help to pretend they do.


I agree with all you say about the abuses of power of the Bush Administration and I could not agree with you more about Zbigniew Brzezinski. Some time ago on this thread I posted at some length about Afghanistan. I referred to an interview Brzezinski gave to the French weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 in which he claimed credit for starting the supply of assistance to the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan in the latter days of the Carter Administration. He was asked:-

"Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.”

I said in that post: "Nothing could be more indicative of the dangers of transporting a world view shaped by experience of the Soviet satellite system in Western Europe into the complexities of Afghan, and particularly Pushtun fundamentalism."

I have not changed that view. I think Obama will have the good sense to consult widely on Afghanistan - I certainly hope so, because, as I set out in more detail in my earlier post, the situation there is one of enormous difficulty.

BTW - In answer to your enquiry as to the meaning of "LSR" it's an abbreviation - explained on this thread in a response to a post some way down from a blogger using the handle "Conrad's Ghost".

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

But he was right. If I were Jimmy Carter, and I had known that arming the Afghans would (a) help pave the way for the Soviet collapse but (b) lead to 9/11 and other events like it, I still would've armed the Afghans. I don't think that's even a tough choice. The Cold War was that costly and that dangerous to our nation's survival, and really that of the entire planet.

@mourad, Thanks for the enlightenment, although the self-satisfying nature of the subject person's methods would lead me to privilege the epithet SCCS over LSR. (Or is "choking the chicken" not part of the vernacular across the pond?)

Pray Allah, Ever Merciful, you are right about Obama consulting widely.

Maybe you can answer for me, why wouldn't "...a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the [excised] empire..." apply with equal force to our involvement now in that same area? What's Brzezinski's answer to that, or has no one asked?


About a fortnight ago, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of UK forces in Afghanistan was reported as saying: ‘we’re not going to win this war’ and that talks with the Taliban are the way forward. Earlier there were leaked remarks attributed to the British ambassador in Kabul to the effect that foreign troops were part of the problem and that what was needed was an ‘acceptable dictator.’

I think some similar remarks about needing to talk to the Taliban have been attributed to General Petraeus.

I could go on at length about how an inadequate number of troops has led to the excessive use of air power which has alienated the population, about how the Taliban control the territory at night, about the incompetence and corruption of the Karzai government, about the fundamental mistake the USA made in electing to ally itself to a brigand (war-lord), about the need to understand the relationship between Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, about the need to understand Pakistan itself and how that state is also bastion of medieval fundamentalism, and that it will take years of development aid to have Afghanistan (and for that matter Pakistan) emerge into states capable of supporting relatively stable democracies.

Whether we like it or not, US support for the mujahiddin, the proxy war with the Soviets under Reagan, and the invasion under Bush/Blair, have left an unholy mess which is not going to be capable of any tidy solution. There will be no "instant democracy" and there is unlikely to be stability for many years.

I would have a preference for a further international conference under UN auspices followed by a jirga in Afghanistan quite soon after the transition in the USA.

I would hope that the parties might explore the possibility of a restoration of the Afghan Royal family. Mohammad Zahir Shah died in Kabul in July 2007, but his sons survive him. Zahir Shah came from a long line of ethnic Pashtun rulers (Durrani tribe, I think) and his reign was one of the most peaceful periods of Afghanistan's turbulent history. He supported an end to the wearing of the veil for women, used foreign aid for development and managed to keep a balance between rival Soviet and Western interests in his country. Tribal leaders might rally to the Royal family in a way they would not to anyone seen as imposed by the West and his sons would have their father's memory to give them a legitimacy the Karzai government has not been able to achieve.


I do not agree. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan might very well have come to grief with or without US intervention.

Likewise, it is probable that the Soviet system would have collapsed anyway - it could not sustain itself economically.

Mourad: "I would have a preference for a further international conference under UN auspices"

The whole post makes sense to me, but it leaves open my earlier implied question of why Obama, Brzezinski's advisee, speaks of escalation. Presumably Brzezinski of all people would know better.

it is probable that the Soviet system would have collapsed anyway - it could not sustain itself economically.

It's true, but (a) we overestimated them and didn't realize that, and (b) it still could've taken a while longer.

[H]e should note that the overwhelming number of voters in fact have a first preference for unified government (controlled by their own party).

This statement assumes you are a reliable member of a party, rather than an independent.

If you are an independent, by definition you have no party and probably make your decisions based on the individuals involved and the circumstances of that election So, you are not necessarily hoping for unified government at all, let alone unified government controlled by 'your' party.

Indeed, even if you are a soft Dem or a soft Republican, you may recognize the value of divided government. That is because the soft members of each party are typically those who lean toward the middle and recognize the craziness represented by the extreme of their own party. Having at least some leverage to offset against their party, whether it be the executive branch, either house of Congress, or a filibuster-proof minority in the Senate controlled by the other party is enough to allow for the triangulation that most moderates need to get their party to the center.

The case of Jim Jeffords is a good example of that. He got along just fine as a Republican when government was divided, but once the GOP took control of everything, he stuck out like a sore thumb and ended up leaving his party.

C2H5OH -- I stand by my statement. Fuzzy logic can be derived from fuzzy sets (and often is), fuzzy arithmetic derives from there as well. In fact, if you want to claim that there is only one such piece of fuzzy mathematics, I'd pick fuzzy set theory before I'd pick fuzzy logic. Really.

And if you're in the Bart Kosko world, he admits one further: fuzzy thinking (which is fuzzy logic based, because it's based on a graphical interpretation of antinomies).

While there is every merit in having a vocal majority in a legislature, at the end of the day, the task of a legislature is to legislate or not as it sees fit.

I see no merit whatsoever in having a paralysed legislature. All that is achieved by the 60 vote rule in the Senate is to encourage pork - because that is the means generally used to pick off opposition votes.

There would be considerable merit in the Senate changing its rules to abolish the 60 vote rule for most if not all legislative votes.

From Frum's lips to whose ears?

Let us be grateful to people who make us happy, they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts