I've added a few more links to the left sidebar. If you page down, you'll see several links that will give you some more background on spaghetti westerns and blaxploitation flicks. Be sure to check out Fistful of Leone for a good background on the groundbreaking Sergio Leone. Shobary's Spaghetti Westerns has some trailers you can watch of some of the more obscure spag westerns as well as a bunch of other neat stuff to download. Blaxploitation.com has a bunch on jiveass mofo' cinema, and I put a few other ones on there worth checking out. I also have links above it to all of the reviews I've had on here.
click here for the new...
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!Friday, October 27, 2006
W Django!
Time for another spaghetti western, 1972's W Django! (also called 'A Man Called Django'). Now, you might remember in my review of Corbucci's Django that due to the success of that film and the tendency of Italian cinema to milk a formula to death, there were over 20 or 30 films afterwards that had 'Django' in the title, with nothing else to do with the original. This is one of those films.
This film, directed by someone named Edward Mueller, stars Anthony Steffen (Antonio De Teffe) as Django, in the typical spag western revenge plot, as he hunts down a gang responsible for raping and killing his wife. Steffen looks like he could be the laboratory offspring of Peter and Henry Fonda and David Carradine.
This one falls strictly into B-movie territory here. Nothing unique or even quirky to set it appart from the pack, and very little artistry to be seen, although the sets and scenery look great. It seems to steal a few Leone-isms, such as Django's music box with his wife's picture, which seems eerily reminicent of Colonel Mortimer's pocket watch from 'For A Few Dollars More'. And Django's Mexican bandit sidekick, Carranza (Stelio Candelli) is like a knock-off of Eli Wallach's Tuco in 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly', going so far as to have the same plot device of Django turning him in for reward money and then shooting the rope just before he is about to be hanged, exactly what happened with Blondie and Tuco in TGTBTU.
The soundtrack is typical spag western fare, acoustic guitars and trumpets, and the DVD quality itself is fair. There was no restoration done to it; the film looks dirty and scratchy at times, and the sound has a lot of hiss and background noise.
The best I can say about it is it reminds me almost of a low-budget American no-name western that you might see late at night. It wasn't horrible by any means, and unlike Sabata, I was able to watch the whole thing. I wouldn't put it on my 'must-see list' either.
If you're just getting into the genre, there's nothing in here that would further your interest in it. As always, watch the Sergio Leone films first.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Some more photoblogging from Washington
Time for a long overdue photoblog, some more great ones from mine and Jenni's trip out to the North Cascades and Olympic Peninsula over the summer.
First up, looking northward at Lake Chelan in the North Cascades at sunset:
This is some 600+ year old pictographs on a cliff face on the western side of Lake Chelan:
The Olympic Mountains as taken on the way up Klahhane Ridge:
And finally, some fertility symbol petroglyphs at the Wedding Rocks near Cape Alava, which is the most western point in the continental U.S.:
Time for a laugh...Yacht Rock
Gonna shift away from our usual FBC politics-laden seriousness for a laugh. There's a series on Youtube now called 'Yacht Rock'... it's a 10+ episode comedy bit about the origins of the smooth rock that dominated the music charts in the late 70's-early 80's. Let's just say that Kenny Loggins and Michael McDonald are major players in this series. Who knew Hall and Oates were so crazy?
Here's episode 1:
Adblock
Saturday, October 21, 2006
They say funny things....
Every once in a blue moon, I journey over to the dark recesses of the right-wingnutosphere, this time wondering how they're dealing with the meltdown. Although it has nothing to do with the meltdown, I got a good laugh out of this:
Patrick J. Buchanan will be the next President of the United States. Mr. Buchanan is the most qualified man for the position. Mr. Buchanan is the most deserving of the position. Mr. Buchanan is the man whose views most closely align with the vast majority of the American voters. He will win an overwhelming, landslide victory in 2008...You just can't make this shit up.
Every American knows that something is wrong when four Mexican families move into the house next door and park their cars on the front lawn...
The election of 2008 may see a majority of African-Americans vote Republican for the first time in decades. This election may be the end of the unwavering African-American allegiance to the Democratic Party as African-Americans realize that Democrats have sold them out for the now more numerous Hispanic vote....
Friday, October 20, 2006
More on Kuo and the Religious Right suckers
Will the gifts ever stop? First up. the guy that brought down Nixon, John Dean, with 'David Kuo's Book "Tempting Faith": The Author's Agenda, the Authoritarian Behavior He Reports, And the White House's Response':
"There's really no reason, then, to think Kuo has any hidden political agenda. He's admitted his disappointment in the Bush Administration. And he's sought out the best forum possible -- a book where he can set forth the details of how he believes Bush and his aides are politically manipulating Christians -- at the best time, to call attention to his inside knowledge to those who share his beliefs. His agenda seems to be the simple one he claims: To convey to his fellow Christians how much he feels the Bush White House has let them down."Next up, Blumenthal thinks the game's up. I think he's being a bit premature: 'End of the culture war: Now the religious right has turned against the Republican Congress, the great revolution is over'
Does GOP stand for the Gay Old Party? Good article at the WaPo, 'Hill Republicans Air Out the Closet', about the gays in the GOP.
Continue gloating.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Atheism finds a market in the U.S.
"A fresh wave of atheistic books has hit the market this autumn, some climbing onto best-seller lists in what proponents see as a backlash against the way religion is entwined in politics."Harris and Dawkins are mentioned, and they even talk to Paul Kurtz. Worth a read.
Also, over at Smirking Chimp, have a look at Ben Tripp's 'I've Got Your God Right Here', where he comments about the relevance of the Reuters article:
"The article is about how atheist books are ascending the best-seller charts, and staying there, and golly, is this a trend?
I'll tell you the answer, although you already know it. I'm just being cute. There are millions and millions of perfectly sane Americans out there, claiming to be believers, or at worst agnostic, so please don't hit me, being held hostage by lunatics that really believe that 2000 years ago one guy, a tribal minority from North Africa, was born by magic through the direct intervention of the tribe's god, frigged around for 30 years, and was executed by the Romans after he took up doing magic. Being capable of magic, he came back to life and then disappeared.
Elsewhere in the world, people are being held hostage by believers in a variety of equally fruity religions, such as the one where a guy announced there was a new version of that earlier tribe's religion, and the previous version no longer applied; he did a bunch of magic too, including a visit to Heaven on a half-mule, half-donkey with wings, where he got to hang out with the previous guy that did magic.
The thing that is so terribly wrong with Faith is that it's predicated, every single time, on a terrible fallacy: that god just 'is'. There's no evidence of god, so god exists. Or everything is evidence of god, so god exists. Or as most Americans avow, it's in the Bible, so it's true. Never mind it's also in the Koran, which they hate and fear, and that every religion has had similar texts, going right back to the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, and on and on into the darkness. Faith is the enemy of Truth, because faith requires you take somebody's word for something, especially something utterly preposterous. Truth requires that you use your senses and your brain to observe what is, while Faith requires you use your senses and brain to observe what isn't."
Now, being part of America's most distrusted minority, I'm not jumping out of my seat here anticipating some big wave of reason and freethought to start sweeping the nation, but it gives me hope that maybe there are more of us than we think. Or maybe some people are starting to feel that it's ok to question their faith, that it's not as radical a notion as once thought.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
And the meltdown continues...
You know, with the complete implosion of the Republican party happening right before our eyes, you'd figure I'd be blogging 24-7. Been busy lately with school and the Osman campaign, so I haven't had too much time. And there's just too much good stuff to write about. Every day, it's something new, whether Foley-related (or some other cognitive-dissonance-inducing Repub gay thing), an Abramoff thing, or another 2 or three house races suddenly becoming competitive.
Hands down, my favorite has got to be the 'GOP done been playing the Christianists for suckers' thing, something I've talked about quite a bit here on FBC. And, with David Kuo's new book, 'Tempting Faith' making waves, the cat is out of the bag. Kuo, a self-described Konservative Kristian, was the #2 man at Bush's Office of Faith Based initiatives. The most overlooked signifigant thing about his book is when he reveals one of the few moments that Bushco spoke the absolute truth, when he describes many in the administration as describing Falwell, Dobson and others as 'nuts' and 'kooks'.
What's even more striking is the reaction from some evangelicals, a shoot the messenger tactic. The White House folks are pedaling the 'doesn't sound like the same guy we had working here angle', and radical cleric James Dobson had this to say, a combination of 'sour grapes' and 'waaahhhh, we're so persecuted':
Carpetbagger Report has some more on that."The release of this book criticizing the Bush administration's handling of its faith-based initiative program seems to represent little more than a mix of sour grapes and political timing. David Kuo's book doesn't hit shelves until next week, but excerpts released by media outlets paint the picture of a dissatisfied federal employee taking shots at the White House effort to connect faith-based nonprofit groups with legitimate societal needs.
"Big media will no doubt play this story to the hilt in the next several weeks, because it allows them to take aim at two of their favorite targets: President Bush and socially conservative Christians. Sadly, Kuo's characterization of his former colleagues, bosses and mission — mischaracterizations, really — will be fed to the public as truth."
A few other good links on the subject:
Howard Fineman's 'For the Faithful, A Trying Time'
Alan Wolfe's 'Are Evangelicals Over?'
I have to say that I'm loving the position the evangelicals are put in right now: continue to be played for suckers(which shouldn't be that hard when you look at what they believe in the first place), or stay home and sit out the election. They really have no place else to go. Gawddamn, it feels good to say that. Maybe they'll form a third party that will accomplish nothing but draw away GOP votes, another winning scenario for us in the reality-based community.
Finally, Keith Olberman has featured the Kuo book on his Countdown program last week. Here are parts 1 and 2. You'll enjoy. try not to gloat. Aw, hell, gloat. We've been waiting for this a long time.
Part 1 of Olbermann on 'The Nuts'
Part 2
FBC does the myspace thing
I went ahead and put up a myspace site. I'm still not sure why, because as of yet, most myspace sites seem really cluttered and hard to navigate. The only friend invites I've gotten so far are from 'hot lesbian myspace webcam sessions', which I suppose have some merit, but isn't what I'm looking for, I guess. I don't really know what to put up there. Anyways, it's http://www.myspace.com/fivebeforechaos, if you're interested in these kinds of things.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Another Osman video
This is my second foray into video editing, and much better than my first one. We had a real cameraman this time. Check it out, and if you live in central VT, please pass it on. It's a 9:30 bit on some of the issues this election.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Interview with Richard Dawkins
Excellent BBC interview with Richard Dawkins about his new 'God Delusion' book. He really knows how to hold his own. Check it out.
More on Woodward
(cartoon: Ward Sutton/Villiage Voice. Sutton Impact. October 9th, 2006. villagevoice.com)Also, Blumenthal on the Woodward turnaround, here.
More good news...
...on the War Against Stupidity. The Michigan Board of Education has approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes, but not intelligent design.
"The intent of the board needs to be very clear," said board member John Austin, an Ann Arbor Democrat. "Evolution is not under stress. It is not untested science."Good news.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Libertarian Democrats
I've always had a bit of a problem with Libertarians, kind of the same I have with ideological Socialists; their world view doesn't seem to take into account human nature or the way the world really works. Now, I am in total agreement with social libertarianism, it's just the economic part I've had a problem with, because it goes under the assumption that the free markets will somehow do the right thing if left unhindered by regulation. We don't need a USDA; selling bad meat is bad business, so they won't do it, or so the (il)logic goes. Somehow, I wouldn't find that comforting when I get E. coli from that uninspected hamburger. I think that's starting to change, as corporations now find themselves having more power than governments.
Markos, of Daily Kos fame, wrote the featured essay at the op-ed website of the libertarian think-tank the Cato Institute, called 'The Case for the Libertarian Democrat'. In it, he lays out a compelling case for libertarian support of the Democratic party, as the Republicans have abandoned much of what libertarians hold dear, and represent a great threat to freedom, and are too in bed with the corporations to offer any kind of protection from abuses of power. There's too many good points in the article to paraphrase here, so just go check it out here.
Even more refreshing than Kos' commentary is Harold Meyerson's commentary that is a response to Kos, called, 'Democrats, Liberals, and Libertarians.' He makes the telling point of Kos' idea being 'libertarianism for the real world':
..and more particularly in 21st-century America, encroachments on privacy, personal security, and the environment are as likely, if not more likely, to come from business as they are from the state, and these are threats that require state regulation if they’re to be mitigated or dispelled...
To argue, as a classic libertarian might, that a consumer is as free to switch banks as a bank is to sell its data neglects to note that a bank that doesn’t sell its data is at a competitive disadvantage with one that does, and a consumer who can’t find a privacy-protecting bank is simply out of luck. In short, the free play of markets can be a threat to individual freedom, unless individual freedom is a term that applies only to businesses and not to their consumers or employees or the people who must breathe their pollutants. This is something that New Deal liberals and social democrats have long understood and sought to redress. Indeed, the central insight of 20th century liberalism was that freedoms conflict, that a company’s freedom to dominate the marketplace was often in conflict with a consumer’s freedom to find a product at a fair price, or a worker's freedom to find a decent job or form a union, or a citizen’s freedom to have an equal voice in the legislative process. And that to establish some parity of freedoms, the state had to take a hand...
In short, as the balance of forces in capitalism shifts entirely towards investors and executives and away from employees, the need for a state that takes the burden of economic and health security off employers who won’t pick it up and employees who can’t pick it up is increasingly urgent. It’s hard to predict what exactly the tipping point will be as our private-sector welfare state continues to contract. But at some point, the Democrats will embrace a decisively larger role for the state in these matters because the public will demand it—not because the public will suddenly identify itself as liberal, but because there will be nowhere else to turn. And at that moment, I think even the Mountain State neo-libertarians will go along. After all, the New Deal didn’t arise because Americans suddenly awakened and proclaimed themselves progressive. It arose because the unchecked power and unregulated practices of major corporations and banks and the market itself led to an economic disaster.
Admittedly, Meyerson in no dyed-in-the-wool-Cato-fellow, he's a bit of a lefty, but damn it, he makes sense. Especially to me. I'm not in favor of some big nanny-state government; I don't believe that just because you're an American, you're entitled to a good life. But the tough-shit-you're-on-your-own mentality of many Repubs and Libertarians doesn't work for me either. What we're talking about here falls somewhere in between.
Monday, October 9, 2006
Donny Osman campaign commercial
I put together this commercial for the Osman campaign. I didn't have a good camera, so the sound and video quality is pretty bad, but the message comes across quite well.
Christofascist idiot watch update!
I unintentionally took a week off from the blog to catch up on other things that have fallen behind. Time for a C.I.W.U. This time, there is hope that evangelicals are finally having to deal with reality. Not the biblical made-up one they spend most of their time in, I mean the one that the rest of us live in. First up, an article in Friday's NYT called "Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers".
"Their alarm has been stoked by a highly suspect claim that if current trends continue, only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults. That would be a sharp decline compared with 35 percent of the current generation of baby boomers, and before that, 65 percent of the World War II generation.
Genuine alarm can be heard from Christian teenagers and youth pastors, who say they cannot compete against a pervasive culture of cynicism about religion, and the casual “hooking up” approach to sex so pervasive on MTV, on Web sites for teenagers and in hip-hop, rap and rock music. Divorced parents and dysfunctional families also lead some teenagers to avoid church entirely or to drift away.
Over and over in interviews, evangelical teenagers said they felt like a tiny, beleaguered minority in their schools and neighborhoods. They said they often felt alone in their struggles to live by their “Biblical values” by avoiding casual sex, risqué music and videos, Internet pornography, alcohol and drugs."
That's the sound of reality, folks. Yes, teenagers are an impressionable lot, as evidenced in the pathetic picture in the Times piece. But for many, the teen years are when intellectual development also starts to come into fruition, and when that happens, most of the evangelical bullshit can be seen by some for the bullshit that it is. Teens can see the hypocrisy of the leaders. I think a lot of teens are turned off by intolerance. And maybe some of them are actually paying attention in science class. And maybe they're figuring out that some of the more prurient 'urges' they feel are more than just 'temptation'. Or maybe it's just that what their religion tells them just doesn't jive with reality.
"Life – especially for a teenager – should be celebratory, not filled with the doom and gloom, fire and brimstone evangelicals love to rain down on everyone, including their own kids. As the muse Serendipity said in the 1999 film Dogma, some Christians – especially bible-thumping, everything-is-a-sin, we're-right-all-others-are-wrong evangelical Christians – don't celebrate spirituality, "they mourn it." And rightfully so, since they've killed it with their concocted anti-human dour dogma."
The hypocrisy as of late, is amazing. Just look at pious cultmaster James Dobson, one of the biggest and most influential blowtards on the religious right, on the Foley affair. It's just a joke concocted by the pages. This is a man who knows his 'flock' are being used, and he goes right along with it. Thomas Frank talked about, in his 'What's the Matter With Kansas' book, how the corporatist/big money Repubs use social issues to get the evangelical sheeple to support them. They may throw them a bone every now and then, but don't really do more than lip service. Just look at what bowtie hack pundit Tucker Carlson had to say about this:
"Carlson made the basic, direct statement that for years has needed making. “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued under questioning. When asked, “How do you know?” in response to his initial claim about the GOP, he gave the unequivocal answer: “Because I see them.” As Carlson said, he works with them, meaning members of the power elite or the opinion makers. He has moved among them for years. “They live on my street.”Following up the statements that “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals,” and “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued, “and “everybody knows that. The evangelicals are beginning to figure it out.”
'Figuring it out' is going to be a slow painful process, not just because of the lack of critical thinking skills in that gene pool; they've got nowhere else to go. Fine with me, I can't think of a more worthy and dangerous political subculture I'd like to see neutered. Dobson is well aware of this but goes along with it because it keeps him in a position of power as well. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Monday, October 2, 2006
Woodward
Any of you who know me know I'm a bit of a Nixon buff. I didn't respect or like him or anything. I was just amazed at the amount of sleaze and lust for unfettered power that the man was able to exude, yet he still manged do do a few good things (form the EPA, detente with China, etc.), unlike our current White House occuppant, who's hundreds of times more sleazy and power hungry, and hasn't done anything positive for the country as far as I can tell. He was the Big Bad Wolf of the late 60's. So, of course, Bob Woodward was a bit of a hero to me, with him and Carl Bernstein setting the course in motion that would bring down Nixon.
So of course, I was quite upset at his about-face ass-kissing of Bush in his 2002 'Bush at War' and 2004's 'Plan of Attack', as well as the subsequent gushing on his television appearances. Sell-out. Arrogant. Whatever, you know the words that popped into my head. I was wondering what could have possibly motivated this once important journalistic giant to cave in to Bush Kool-Aid madness. Now, all of a sudden, before Foleygate broke, Woodward's new book 'State of Denial' was getting the attention for being a big hit piece on the well-duh! notion that Bush hasn't been upfront with us about violence in Iraq, and that more dire warnings were given to and ignored by BushCo. before 9-11.
Although I haven't read the book, from what I've read from reviews and such, it doesn't seem to be anything that many of us haven't already known. I'm more intrigued by the about-face by Woodward. Sudden bout of conscience after a 6 year alternate-reality bender? Worried about tarnishing that legacy? Don't know, but part of me suspects the latter.
I'm not too much a fan of Repubs-turned-lefties. In some ways to me they're only slightly more credible than born-again Christians. But former darkside member Arianna Huffington nails it good on Woodward, in her 'Woodward as Journalistic Hero: The Real State of Denial':
"Without some accounting in the new book about how Woodward himself could have been in a state of denial for the first five years of the Bush presidency, it's hard not to reach the "damning conclusion" that Woodward didn't write "State of Denial" because he suddenly realized Iraq was going to hell. He wrote it because he realized his reputation was going to hell.Woodward, the classic Washington weathervane, knows, with his unerring weathervane instinct, that it's now okay to criticize Bush -- and that, indeed, anyone who wants a seat at the Big Persons' table after Bush leaves has to now admit Iraq has been a disaster. And Woodward definitely doesn't want to give up his special seat at the Big Persons' table."
The thing on my mind is the credibility factor. Sure, I believe Woodward circa 1974. He was a different guy in a different world with different journalism. But considering how much he fell in the last six years, can we still believe him, even if we really want to believe him? If it weren't for the fact that what he's now reporting pretty much fits into what we already know, I'd have to say I'm not too sure. Let's see what he doesn't for the next two years, because he's got a long way to go to redeem himself.
9-11 Conspiracy pt. 2
Between the Woodward thing and the Foley thing, my schadenfreude is running so high I can't comment on them right now. Just wanted to point you to a few more 9-11 conspiracy tidbits. The first is from Matt Taibbi , who has a follow-up on his smackdown of 9-11 conspiracy theorists. He now talks about the very relevant fact that although conspiracy theorists have their crazy little theories, none have been able to tie them together into a cohesive narrative:
"there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.
"The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:
A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.
For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).
Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!"
The second piece is a transcript of a recent Democracy Now! show between the creators of the 9-11 conspiracy film 'Loose Change' and the authors of a new book, 'Debunking 9-11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Hold Up to the Facts', who are the editors of the very non-political Popular Mechanics magazine. I have to say, the Pop Mech ones come out of this looking like the sane ones. Check it out here.
Now, I'll say it again... I don't buy the official story, and I am certain that there was a bit of willful negligence on the part of BushCo. But they are too stupid to pull off the things these conspiracy theorists believe, and the amount of coordination, as well as willingness that they would need from many gov't agencies simply could not happen, as well as the fact that in 5 years, not one person involved hasn't come forward. Hey, I hate Bush, too, I'm just not ready to let that hatred destroy my critical thinking skills. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
