MyDD :: Democrats Must Make Social Security Part of a Broader Ideological Debate

Democrats Must Make Social Security Part of a Broader Ideological Debate

by Chris Bowers, Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:15:19 PM EST

Back on Friday, when commenting on the recent Democracy Corps strategy memo that showed Democrats were not gaining in a broad political sense from our still rising gains in the Social Security debate, Liberal Oasis made the following observation (emphasis in original):

MyDD recently flagged a new strategy memo from James Carville and Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps.

It concluded that even though the Republicans are losing the Social Security debate, they're not yet paying a political price for it, the way Dems did after the '94 health care debacle.

This should be no surprise.

As LiberalOasis has noted several times before [each word is a separate link], while Dem unity has been good on Social Security, the messaging has been scattered.

And as one MyDD commenter put it: "Dems have been successful so far in defending social security, what we have adequately failed to do is attack the GOP."

To take it one step further, Dems haven't used the issue to make the larger case why their view of the role of government is better for America than the GOP's.

While I am not sure if this is the main reason the Party is not making broad gains from its success on the individual issue of Social Security, it certainly seems like a real possibility. We are not doing a good enough job of connecting the differences between Republicans and Democrats on Social Security as part of a larger ideological divide. This is especially unfortunate because the country is very much ripe for a populist articulation of the role of government as a positive force in the economic life of our nation. Poll findings from Pew last month, and CBS more recently, demonstrate this:

On several occasions (for example, here and here), Republicans have urged their party to make the debate on Social Security a broader ideological debate about the role of government. I for one, certainly hope they start using that tactic, since the country is so clearly opposed to their philosophy on Social Security.

Conservatism could take a real hit if it is connected to such an unpopular view of government. Even more so, liberalism and progressivism could make real gains, so I hope that Democrats become willing to discuss Social Security as part of a broader ideological debate. After all, along with almost 80% of the nation, progressives, liberals and Democrats believe it is the responsibility of the government to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly. However, this is something that the vast majority of elected Republican officials clearly do not believe. The divide is ideological, and we need to point it out as being such. It's about growing liberalism, stupid.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment

Liberal Oasis is right on! (none / 0)

I've said several times that a better title for Frank's book would have been What's the Matter With the DLC?. If Dems could pull together a solid bloc to oppose the bankruptcy abomination and the class action restirictions, they could send a clearer message to the voters of Kansas about what they stood for. How can they pretend to be the party of the middle class and working class if a significant group of the most powerful and respected Democrats are voting for corporate American instead of working America?

I defy anyone to make the argument that Biden was representing the voters in his district with his support for bankruptcy restrictions.

Biden, Dodd, Feinstein, Kohl, Dodd, Lieberman, the Nelson twins, Carper, Conrad and Landrieu are going to be a rotating corp of Faux Republican Corporate Scumbags Du Jour for the next two years. The usual suspects in the House will grease the skids for a whole lot of anti-middle class economic issues in that house as well.

Dems need to articulate the differences between the parties more clearly on Social Security. It would be far more persuasive if they had a half dozen kitchen talble economic issues that defined the party. Republicans can continue to split working class voters because the Dems have abandoned the New Deal with the exception of Social Security. On fundamental economic issues, Nader is right. Aside from Social Security, there is no difference between the Dems and the GOPers.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:39:12 PM EST

Re: Liberal Oasis is right on! (none / 0)

Speaking of Faux Republican Corporate Scumbags, why did you list Boxer and Feingold as senators to call over the bankruptcy bill? Did they vote for it or what?

by craverguy on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liberal Oasis is right on! (none / 0)

If Boxer was included, you may be referring to a somewhat jumbled list in which I was also including supporters to encourage them to loudly oppose bankruptcy restrictions.

Feinstein, on the other hand, voted the bankruptcy bill out of committee along with Kohl, from Wisconsin. I'm counting any vote at any step of the process as a betrayal. Feinstein has shown her true colors before. I could be wrong, but I believe she voted for class action restrictions. She was on Josh Marshall's Fainthearted Faction list for a long time, because she was iffy on Social Security.

Feinstein also pissed a lot of people off for her support of Gonzalez. I'm going to have to make a list of the actual votes of the Faux Republican Corporate Scumbags Du Jour. Your list could vary, but the usual suspects are a pretty consistent group.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Up the Ante (none / 0)

Reid has rightly insisted on Bush's abandonment of private accounts as a price for coming to the table.

I would go further: suspension of all future Bush tax cuts and repeal of those for the highest earners in the interest of balancing the budge and alleviating the pressure on entitlement programs. If he does not want to play, than he has to live with having his nose rubbed in it.

by Bob H on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 08:47:52 PM EST

Re: Up the Ante (none / 0)

Not enough. Look at the federal budget. While trust funds rack up consistent annual surplusses of $250 billion per year. general government flubs away with a deficit of over $600 billion ($700 billion with full funding of the Iraq thing instead of these supplementary budget raids.

To pay for that ALL non-payroll taxes would have to go up by around 60%. Repealing the Bush tax cuts simply lets Social Security bail out the remaining nonsense.

And if you want an honest forebear, FDR more than tripled tax revenues between 1941 and 1944 and 1945. Yes, he ran deficits but given what we were facing they were modest indeed.

Some social security crisis.

by David Kowalski on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Quo Vadis, Democrats (none / 0)

Centrist / Leftist; Accomodationist / Opppositionist; Idealist / Realist; DLC / DFA; H. Clinton / Russ Feingold; Tactical / Strategic; National / Coastal-Urban.....

Ezza Klein's call to arms a few days ago also addresses the Democrats failure to address the larger questions of our beliefs and the proper role of government:

"As successfully as the Democrats seem to be repelling Bush's assault on Social Security, we still show no conception of how to turn our defensive entrenchment into a powerful counterattack. We cheer when one of our number tags privatization as an attack on Social Security's legitimacy, but what about on the legitimacy of government?"

Ezra quotes and links to the full text and online audio of FDR's masterful 1936 re-election campaign speech, where FDR repeated again and again the refrain "For all these we have only just begun to fight."

Listening and reading to FDR's vision of the role of government and his call to arms to the public to fight a Republican onslaught against government is a tonic and inspiration for all of us in this period of uncertainty regarding the Democratic Party 'quo vadis" (which road) choices.

Ezra's summary of his post says it all and says it well:

"...this isn't a legislative scuffle but a philosophical war. FDR would have agreed. Why don't we?"

Listen to, and read, the FDR speech: http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html".

You will see that we have a long road ahead to regain ground that we have lost.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:22:23 PM EST

Intellectual Honesty (none / 0)

I was very pleased today to see that a self-professed conservative and president of a Manhattan-based asset management firm actually aspired toward intellectual honesty in a discussion on the privatization of Social Security. I want to thank The Cunning Realist for supplying additional examples of how those "in the know" do actually realize and count on the fact that the privatization plan for Social Security will shift more of the current private sector financial risks onto the public sector. In his posting he shared two personal discussions he had on the issue of private accounts. One was with an executive at a large publicly-traded technology firm and the other was an employee at one of the largest investment banks in the world.

This executive wants private accounts that invest in the stock market and his stock in particular. He sees private accounts as transferring risk from him to the public--risk, he surely knows, that is already being transferred through instruments such as IRA's, 401K's, and the explosion of mutual funds over the past decade. He's profited handsomely from that transfer of risk. From a corporate perspective he wants that transfer to continue, and from a personal one he needs it to continue to support his lifestyle.

And, without surprise, The Cunning Realist found that the bank employee's sentiments concurred.

He said: "I want that dumb public money coming across my desk." It's debatable whether that money would come across HIS desk as well as how much the financial industry in general would benefit from private accounts, but his expectation is clear.

Recently public interest groups such as the Campaign for America's Future have come under attack by supporters of private acccounts for suggesting that securities firms would profit from the President's Social Security plan. If executives at large publicly-traded technology firms and employees at large investment banks actually will not see any profit from this planned shift of public funds into the private sector, maybe somebody should tell them. This would likely dry up any remaining support for the President's privatization plan.

The attempts by the administration to downplay these issues, and in some cases even deny them, I believe, have been intellectually dishonest. It is time for the president to clearly state how his plan will work so it can be openly and honestly discussed.

You can read The Cunning Realist's inaugural post at http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-opening-comments-and-bit-about.html

by Machado on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:57:50 PM EST

Re: Intellectual Honesty (none / 0)

FWIW, with scoop technology, you can add brackets [ ] to each side of your text and url, i.e. [The Cunning Realist url]

Scoop will convert it to a hyper link.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why we are not gaining traction on other related (none / 0)

issues.

Because simply the GOP have better framed their entire agenda (even if every one is a Trojan horse for their real constituency - corporate America) and its so easy for them to say our agenda is nothing but tired old ideas, etc.

We are in the position of defending something - the infrastructure of the new deal. So we are the conservatives in that sense.

And we occupy the conservative mind - space on issues like the budget deficit and environmental conservation. They would say their environmental approach is "progressive" in the sense that it advances the economic interests of the American people, but in fact it only advances the interests of energy corporations.

So in very simple terms they are the party advocating change of some type while we are advocating adhering to existing relationships and structures.

We have however made widespread progress on terms like "corporatism" and we have been successful tagging them with being more concerned about the interests of corporations than the interests of average people.

The reason why this is not working for us at the ballot is that we no longer have a true mass media reaching average people which enlightens them about the damage the BushCo agenda is doing to the interests average American.

The existing mass media favors Bush and the GOP and they do not cover the downside and costs of the BushCo corporate agenda on the average person.

When the downside to any issue is mentioned, its always no one is too blame, it is as it must be.

Another reason we don't have more traction is that as a party our credibility on every issue is threatened by the DINO whores who go off the reservation on policy and messaging with impunity.

This is why we have to get rid of the DLC and punish DINOs who adhere to that ideology (fuck the working class / suck up to the corporate class).

The Clinton era is long gone, no one on the political scene who can make the "third way" work. And in fact many of Clinton's policies like favoring NAFTA (favoring job/industry exporting) have lost us the constituency we need to be a viable contendor in national races, that is Clinton's real legacy.

The GOP have the American corporate mass media and they can cover their lying and stealing while we can't get traction even when we can and do construct a frame for the issues which puts forward our more popular views.

by leschwartz on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 10:17:53 PM EST

Re: Why we are not gaining traction on other relat (none / 0)

Forgot to mention, rhetorically, in the US/Western culture, anything "progressive" has some positive valency, while conservatism lacks that rhetorical attraction.

So we have to deny them the ability to say they are being progressive about anything and we have to frame their entire agenda as favoring corporations at the expense of average Americans.

by leschwartz on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 10:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are not gaining traction (none / 0)

DLC is not functioning at all except usual "Clintonesque Days" mode. Don't they know it's over? New leadership needed, oust From [corporate do-nothing]. We must unite entire party and show American people we are capable of Leading, and can wrap ourselves around more than one message at a time. Look at wimp-out on Bankrupt Bill and party's toleration of Feingold, et al. Democrats cannot JUST be seen as being in opposition without OFFERING vision/ideas of our own. We have been admirably united on Social Security, but we must offer alternatives and ideas to Americans about SS, while still holding fast against Bush's Privatization. We must get much better and much [faster] at framing our language and speaking with clarity that will resonate. It would be good to have some Crisis Management here. We need groups of Democratic House and Senate members who can articulate and create forums and events on issues [continually] throughout the country. We need think tanks and leadership development, BUT we must develop new and exciting alternatives, as being perceived only as opposers is not enough. We must be able to inspire.

by morris1030 on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Need to make paid political ads and lobbying illeg (none / 0)

We need to make paid political ads and lobbying illegal. Fora such as broadcasting should contribute air time, and there should be directories sent out to each voter giving ways to access as wide a number of different viewpoints via blogs - Blogs are the modern version of the village commons..essential to a functioning democracy..we need to take advantage of them more.

in fact, each government entity needs to have an official blog where they make EVERYTHING available in real time..and in permanent, searchable archives..

It should be illegal to have any back-room politics without public access to view and comment - AND VOTE on it..

OTOH, ALL forms of blogging ARE constitutionally protected free speech...

They DEFINE free speech..

Especially now, that so much interaction is at malls.. which are typically private property..

WE NEED BLOGS TO BE INFORMED CITIZENS...

by ultraworld on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Put bankruptcy front and center (none / 0)

Bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy "reform" bill now before the Senate, presents a perfect opportunity to expose Republicans and fair-weather Democrats for what they are: self-interested sell outs.

If you're interested, we've put together a blog specifically about this horrendous bill, which I've discussed in a diary. Hope you'll check it out and add to the pressure we're trying to put on senators to vote against or substantially amend this bill.

The blog, generously hosted by Talking Points Memo, features bankruptcy expert and financial hero Elizabeth Warren (of Harvard Law School) and several of us, her true-believing underlings.

by Spear on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:09:46 PM EST

Re: Put bankruptcy front and center (none / 0)

Very cool! Thanks for the heads up.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Third Industrial Revolution will catch us unaware (3.00 / 1)

I think its really important for us here in the US to plan for a future which looks very exciting, but also very scary from my perspective..

Its a future in which a third 'industrial revolution' is going on..

If you have a job, be thankful and work like crazy to build up your skillset. Seriously..

Why? Because if you don't, you will lose it as all hell starts breaking lose in a few years time as millions lose their jobs from automation.

Especially those older folks over 30-35...

Its supply and demand.. The jobs will go to the creme de la creme..the best - or the cheapest..

For a glimpse at the future of work check out

http://www.acm.org/technews/

Do you see that many of us in it?

I am not a Luddite, I love automation in all its forms... I just think its also my moral responsibility to prompt others who may not be so aware of what the near future holds as far as new technologies.

Its not the business world's responsibility, or the government's, really, to provide jobs when those jobs are not needed.

OTOH, as the richest country in the world, we need to be aware of the fact that those of us who don't actually do something truly unique (i.e. NOT SCRIPTABLE) - which is most of us.. will NOT be able to extract a living from said activity in a few years.

Moore's Law says that the amount of computing power available for a given amount of money doubles every 18 months. If anything, that is a conservative estimate..

Do the math...

by ultraworld on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:15:30 PM EST

Re: Third Industrial Revolution will catch us unaw (none / 0)

This post is off topic but I'll respond briefly to yours.

This issue has been considered quite a bit in sociological tracts and in science fiction.

The problem is that as a society we know very well how to make things but we don't have a rational way to distribute them.

Our economic system tends to concentrate wealth and that is antithetical in operation to a mass manufacturing society where as you point out fewer and fewer people are needed over time to produce that wealth.

We already have more auto manufacturing capability around the world than can be distributed, and this is persistent because despite the facts those corporations have maintained their competitive investments, ultimately there will have to be consolidation, but then with more people un-employed sales will continue to fall.

Its also true that there is a business cycle that Karl Marx pointed out which causes endless booms and busts in manufacturing of commodities, the price of goods and labor follow the cycle but is never totally elastic (unlike GOP theory to the contrary).

We have relied on new technologies to pull us out each time from the previous depression, but the ability to do so depends on lots of things like the availability of investment capital and trained labor for the new technology.

Anyway, not a new problem, but not one to be dismissed from everyone's future concerns either.

Right now labor in North America and Europe is being played off labor in Asia and South America, by major corporations. The only people benefiting from this competition race to the bottom of the labor rate level are those at the top of the economic ladder.

But of course Bushco and Clinton told the people "free trade" will help them and will boost employment in the US, just a total fucking lie.

China and India can absorb every exportable North American and European job and still have surplus millions unemployed.

The trade deficit is out of control and so is the US budget deficit and with Bush's military adventures on behalf of major oil companies our current path is unsustainable.

The other common lie is that there is nothing that we can do about internaltional trade and development. We can do alot about it but it will never happen for the benefit of the average citizen when our political system is locked up by corporate bought and paid for political whores in both parties.

by leschwartz on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The last Depression (none / 0)

We got out of the depression with a command economy, just like Germany did. Never forget that. It wasn't free-markets or anything resembling liberalism that we operated under during WW2. Austerity programs, government appropriation of businesses, central planning, internment camps, high technology research, weapons of mass destruction.

What pillars are keeping our economy afloat today? Debt spending; increased "employment" as soldiers, baggage inspectors, and other government related activities; capital and technical export; consumers spending money they don't have. Never forget that even to this day that we have massive subsidies for agriculture. 2% of the population farms. We could have even higher output with one tenth that number of farmers, adding another swath of people to the unemployment lines.

Consider this: unskilled and semi-skilled labor will be eliminated (surely) by robots. What percentage of the workforce is that? 60? 70? Then what do you do? Force people to "work" all day at make-work jobs? Or simply give them fun-money?

If the debate at hand is "what role government?" then Democrats need to see the writing on the wall and prepare for the historic shift back to socialism. It's funny, when Americans were fully employed for decades because of socialsm, they attributed it to their own merit and not to government! Down with government! But the moment they need government all that BS disappears.

Ultimately liberals need to address the phenomena of tribal hatred. All that happened was when the government started taking care of blacks and punishing overt racism, all that hatred was disguised as a hatred of government. It still lives, perhaps even it thrives. I say attack it head on, call them out and start bashing them. Stars nailed to the doors of "leftists"? Oh, So thats were anti-semitism went!

by Paul Goodman on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:14:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not just like Germany (none / 0)

One of the great myths that's been perpetrated since WWII is that the wartime economy got us out of the Depression. That thinking has justified near-perpetual war from 1950-present. But the fact of the matter is, the New Deal did far more to build economic prosperity than military spending.

As for Germany, the US and Germany were among the nations hardest-hit by the depression. But they responded in very different ways. In the US, FDR allied gov't and working people, making sure the people on the bottom could make an honest living. The New Deal reforms virtually created the American middle class from whole cloth. In the space of 30 years, average earnings doubled - farm families went from having outhouses on their property to having two-car garages. It wasn't because they were getting fat Pentagon contracts to build B-52s. It was because there was a social safety net in place to make sure people could earn a comfortable living.

In Germany, Hitler strongly allied gov't and corporations, putting industrialists in prominent gov't posts, and deregulating industry wherever possible, and launching pre-emptive strikes against other countries, both to justify military spending and to distract from the working class' economic woes. Propaganda, fear and paranoia were used to quell any dissent or reistance.

Which setup does Bush's America resemble more? Democrats must make the case that all Americans want to live in the land of opportunity FDR helped create, not the fascist corporate state Bush is trying to replace it with.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a Social Security Trust Fund! (none / 0)

Seems like the dems have forgotton what Social Security really is: a trust fund aka an insurance program. This means they should be able to bash Bush on two fronts.

First, ask why is Bush spending the trust fund, bank account, etc, etc, if Social Security is in such crisis. (Answer, among others: to give a tax break to rich americans.) Also, force him to take social security proceeds out of his budget deficit calculations.

Second, reframe the issue (like wingnuts did w/Harry and Louise) by equating it with car insurance, health insurance, all types of insurance. Show the small percentage, but real cases, of elderly who have had bad breaks and come to rely on the social security check.

Time to go on the offense. If dems can't do it with this issue, when are they going to?

by pkelly on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:18:06 PM EST

A New Village Commons- Blogs to Online Democracy (none / 0)

Why cant we build electronic communities.. basically official government blogs.. to serve all citizens of all political entities as a network of online village commons, where all pending legislation and all debate are available both in realtime and asynchronously for voting..

That could make government MUCH more efficient..

And no more 'stealth' bills.. Every citizen could read and comment on pending legislation.. and lobbying as well..

They are already doing this in both Europe and Australia...

WE NEED MORE TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT!

by ultraworld on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:22:05 PM EST

Sherman and Me (none / 0)

I would rather spend four years in a penitentiary than in the White House.

William Tecumseh Sherman

I would rather that George W. Bush spend four years in a penitentiary than in the White House.

David Kowalski

by David Kowalski on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:12:08 AM EST

We ARE thumping them (none / 0)

I find the question of why Democrats aren't getting more traction out of Social Security odd indeed. To this date most people have no concept of the numbers involved and this includes defenders of Social Security. The debate has moved a huge distance since November, a left blogsophere that simply accepted the reality of "crisis" has moved to a consensus on "minor problem that needs to be fixed". But some people are risking shoulder dislocations patting themselves on the back. Because a lot of you were not on board back in November, at least judging by the ridicule I received when I posted What if Social Security was not broke (and it isn't) on November 21st.

It's all about education on the numbers. Plenty of people simply assumed that privatizers had them, and as a result were cowering in the corner. Now they are realizing that they can stand up and defend themselves. But what people don't understand is that Republicans have brought a rubber knife to a gun fight. They don't have the numbers. At all. They are setting themselves up for a huge fall, or to be more precise a really shitty Spring. They are liars and are going to be shown up as thoroughly incompetent liars because 2004 happened. And it didn't happen the way the Social Security Trustees predicted it would happen.

The difference between a Trust Fund that is bleeding $500 billion a year in 2040 and one that is piling up $400 billion a year in surplus is the difference between a model that predicted 2.7% growth in 2004 (Intermediate Cost) and one that predicted 2.8% (Low Cost). Real world 2004 returned 4.0%. 2004 Report: Estimates in dollars 2004 Report: Economic Assumptions

People on both sides of this issue are still working within a paradigm that puts weight on 2008, 2018 and 2042. Those are quite literally last years numbers. They have less than thirty days to live, the new Trustees' Report is due by March 31st. And the trend in the following table will continue: Depletion pushed out in time and payroll gap decreased. EPI: Changes in Trustees Projections

Defending Social Security would be the right thing to do even if it was faced with funding challenges. But defending it knowing that the numbers suggest that if anything it is currently overfunded is like fishing in a barrel using a hand grenade. Republicans are road kill on this one.

They don't have the numbers.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls

by Bruce Webb on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:57:59 AM EST

Leveraging the Social Security Campaign (none / 0)

Pudentilla has some ideas about how the Democrats could leverage "red" disarray on SocSec into a broader campaign against the Congressional Republican party ("It's time to take the keys away").

by Pudentilla on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:33:53 AM EST

What is our Larger Message? (none / 0)

The problem seems to be that we have not framed our opposition to Bush's Social Security plan part of a larger message. So what is our message? Who are we? This is what we keep bumping our head against.

What do we stand for? How can we sum-up who we are in a way that is simple, straightforward and easy to understand:
As far as I can tell -- This is who we are:

A Democrat stands for --

Economic rights -- An average working family has the right to live in dignity;
Civil rights -- You can't treat people as second-class citizens because of sex, color, religion, ethnic background or bedroom habits;
International fair-play -- might does not make right and we have to learn to work and play well with others;
Protecting the individual from the powerful -- people should not be bullied by powerful government and powerful corporations;
Protecting our earth -- The earth belongs to no one -- we are just borrowing it, and like any good neighbor we should take care of it and clean it up before we pass it on to the next who use it.

I don't this this is particularly far out. To me, at least, it sounds like what I learned in Kindergarten. I think a courageous party that stands for these things will capture most people's hearts and votes -- Unless we are too far gone as a nation to recognize what makes civilization different from the jungle.

Bob

by BobReiser on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 11:12:45 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.