Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Pat Tillman is not my hero
you need to stop sitting on the fence like that mickey.
well done to this girl is my hero for today…
Posted by michael on from scotland 03/27 at 05:29 AMoops, typo.
that should read… “well done to this girl, she is my hero for today”
Posted by michael on from scotland 03/27 at 05:30 AMIn my opinion Mickey, its not the best thing you’ve written. Stan says: “ just like the Army that tried to erase the real Pat Tillman and substitute an iconic caricature — Mickey Z erases the real Pat Tillman to paint an anti-iconic caricature.” I agree. I have fallen into the same easy trap. Learn from his criticism and move on.
Posted by frances on from british columbia 03/27 at 07:12 AMHere is a snippet from an article about Tilman you should read, Mickey.
“The very private Tillmans have revealed a picture of Pat profoundly at odds with the GI Joe image created by Pentagon spinmeisters and their media stenographers. As the Chronicle put it, family and friends are now unveiling “a side of Pat Tillman not widely known--a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books...to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author.” Tillman had very unembedded feelings about the Iraq War. His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, “I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.” With these revelations, Pat Tillman the PR icon joins WMD and Al Qaeda connections on the heap of lies used to sell the Iraq War.”
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/1007-22.htm
Posted by Lady M on from L.A. 03/27 at 07:14 AMHello Expendables...from a very, very warm Astoria. I have hectic day ahead so it will not be easy to keep up with inevitable flood of Tillman-related comments. For now, let me state that the “real” Pat Tillman is hardly the issue. His high profile enlistment is still inspiring kids to sign up. We can fantasize that he might have been a powerful anti-war leader, but that sounds an awful lot like those who keep pinning their dreams on Democrats. At best, I feel Tillman might have spoken out against the Iraq war but not against war. I could see him campaigning for Obama in 2008.
Also, Goff makes a lot of points countering points I did not even make. The article is not really about Tillman. Should I have included something about Tillman’s alleged status as a Chomsky “fan”? Yes. Would that have changed what I said about America’s hero worship of athletes and soldiers? No.
Thanks, all. I’ll try to check back in soon.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 07:37 AMPat Tillman was used as a propogandic figure to promote the US’s illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so Mickey has every right to attack that portrayal.
Also, no one knows the ‘real’ Pat Tillman except maybe his close family members...all of whom seem to be extremely angry over how the government used him and lied about him. What I do know is that he volunteered to go fight over there, that means, that always means he went over there to kill people. Our military has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in both countries. He is no hero. Mickey has every right to attack him for that as well, as do I.
So, in my opinion, both the iconic figure and the man who decided to go kill are open for attack...and rightly so.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 03/27 at 09:38 AMIt might not be helpful to add more simple pictures but I’m with Mickey on this one. I’ll take it a step further.
A media Tillman who was free-thinking, into Chomsky, concerned about unjust war and yet still willing to serve his country in the military: sounds twice as dangerous as the original potrayal.
Next point to earn me potential lambasting: this kind of reminds me of Michael Moore. I watched all his feature length movies and came away with the same impression. Great direct action that inspires but, despite often savage criticism, seems to carry the idea that somehow - innately - America the nation, the abstract idea, is ‘good’ but is just sabotaged by bad people.
I think that the entire model of nation states we have now, as developed over that past 500 years, is a huge pile of shit.
Posted by Andy on from Shanghai 03/27 at 09:58 AMAs Peter Camejo (Ralph Nader’s running mate in ‘04) was fond of quoting: “it is from the conflict of ideas that truth emerges"-- I see merit in both articles.
However, I think Stan Goff went over the top by his attack of you Mickey-- which didn’t surprise me. I used to bookmark Goff because of his superior argumentative ability which reached a high point with his Open Letter to Congress (http://tinyurl.com/yrolbg).
Since, however, I noted his propensity to bury uncomfortable truths which conflict with his malleable Weltanschauung-- which all but cancelled out his promise in his Open Letter when he threw his support to Democrats in the last presidential election. To me there is a critical difference between being Left and being Sinister.
It is sinister to argue for truth and then close doors on the truth-- or the quest for the truth. Name calling and censorship are sure signs of it.
Posted by Robert B. Livingston on from San Francisco, California 03/27 at 10:29 AMI think that most readers that disagree with your point of view on this issue Mickey, do so because there is a lot of info about pat’s staunch opposition to the war in Iraq especially. I am not going to rehash all the info that is in the press. and most of it comes from interviews with his brother and other members of his platoon, squad, whatever. They describe a man that deserves more than a post-mortem hatchet job from an admittedly uninformed reactionary.
To me it reveals little understanding of the subject matter. As a cool observer, you owe it to your readers to have a greater understanding of your subject matter. The world is not a dichotomous series of subjects. Boiling everything down to good/bad, black/white, etc is lame and doesn’t display much thought, skill, or intellect. This article is esentially the same one you ran in april 2004. I would think that you would have some progression in your understanding and insight over the years.
The problem is not pat tillman. The problem is the explotation of america’s youth by our military. The problem is an uninformed public that sits back as war rages. The problem is a government operating at the behest of corporate interests.
I typically appreciate your articles.
Posted by josh on from indiana 03/27 at 10:45 AMI don’t really know who this Tillman character is. I’ve seen his name, but I’m not really that interested, so I don’t know anything about it, other than he was some soldier who got killed and because he was a football player or something he gets more attention than the other kids who’ve been killed. There’s a tragedy in that, too.
Posted by Jeremy R. Hammond on from Taipei, Taiwan 03/27 at 10:46 AMHello again, everyone. Welcome, Josh...your last paragraph is essentially the point of my article.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 10:48 AMMickey,
Excellent. I probably sound more ass-ish than necessary. And I agree, Pat is not my hero...I think my point is that pat would agree with you.
Posted by josh on from indiana 03/27 at 10:53 AMYou don’t sound “ass-ish” at all (assuming I know what “ass-ish” sounds like). I appreciate your feedback, Josh...and everyone here today.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 10:59 AMAs a southpaw myself, I resemble your remarks about Left and Sinister, Robert… but seriously, while I knew that the Tillman discussion here and MZ’s articles about him are always controversial, I was still shocked by the level of attacks and nasty comments both on DK and on Goff’s site, and I’m glad that you’re getting good support here, as usual.
Posted by James on from work 03/27 at 11:16 AMI tried posting a comment at the Goff article, but it has not been posted yet, probably a normal delay (I hope). I will not even bother at Daily Kos, cos when there are 244 comments flying by who would listen anyway? Most of the comments seem to be about “banning mickey Z from the site”...hooray for democracy and freedom among the liberal left!
I like that people like Josh came here and explained his side. A lot of these other ass-ish people are so angry that they misunderstand the very thing they are disagreeing with.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 03/27 at 12:05 PMBy the way...how’s the new job, James?
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 03/27 at 12:07 PMMan… no one proofreads junk mail quite like I do. Plus I can leave comments from this job, so it’s better than the last job for that alone. You really should come into town next month when I have my party, third week of April…
Posted by James on from work 03/27 at 12:18 PMI like Mickeys style, what I dont like is the huge numbers of people who dont ‘get’ it. How infuriatingly frustrating. He took the Tillman episode and simply boiled it down to its true essence. Those who dont see that are still living the lie. Or maybe they are just angry that someone is attempting to take away one of their ‘arrows’.
Posted by Skeeter on from Hooserland 03/27 at 12:25 PMMy heroes are the ones who risked imprisonment for refusing to kill innocent civilians in an illegal war.
Posted by Thomas McCullock on from Colorado Springs 03/27 at 12:45 PMMickey, I really enjoy it when you hack off a chunk of meat every now and then and toss it to the Kosniks. Or given your aversion to meat, maybe I should change that to breaking off the end of a loaf of bread and tossing it to the pigeons in the park. Either way, the ensuing feeding frenzy is most illuminating. Keep up the good work.
Posted by anon on from 03/27 at 01:16 PMOh no-- Satya’s closing:
http://supervegan.com/blog/entry.php?id=742
http://www.satyamag.com/index.html
Posted by James on from work 03/27 at 01:47 PM“You really should come into town next month when I have my party, third week of April… “
Funny you should say that James...there is a chance I might be in NYC that weekend. I’ll let you know…
How strange would it be to see some Expendables in person...anyone else coming? Mick?
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 03/27 at 01:52 PMI too am disappointed in Goff’s attack on you Mickey. I don’t mind disagreement among allies at all, but his response was reactionary and the tone was uncalled for. I also think he ought to have approached you personally. But then, he would have needed a valid point of contention, and he doesn’t seem to have one.
I think there is something else in your article besides what Josh noticed (#9). You never compared Tillman to bin Laden; that was the work of some of your readers. However: putting them in the same context does invite us to consider that there are other people in the world, and there is more than one side to a story (or a person). That’s a level of complexity that people making snide derisions of your presumed aversion to complexity are not able to capture.
This has often been a moral stumbling block for me---and I’m sure much has been written about it: who is more dangerous, the person giving orders to kill or the person acting on such orders? No one fights a war alone, not George Bush, not Osama bin Laden, not Hitler, not Gandhi.
(Alert Goff: I just didn’t compare Gandhi to Hitler. Or did. Or didn’t. Complex.)
Posted by Keir on from the hague 03/27 at 01:52 PMHello again. It’s like summer here in NYC.
Thanks for the great conversation and welcome to the new voices.
It is a shame Goff chose this route. I know him, have hung out with him, and exchanged a fair amount of e-mails. I guess I should’ve known better than to tread on his turf. Still, I’m opting not to engage in a blog war/pissing contest (as if anyone would care or even notice).
Anon: I do appreciate a good feeding frenzy now and then.
As for James’ party, if I’m not in Texas, I do hope to go.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 02:03 PMBtw, Michael. thanks for the Jean Sara Rohe video link way back up there at #1. Excellent.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 02:11 PMHi all...I just posted a comment on the Goff article. I love what you said, Mickey. FINALLY, someone said what needed to be heard. Thanks, Mickey. Too bad that so many just don’t “get it”. Being opposed to war means being opposed to ALL parts of the war machine, not only the bombs but also those who drop the bombs. If someone is a “baby killer” or a “civilian killer” then that language should be used. The choice is between accuracy in language or using the language of the Pentagon. The media uses Pentagonese, but we should not. Let’s call it like it is. Thanks, Mickey. Your are my hero.
Just one more point...how can anyone say that Pat was opposed to war. When he was killed he was firing at supposed “Iraqis”. If he REALLY wanted to help the people there, he would have gone over as a human sheild, like some others did.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 03/27 at 03:10 PMI think I’ve said it before-- wouldn’t it be interesting if Counterpunch had a comments board for articles posted there? Do you think they might be a little less hostile than the ones on Daily Kos?
Posted by James on from work 03/27 at 03:52 PMA big thank you to both RMJ and JOS for posting rebuttals on G.I. Stan’s blog.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 05:48 PMOk, between work and running errands, I have read through the Tillman article 3 times now and followed the thoughtful conversation here.
Mickey, I understand what you are saying and I agree with all of it. The taking of another life is never ok. To take the dirty ugly soldiers’ business of killing and sanitize it in the image of a hero to market and legitimize further killing is twisted and just plain wrong. If we honestly believe that sending soldiers overseas to kill innocent people and destroy their way of life somehow preserves our hopes and dreams then we must deeply question those beliefs, question those dreams, and we must question our values. We also must start thinking for ourselves instead of letting media pundits think for us. I agree there are no heroes in war.
What I object to is using Pat Tillman as an example of this. It seems callous and glib, shallow. You object to the military and medias use of Tillman’s image to glorify their objective and yet you are willing to use the same ‘tool’ to illustrate your viewpoint. The method of delivery contradicts the message somehow. Its inflammatory, but perhaps that was what you were aiming for.....
I can only imagine what this same conversation between Iraqis and Palestinians would read like.
what I learned today.....don’t post comments while half asleep at 3:30 am....at the very least I will wait till the first cup of coffee kicks in.
Posted by frances on from sunny bc 03/27 at 06:00 PMToday, on BuzzFlash, someone praises Goff for going after “an all-too-common error on the left—an ignorant, counterproductive anti-soldier attitude that drives larges numbers of active-duty military and veterans who are critical of the government’s policies away from progressive politics.”
Can you beat that for sheer fantasy? How many centuries will pass before the movement (sic) will stop waiting for the “fence sitters” to wake up? We’re supposed to tiptoe around, careful not offend anyone, as the global destruction continues unabated.
Btw, the only aspect of the above quote that bothered me was being called “left.”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 06:06 PMSorry, Frances, we were simultyping. I like what you say and what I might have done better was broaden the focus onto all enlistees. Ask all of them what they think they were defending or standing up for, etc. It’s just that I recently read where another football player enlisted and I strongly believe the damage Tillman has done by turning mercenaries into gods far outweighs any potential conversion on his part. His myth (no matter how fabricated) must be challenged at every turn.
All in all, it’s been a useful experience for me to have an article dissected like this. All I can hope is that I learned something.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/27 at 06:12 PMThats all any of us can hope for, Mickey, that we learn something. I am reading about ‘learning how to learn’ but thats a whole ‘nother ball of wax. Here is a Syrian analysis of the situation in Iraq I found at war in context
Iraq’s good terrorists, bad terrorists
By Sami MoubayedPosted by frances on from british columbia 03/27 at 08:20 PMPat Tillman was a great man, fighting for what he believed to be was saving his fellow countrymen from danger/terror.
It’s not his fault he believed in lies, since a majority of our population is blinded by propaganda to this day.
Mickey Z is a jackass idiot for chastising Pat, and his anti-war family/brother. He doesn’t deserve it, the effing system deserves it!
Please keep your idiot thoughts to yourself in the blog here, and OFF of Znet. thanks.
Posted by Kem on from 03/27 at 09:11 PMHi Mickey, nice article on Pat Tillman in CounterPunch. Excellent job. I don’t know what was there in your article that some people didn’t get. For example, to rebut your argument, this guy called Stan Goff - I followed the link from your site - wrote an interesting piece. At one point he states:
“Under no circumstances was Pat Tillman interested in ‘bringing indiscriminate death and destruction upon Iraq and Afghanistan,’ any more than my volunteering for Vietnam in 1970 was based on a wish to ‘bring indiscriminate death and destruction on Vietnam.’”
So what was this guy’s wish in Vietnam? Plant potato seeds? So who killed all these 1 million pesky Vietnamese? Aliens from Mars? While Stan and his fellow “soldiers” sat by the dead Vietnamese and wept?
He and his fellow “soldiers” have been doing so much for everyone around the globe but the ingrates of the world don’t seem to understand the “complexity” of their characters! Shame on us!
How surprising that he defends someone of his rank and file and tries to teach you a lesson!
Cheers.
Ehtesham.
Posted by Ehtesham on from Canada 03/27 at 10:03 PMHelga from down under is back! Great piece, Mickey - and ‘hi’ to all my fellow expendables.
Am in a hurry but did not want to go offline without saying ‘hello’.
Take care, Cool Observer and dear Expendables!
Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 03/27 at 10:07 PM“It’s not his fault he believed in lies, since a majority of our population is blinded by propaganda to this day.”
I guess you are a “forgive them for they know not what they do” type of person. I’m a tell them they know not what they do, hope they learn something, if not, fix it without em type of person.
Posted by JOS on from Oak Park 03/27 at 10:08 PMwell said, Ehtesham and hello Helga.
Posted by JOS on from Oak Park 03/27 at 10:10 PMThanks, JOS.
Cheers.
Posted by Ehtesham on from Canada 03/27 at 10:12 PMRead Goff’s article. It reads just like the “decent left” or Euston Manifesto group back in the UK. Typical Kamm, Hitchens, Cohen or Aaronovich style points of attack: such articles are polemics, the “infantile left” don’t understand “complexities” etc. Anything but actually adress the point made.
There’s no real reason to have such an outraged response to a single writers low profile article. It just a matter of feeling threatened when your hallowed ground is trodden on.
Also, Goff’s actual arguements are just laughable. People sign up for war unaware that they will be killing people?
Or am I just a useful idiot feeding into the right by undermining solidarity and action in the left?
Bob sez: Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
Posted by Andy on from Shanghai 03/27 at 10:24 PMI am not opposed to war. I believe that wars can be necessary and just. I can’t think of any examples, but I acknowledge the hypothetical possibility.
What I’m opposed to are unnecessary, unjust, immoral wars, which pretty much cover all US military actions overseas.
I love Kem’s comments. He wants to share his thoughts on MZ’s blog, but doesn’t want MZ to share his thoughts elsewhere. I think that central hypocrisy pretty much sums up everything he has to say.
As Ehtesham notes, there is a logical psychological reason for Stan Goff’s reaction to MZ’s article: he, too, participated in an immoral, unjust war of aggression. And--this is just an impression--he often seems proud of it.
Goff seems to be saying MZ was too harsh on Tillman because he was actually against the war. If Tillman was so against the war, why was he fighting in it? And if Tillman was all for it, would Goff still think MZ was out of line?
Posted by Jeremy R. Hammond on from Taipei, Taiwan 03/27 at 11:22 PMI Asked the same question to goff as Ehtesham in his Comment Box. It is absurd to say goff or tillman didn’t sign up to bring death and destruction to Distant Lands.That is what they did in reality. They were definitely not handing out candies to Vietnamese and Afghanis.
They are part of Machine and It doesn’t matter what they may think as long as they are part of Machine.
The same arguments Goff uses can be used by every monstrous entity like Wehrmacht or IDF.
It was revolting to see People sucking up to every kind of Militarism. Militarism of any kind is disgusting.It is good to see American Left (Except some small minorities like Goff)
not playing this game of “Support our troops”.
Goff has said quite a few times that social change has to rely on Troops. This is wishful thinking, delusional thinking. May be 1 in 100 social changes in history has relied on Military. In 99 other times it is the People rising up and fighting for their rights without worrying about Military. Most of those times , Military keeps silent only because they think it is too much to commit genocide. Military is a very hierarchic organisation with a strong tradition of Chain of Command which can’t be disrupted by Leftists. If they think on those lines ( like Goff) it only proves their stupidity.Posted by Ajit H on from somewhere in India 03/28 at 02:36 AMThanks again, everyone. Welcome back, Helga. And it’s great to see so many newcomers here.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/28 at 04:06 AMI find myself baffled by your article, Mickey.
I am grateful that there are strongly anti-militarist voices like yours that will take on death-dealing cliches, even when it isn’t popular. We do need people to do that.
But I don’t understand why you would do that by singling out the case of Pat Tillman and representing the issues surrounding his death in this way, particularly while his family still needs help in fighting for justice.
One commenter here expressed a wilful desire not to learn anything more about the death of Pat Tillman.
Just so no one misses it - Pat was killed in circumstances of gross negligence bordering on homcide by his own unit who then destroyed the physical evidence and faked an investigation, while the Pentagon lied baldly to the Tillman family that he was killed by a hostile ambush until after the funeral. Pat died signalling frantically and begging his unit to stop shooting him. An Afghan solider was killed alongside him.
Pat and his family were grotesquely betrayed by the military and the administration - that is the main story here.
Tillman’s own family have pointed out that only Pat’s fame has meant we have learned anything about this at all - we can only guess how often this has happened in the last few years to less well-known soldiers.
Pat’s political views were complicated and in flux, though it is absolutely clear what he thought about Bush and the Iraq War before he died. He not only started reading Chomsky, but he actually planned to meet the guy after the tour in which he was killed. Chomsky regards this is a tragedy and a missed opportunity.
We also know that Pat refused to let his image be used in military recruitment ads.
He did, of course, volunteer to join the Army Rangers and fight in Afghanistan, and like you I don’t think that war is right, but he clearly did. He also held incompatible political views, such as an admiration for Senator McCain.
But Pat’s views were, as I said, mixed, confused and in flux like… most people’s, indeed, (pretty much everyone’s at some level). The radical left has to deal with the fact that real people are complicated. How do we help by passing judgment?
Pretty much everybody is ethically compromised at some level by the structures of militarism, capitalism and class-rule.
A title like ‘Pat Tillman is not my hero’ singles out a family in a lot of pain and who are clearly sympathetic to anti-war, anti-government sentiment.
It’s right to challenge soldiers to take moral responsibility for what they are a part of and what they are asked to do, but again, those of on the left - of all people - should be capable of trying to understand where they come from and why they think the way they do.
Pat’s family wants answers from the Pentagon in a case that threatens to reveal the reality of how people are exploited by the army (and by the government for propaganda purposes) to the US public.
To focus our attention on the moral failings of Pat Tillman would be to shower him in friendly fire. Again.
Posted by Alex Higgins on from 03/28 at 01:17 PMThanks for your comment, Alex. I’d like to clarify that it wasn’t me who singled out Tillman. Our culture singled him out as the biggest hero among heroes. Also, let’s be honest, he was surely aware that turning down the money to hunt Osama would make him a god. Thus, he must be held to scrutiny.
Also, as stated above, his example was a launching pad for the main point of this article.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 03/28 at 02:05 PMJust coming from Geoff’s site and interesting to see that the ratio of positive to negative comments is almost exactly flipped. Actually, kinda predictable really.
Alex (44) said it pretty well but just to add a couple of points.
Number 1, we’re all complicit in empire. Some - like Tillman - to a greater degree. So that means that all the posters saying that Tillman’s fair game (incidentally I don’t think that that’s your point Mickey) because he went over there to kill innocent people (like Geoff did in Vietnam) should consider that a) most other Americans genuinely don’t see soldiers as baby-killers but as defenders of home, country, family, etc. and b) their vegetables and laptops are in part provided by these soldiers.
So we’re neither morally clean nor do our fellow americans have a good understanding of history, oppression, exploitation, etc. I don’t know what to do about the morally clean part, but as far as my fellow americans I think it’s pretty straight-forward that articles - like this one - and attitudes that shit on soldiers and assume that people should naturally have an understanding of exploitation are tactically suicidal.
So to get to your point Mickey, you’re being kind of disingenious when you say that Geoff missed you by about a country mile. No, actually he didn’t. I see where you’re coming from - Tillman’s personal story is more or less irrelevant, the important thing is the myths that he encapsulates and how he’s been used to extend and entrench empire.
And that’s half-true. Yes, you’re right, it’s vitally important to challenge the Tillman myth and the imperialist lies that it rests on - and good job for that. But that’s incomplete. Why? Because it’s important to realize that most people will not automatically accept it the way you put it, crucially most soldiers who are beginning to question the war won’t accept it. And that’s Geoff’s point the way I see it, not that your article on Tillman was wrong because of who Tillman really was, but because it was counter-productive because of it’s tone and assumptions.
And I agree with him, and wish more of the posters I’ve seen above would have less of a holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to both Tillman and Geoff (think of all those nice things you own guys, the things that require planet-killing mass production/transport/etc). Ideally I would have liked to see your article highlight Tillman’s personal attitudes and end on a call to your readers to educate their fellow americans and the soldiers who are coming to criticize the war more and more. To educate them about all the good point’s you’ve brought up, but as it stands I think your article just repeats what we (us lefties) all know and mostly succeeds in alienating those very people who we should be reaching out to.
Posted by Milan Slavkovich on from France 03/29 at 11:34 AMYou look like a big fag and I want you.
PS… I am a real person so e-mail me back if you want some action.
B
Posted by B on from Rockville, MD USA 04/02 at 03:24 AMI want you now!
Posted by B on from Rockville, MD USA 04/02 at 03:25 AM
Next entry: Everywhere I look, I see a microcosm
Previous entry: This is your brain on meat
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
