Keynesians turn to Alien Invasions to Fix the Economy and to Stop Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 19th, 2011

Paying them to Dig Ditches, then Paying them to fill them back In

Leave it to a Keynesian to find the silver lining in a war of annihilation (see The Dimlight Zone posted 8/17/2011 on Investor’s Business Daily).

“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack,” Krugman told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, “and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months.”

Where did Krugman get his idea for “Up-in-the-Sky-Side Economics”? He told Zakaria, “There was a ‘Twilight Zone’ episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time we don’t need it; we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.”

And Paul Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.  Not for his theory on space alien threats but for something about New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography

He’s Ivy League.  A Keynesian economist of the first order.  And an Orwellian socialist, apparently.  For in Orwell‘s Nineteen Eighty-Four, that was a key party tenet.  Perpetual war.  To unite the people against the common enemy (which often changed if one of their two possible enemies was losing too badly).  And to consume the products of state labor.  To provide permanent employment for the people.  (Sort of like paying them to dig ditches, then paying them to fill them back in.)  Building the things of war.  While they lived in desperate privation of the necessities of life.  A dark existence indeed.  But they kept the people occupied.  And obedient.

World War gave the U.S. a strong Export Market During and After the War

Being in favor of war spending is a bit strange.  Considering the Left’s vehement opposition to the Iraq Way, the War in Afghanistan, the Libyan War, the Vietnam War, etc.  All of these were quite costly.  And required enormous war production.  Creating near-perpetual jobs for people in the war economy.  There was a whole lot of deficit spending going on.  Just like you’d think an Orwellian socialist would like.  But no. 

Contrary to Keynesian belief, these wars did not stimulate the economy.  They were in effect paying people to dig ditches and then having them fill them back in.  Just moving money around in the economy.  Not creating anything new.  Unlike the war he refers to in that article.  The good war.  World War II

World War II was a different kind of war.  It was a world war.  Much like World War I.  Where the world’s economies were left in ashes.  Unlike America.  Who was unscathed during these wars.  Was ready and able to rebuild the world after these wars.  And feed it, too.  So not only did we have a strong export market during the war (we were the Arsenal of Democracy), we had an even stronger export market after the war. 

That’s what makes a war profitable.  When someone else pays for it.  Which is why the previously mentioned wars did not stimulate economic activity.  The United States paid for them.  Not other people.  It was just moving money around in the economy.  Not creating anything new.  Just digging ditches.  And filling them back in.

Before acting to Save the World a Keynesian would Consider its Impact on the Next Election First

Besides, do we really want Keynesians fighting our wars?  For they are more concerned in winning political battles than military ones.  No matter the costs.  Whether it threatens the fiscal solvency of the country.  Or military strategy (see Bad luck? Bad faith? by Charles Krauthammer posted 8/18/2011 on The Washington Post).

The charge [wishing to see America fail for their own political gain] is not just ugly. It’s laughable. All but five Republican members of the House — moderate, establishment, Tea Party, freshmen alike — voted for a budget containing radical Medicare reform knowing it could very well end many of their careers. Democrats launched gleefully into Mediscare attacks, hardly believing their luck that Republicans should have proposed something so politically risky in pursuit of fiscal solvency. Yet Obama accuses Republicans of acting for nothing but partisan advantage.

This from a man who has cagily refused to propose a single structural reform to entitlements in his three years in office. A man who ordered that the Afghan surge be unwound by September 2012, a date that makes no military sense (it occurs during the fighting season), a date not recommended by his commanders, a date whose sole purpose is to give Obama political relief on the eve of the 2012 election. And Obama dares accuse others of placing politics above country?

Let’s just hope that when the aliens attack we don’t have Keynesians in power.  For with them it’s about the money and the power.  And political expediency.  Who would, in the face of an alien evasion, dither about what action would benefit them most in the next election before acting to save the world.

Global Warming bringing the Final Frontier to Us?

Paul Krugman isn’t the only one thinking about alien invasions.  Climate scientists are, too (see Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists by Ian Sample posted 8/18/2011 on the Guardian).

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

This isn’t hyperbole from Al Gore.  It’s NASA affiliated.  So this must be serious stuff.

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

“A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions,” the report states.

“Green” aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. “These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets,” the authors write.

Talk about taking it up a notch.  And this after those emails leaked from the University of East Anglia.  Showing that they fudged many of the numbers they used to sell global warming.  So they changed tack.  Propose absolute gibberish that is completely independent of data.  And sanity.  Thus making it impervious to attack.  Or scientific scrutiny.

Who would have thunk it?  That global warming would bring the final frontier to us.  Where others would travel here.  In their quest to explore strange new worlds.  To seek out new life and new civilizations.  To boldly go where no man has gone before.  And possibly bring a cook book with them entitled To Serve Man

I wonder how many Trekkies were in that group at the Pennsylvania State University.

Long Lines of Communication and Costs make the odds of an Alien Invasion Slim

Let’s apply a little historical perspective on this.  Why did Napoleon not conquer Russia?  Because Russia is a very big place.  It stretched Napoleon’s lines of communication to the breaking point.  He could no longer support his Grande Armée.  And the Russian winter only compounded his misery.  He had no choice but to retreat.

Why did Hitler not conquer Russia?  Ditto.

Now let’s look at some economic history.  Why did NASA cancel Apollo missions 18, 19 and 20 to the moon?  Because they were too costly.  Why have we not landed a man on Mars?  Because it’s too costly.  Why did we cancel the Space Shuttle program?  Because it was too costly.

Put long lines of communication and costs together and what do they tell you?  The odds are slim for an alien invasion.  Because you have to benefit somehow for the costs you expend.  Hitler wanted living space.  Grain.  And Caucasus oil.  His hatred of Jews, Russians and communists was one thing.  But killing all of them meant little if he didn’t get the living space, grain and oil.  That was the desired payoff for his investment in the invasion of Russia.

“There is Nothing more Dangerous than a Wounded Mosquito”

Granted, this is pure speculation, but let’s assume invading aliens are like all other conquering people history has known.  That is, they want something.  Something real.  Food.  Resources.  Whatever.  And if they are able to conquer the space-time continuum, they’d be pretty darn smart aliens.  And resourceful.  They could probably do just about anything when it came to food and resources.  Probably even make a clothes washer that can fold and wrap clothes in a plastic wrap.  And if we become an annoyance they could probably dispatch our world before we could put the first thoughts of a starship on a drawing board.

So there is little point in expending any time, effort or money in preparing a defense for an alien invasion.  And there is little chance that our so called global warming is going to bring a Death Star to our corner of the universe.  Such talk appears to be a ruse to increase government spending.  What some would call ‘grasping at straws’.  Just another way for the Keynesians to continue their failed policies. 

The Obama administration has shown the futility of Keynesian economic policies.  And it has wounded the Keynesians deeply.  But like the mosquito, we should be careful.  For as they said on Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito.”  They will find other ways to tax and spend.  No matter how silly, ridiculous or costly it is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Green Energy taking us to a George Orwell 1984 Future?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 8th, 2011

Smartphones so Smart they know where you’ve Been

The digital world leaves a lot of digital footprints.  And there’s a lot of money in those footprints (See Apple, Google to face lawmakers in privacy tussle by Diane Bartz posted 5/8/2011 on Reuters).

Tech companies such as Apple and Google are hoping the tracks of millions of mobile device users will lead to billions of dollars in revenue.

But where they see dollar signs, lawmakers see red flags.

Following us around and keeping track of where we went?  I don’t know.  Sounds a little creepy to me.  But I guess if everyone knows they’re doing this and voluntarily agree to it, I guess there’s no problem.

Smartphone and advertising companies argue that they use data on what users like (which they know because users use the phone to check prices); where they are (which they know because of contact with cell phone towers); and who their friends are (which they know from social media like Facebook) to give their customers ads for products they are most likely to buy…

But the discomfort comes with the failure of companies — ranging from smartphone makers, to app makers, to advertisers — to disclose to customers what information they are collecting and what they will do with it, said a staffer for Democratic Senator Al Franken, chairman of the online privacy subcommittee that will hold Tuesday’s hearing.

What we like?  Where we are?  Who our friends are?  Without our knowledge?  Sure, we clicked to approve the 50 million-word user agreement to activate our stuff so we could get on with our lives.  But we’re not all lawyers.  And some of us work.  We don’t have the time to read these agreements and then to hire someone to explain what they mean. 

It’s still creepy but as long as it’s not for nefarious purposes…

Franken’s staff has been concerned by reports that insurance companies have explored using location tracking to calculate insurance rates by noting where people go — for example if they go to a gym or a donut store…

“The fact is that they’re creating these sort of mobile digital dossiers based on what you do on your mobile phone and where you are,” said Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy.

Whoa.  This is just a little too KGB-like police state.  The government is right to step in stop this Orwellian activity.  Thankfully, we can always trust government to do what’s right for the people.  I mean, they would never consider tracking our whereabouts like these untrustworthy corporations.

Government Considering getting Deep into our Private Lives

Actually, as it turns out, they would.  Track us.  Or, rather, our cars.  Which typically only go where we go.  So it’s a lot like Apple and Google.  Only, unlike them, the government won’t be trying to persuade us to buy something.  They’ll just be taking our money (see Pay per mile: A timely tax idea, or a privacy threat? by Tom Curry posted 5/5/2011 on msnbc).

Department of Transportation officials have drafted legislation that would study a vehicle tax to track how far drivers travel and charge them by the mile. The proposal would create a “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office” to conduct trials of the concept.

The draft proposal was first reported this week in Transportation Weekly, a trade publication. A White House spokeswoman told The Hill newspaper that the draft “does not represent the views of the president” and is in no way an administration proposal.

To ‘track’ drivers.  Rather ominous.  Government tracking our whereabouts.  That’s more something out of 1984 than the United States of America.

A tax or fee on miles driven could possibly supplant the gasoline tax, which has has lost a third of its purchasing power since it was last raised by Congress in 1993. Since 2008, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, the money available in the highway trust fund has not been enough to cover federal spending on highways, requiring an additional injection of about $30 billion from the federal treasury. 

Yes, “supplant” the gas tax.  If there is one thing Americans are familiar with is the way government eliminates taxes that they don’t need any more.  And by ‘familiar with’ I mean it rarely ever happens.  Because new taxes are implemented to fund ever growing government spending.  And eliminating a tax just makes it harder to fund ever growing government spending.

But raising the tax when a gallon of gas costs more than $4 in many parts of the country is a nonstarter for most members of Congress.

And the gasoline tax is pumping less money into federal coffers over time, as automobile companies continue to improve the fuel economy of cars they manufacture.

So even though we are paying more for gasoline than we ever have and more people are driving than ever before, it’s not enough to fund government.  How much do you want to bet that gas prices will go down after they implement the new ‘government tracking your whereabouts’ tax?  Don’t bet.  Because they won’t.  And if you were about to bet that they would you should probably have someone else handle your money.

With the Obama administration encouraging people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, “there’s a total contradiction in current government policy” in how highways are funded, said energy consultant Geoffrey Styles, who writes the widely followed Energy Outlook blog.

Styles said policy makers need to address this issue “before there are 20 million electric vehicles on the road.”

“If we’ve waited that long, and all those folks have been used to driving those cars without paying any energy tax, then trying to change what we do is going to be a big disconnect,” he said.

And there is that most coveted tax of all.  The energy tax.  And the electric car makes it the fair thing to do.  It kind of reminds me of that line in the movie Patton.  Near the end when Patton is talking on the phone with General Bedell Smith.  Patton is just itching to start a war with the Russians.  And says that he can.  That he can start a war with the “sons of bitches” and make it look like it was their fault.  General Smith calls Patton mad and hangs up.  Now I’m not saying that the government planned to pass the energy tax by making it look like the sons of bitches (i.e., we the people) asked for it.  I’m just saying it reminds me of that line in Patton.

As experts have recognized, many Americans would be wary of the idea of a government agency tracking their vehicle in order to tax the miles they drive.

“The problem comes the minute you introduce a device in the vehicle” because people “do not want the government to know where they are and where they are going,” Styles said.

That’s right.  Our privacy is sacred.  So sacred that the government is convening hearings to look into Apple and Google for violating that sacred trust.  Because targeting advertising at us threatens the very foundation of a free society.  Unlike an all-powerful government using its power to track what we do in our personal lives to extract tax payments.  Or, perhaps, to let them know we’re going somewhere they’d rather we didn’t.  No, that they’re okay with.

Green Electric Cars may Track you.  And Strand You.

These electric cars are more trouble than they’re worth.  Invasions into our private lives.  And a justification for more taxes.  Like that ever elusive energy tax the government so wants to implement.  Because energy is everywhere in a modern society.  Well, almost everywhere (see Electric car charging points ‘shortfall’ by the BBC posted 5/8/2011 on the BBC News UK).

Only 704 of the 4,700 expected by the end of the year are in place and two-thirds of towns with a population of over 150,000 do not have any public charging infrastructure.

David Martell, of charging supplier Chargemaster, said the lack of points can be very stressful for drivers…

Mr Martell said many electric vehicle drivers suffer from “range anxiety”, which concerns their fear that they run the risk of running out of power due to a lack of charging points.

As if fearing Big Brother might catch us going somewhere ‘inappropriate’ (a casino, a lingerie/sex toy store, a Kentucky Fried Chicken, a Republican fundraiser, etc.) wasn’t enough, now we have to worry whether or not we’ll ever be able to make it back home when we venture out in our electric cars.  And what may happen to us if we don’t.  I don’t know about you, but that internal combustion engine is looking better and better all of the time.  It sure delivers the liberty enshrined in our Founding Documents.  Unlike that ‘police state’ green technology.

Green Energy adds to Electrical Demand while Reducing Electrical Supply

Range anxiety may not be our only anxiety.  Because with the move to green energy sources there’s a good chance that even if you find a charging point, it may not have any juice in it to recharge your battery (see Wind farms produced ‘practically no electricity’ during Britain’s cold snap by Rowena Mason posted 1/11/2010 on The Telegraph).

The cold weather has been accompanied by high pressure and a lack of wind, which meant that only 0.2pc of a possible 5pc of the UK’s energy was generated by wind turbines over the last few days.

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), gave warning that this could turn into a crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines accounting for a quarter of all UK electricity demand over the next 10 years.

He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government’s pledge on Friday to build nine major new wind “super farms” by 2020.

“If we had this 30 gigawatts of wind power, it wouldn’t have contributed anything of any significance this winter,” he said. “The current cold snap is a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it is getting worse.”

This is from a January 2010 Telegraph article.  That’s not one winter ago.  That’s two winters ago.  They are well aware of this problem.  Yet they move forward building windmills.  And with plans to shut down safe, reliable coal-fired plants.  Because they’re too dirty. 

In an effort to save the planet it is the human race that constantly has to make concessions.  They’ll walk back our standard of living right back to the 18th century when there were no cars.  No internal combustion engines.  No electricity.  To a time when the earth was a happier, cleaner place.  Where human and horse feces covered the streets and sidewalks.  And famine was just a part of life.

Our Green Future:  Higher Electric Bills, Service Interruptions and Big Brother

We bought more fuel efficient cars to protect the planet even though we wanted those big SUVs.  Then even though we were driving those small cars and using less gas we were spending more money for gas.  So some of us spent more money for an electric car and drove less.  But because we did and bought less gas there may be a new mileage tax.  Calculated by a little black box in our cars.  That tracks where we go.  To be fair.  So everyone pays for the amount of roads they drive on.  Which will probably negate any cost savings made by moving into an electric car.

And if that wasn’t enough, there will have to be a huge investment to install an electric car charging infrastructure.  All paid for by the new mileage tax.  Probably.  Or maybe the gas tax.  Or some new tax.  And when we put this huge new demand on our aging electrical grid that we’re trying to make green, we’ll probably pay higher electrical bills.  Or suffer through service interruptions when the wind doesn’t blow.

Well, that’s about as cheerful a future as poor old Winston Smith had in Orwell’s 1984.  And if you’re interested in seeing what that future is, you can read the book.  Or see the movie.  You know, while you can.  Before they consider these too inappropriate for us.  Like the SUV.  Because Big Brother will soon be watching and judging what we do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #26: “If we need Big Government to protect us from ourselves, then our public schools can’t be the best place to learn.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 10th, 2010

IT’S A PARADOX.  You can’t have both.  Great public schools.  And a Big Government nanny state.  The public schools can’t be the best place to learn if we graduate hopelessly incapable of taking care of ourselves.  You cannot reconcile the two.  It is impossible.  The need of Big Government is an indictment on public education.  It sucks.  It sucks so bad that our only hope to survive is by a dependence on government.

The Founding Fathers did NOT want a Big Government nanny state.  So they tried to limit its money and power.  The nation’s capital ended up in a swamp because Thomas Jefferson wanted to keep it out of the big cities (such as New York and Philadelphia).  History has shown that wealth (the big cities) and power (sovereign authority) combine to make the worst of governments. 

And they believed in the importance of education.  A real education.  History.  Math.  Science.  Architecture.  Engineering.  Economics.  For they believed an educated constituency was the greatest protection against Big Government.  They knew it.  Just as well as the proponents of Big Government knew it.  Know it.

So is it a coincidence?  That the rise of Big Government corresponded with a fall in the quality of public education?  If we need Big Government to be our nanny, we obviously are not well educated.  Otherwise, we could take care of ourselves.  Like we did for the first century or so of our existence.  So, did our poor public school system give life to Big Government?  Or is it the other way around?  Did a growing Big Government protect itself from the danger of a well educated constituency?

STUDENTS GRADUATE TODAY without being able to do the most simple of tasks.  To point to Australia on a map.  To identify the three branches of government.  To name a current member of the U.S. Supreme court.  The current Speaker of the House.  To identify the allies during World War II.  Or even tell us who’s buried in Grant’s tomb.

Few can define compound interest.  Or calculate it.  Few can make important investment decisions for their retirement.  But they can tell you how Christopher Columbus raped the indigenous people in the New World.  How America ruthlessly expanded westward, stealing land from the North American Indians.  How we cruelly enslaved a race to build a nation predicated on liberty.  You’ll find these in the curriculum.  And in the schools’ libraries.  But you won’t learn much about how Martin Van Buren created the Democrat Party to prosper on political spoils and patronage.  Or that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery.  The party of the KKK.  The party of Jim Crowe laws (the legal segregation of blacks after the Republicans ended slavery).  That it was the Democrats who enacted Prohibition because they knew what was best for us.

No, instead, students today learn about the importance of being sensitive to other people’s feelings.  That we should be our brother’s keepers.  That Big Government is good.  Important.  And necessary.  We teach them that FDR’s New Deal programs ended the Great Depression.  That massive government spending on make-work government jobs restored the economy.  It didn’t.  They learn that LBJ’s Great Society ended racial discrimination and poverty.  It didn’t.  These programs failed.  As many Big Government programs of compassion do.  But that’s not in the curriculum. 

Worst, most students haven’t a clue about economics.  What makes economic activity.  What hinders it.  The consequences of monetary and fiscal policy.  So they haven’t a clue about how all those compassionate programs of Big Government often lead to unemployment and recession.  So when they are old enough to vote, they are compassionate.  They approve of expanding the nanny state without any idea of the economic impact.

WE SPEND A fortune on public education.  Per student expenditures are among the highest in the world.   But the money we spend is never enough.  They always ask for more.  For the children.  So, to help the children, they raise taxes (property, sales, etc.).  For the children, they get the poor to gamble away what little they have (the lotto).  More money than ever before is collected.  For the children.  But it’s still not enough.  Which begs the question, where is all that money going?  Clearly, it isn’t to the children.

And because the children are so precious, they’re good leverage.  There’s nothing like a good strike at the beginning of the school year to get a better contract.  Why, they even have our precious children carry picket signs.  Because it’s all about the children.  Of course, unions protect dues-paying members.  And the last I heard, children don’t pay union dues.

But the teachers are underpaid and overworked, aren’t they?  If they are, they are the only union workers that are.  It’s why you join a union.  For leverage.  For negotiating power to get better salary and benefit packages.  And they do.  Your typical public school teacher does better than your typical salaried worker.  And they work less to get it.  Oh, they talk about ‘non-compensated’ hours worked after school.  That means approximately anything more than an 8-hour day.  The real world typically pays a salaried worker for only a 40 hour week when they often work 50 hours or more.  And they often don’t get the Friday after Thanksgiving off.  Or a Christmas break.  Or a winter break.  Or an Easter break.  Or the 3 months of summer off.   When you factor in the actual time worked and the benefits, they do very well.  Far better than private school teachers.  And private school students outperform public school students.  Hell, some of the most stalwart defenders of public education send their kids to private school.  Because they can.  The poor do, too.  When they can.  When they have access to school vouchers.  Everyone, when given the choice, chooses private school over public school.  If that ain’t an indictment on the public school system, I don’t know what is.

So where does all that money go?  To the teachers.  Their unions.  And the public school bureaucracy.

WE SPEND MORE money on public education.  But private school students do better than public school students.  And private school teachers make less than public school teachers.  So when we pay more we get less.  A more poorly educated student.  So what conclusion can we draw?  We are spending more money than we need to on public education.  And if we’re spending too much right now, spending more money sure isn’t going to make anything better for the children.  The teachers, perhaps.  But not the children.  Because the truth is this.  It’s not about the children.

The public schools are not educating.  They’re indoctrinating.  They’re producing good liberal democrats.  Because Big Government knows that an educated constituency is the greatest threat against their power.  So they control education.  They take care of the union teachers who, in turn, teach the students to love Big Government.  It’s rather Orwellian, really.  Elites taking care of elites.  At the expense of the children.  And our future.

Conspiracy?  If it wasn’t so much in the open, perhaps.  But the Democratic Party hasn’t changed much since the days of Martin Van Buren.  It’s about getting power.  And keeping power.  And you do that with patronage.  And dependency.  Big Government has given us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits and numerous welfare programs.  And now the holy grail of them all.  National health care.  The larger these programs, the greater the dependence.  The larger the dependency, the greater number of loyal Democrat voters. 

SO IS THERE a paradox?  It depends on your point of view.  From outside of the public school system, yes.  If you think it’s about the children, yes.  But from inside the public school system or from inside of Big Government, no.  Because, there, it is not about the children.  It’s about well paid teachers.  And an uninformed electorate.  And the systems in place work very well in achieving these goals.

So, no, our public schools are not the best place for children to learn.  But it’s a pretty good place to indoctrinate them into loving Big Government.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,