The United States of Paranoia

[arendt]

The United States of Paranoia
by arendt

...."When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

........- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"


...."Reagan's SDI proposal violated the sacrosanct ABM Treaty of 1972: 'Each party undertakes
....not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based,
....space-based, or mobile-land-based.' To defend against this awkward complication, the Pentagon,
....sparked primarily by Richard Perle, promulgated the preposterous - and patently illegal -
....idea that the treaty could be 'reinterpreted'. This notion that the meaning of an agreement
....could be radically adjusted long after the fact, even if the other party to the treaty, or the U.S.
....senators who had voted to ratify it, disagreed, was a wild notion that undercut the very ethos
....of international order, yet it would come to be the administration's firm position."

........- James Carroll, "House of War"

In 150 years, we have gone from Alice in Wonderland to Neocons in the White House. The policies of the American government are as detached from reality as Lewis Carroll's satire. They even acknowledge this detachment, most famously in the Ron Suskind interview sneering at the "reality-based community". And, in this, America follows a historical pattern, in that the means of its success have become the means of its failure. America rose on automobiles, Hollywood fantasy, and patriotic paranoia. It is rapidly going downhill for the same reasons. The people who were perceived as Strangelovian warmongers in the 1980s and "the crazies" by George H.W. Bush in the 1990s are now not merely running the government, they are rapidly turning it into an environmental charnel house and a military/police state. In subliminal homage to their old enemy, they are inflicting on America the ideologically-blindered mistakes of the Soviet Union.

Several times since the end of World War 2, America has been presented with opportunities for diplomatic engagement with the world to reduce the arms race - most notably, at the death of Stalin, and at the unexpected end of the Cold War. In both cases, the American military-industrial establishment hunkered down in its paranoia until some event could be seized upon as justification for expanding an already bloated military. The 1990s are the "dog that didn't bark", revealing the dominance-hungry mindset of a military that now outspends the rest of the world combined. This spending gap opened in the 90s, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, much less to be the co-equal of the U.S. military. In spite of unprecedented peace and prosperity in the world and at home, the U.S. public received absolutely no peace dividend from the end of the Cold War, no decrease in the Pentagon's control of our politics, our budget, and our nation's overall direction. (I might add, that it happened under Bill Clinton, who was smart enough to understand exactly what he was doing when he shot himself in the foot with "Don't ask; don't tell".)

In fact, since World War 2, America has poured almost all of its disposable resources into two things: the bottomless, paranoid potlach of military spending; and a vast, automobile-captive, suburban landscape. Both these things are unsustainable because they are built on cheap oil. In some sense this short-sightedness is understandable, since America has never known anything but cheap energy. First, we cut down an entire continent full of trees. Then we dug out mountains of coal. Finally, we consumed oil at a rate far beyond the rest of the world. The freedom this cheap energy gave America has shaped its entire culture, from the time of its founding. It has, if you will, selected for a certain style of people and institutions: we celebrate rootlessness as a virtue; we call it "mobility".

Just as plentiful water benefits fast-spreading grass over trees, plentiful energy has allowed America to surpass Europe. But, when the water supply runs low, it will be the trees with deep roots that will survive. So will it be the alternative-energy conscious Europeans, with their railroads, windmills, bicycles, and their containment of sprawl who will survive the end of cheap oil.

But, the power-drunk cabal that squanders America's treasure could care less what happens to America, despite their pharisaical protestations of loyalty. They use the artifiicially-manufactured suburban thirst for huge amounts of cheap oil to justify the artificially-manufactured military-industrial complex's thirst for huge amounts of tax dollars to secure that oil by any means. No matter to the cabal that paying for the military is starving the U.S. of basic infrastructure, medical, and educational investments. The cabal has given trillions, with a "t" in tax cuts to rich people, who have invested it in China. And, in a seamless dialectic, that very investment makes China a threat, justifying even more Pentagon planning and expenditure.

The point of the whole exercise is to separate the U.S. military from the U.S. - to privatize it, and to become some kind of nuclear-armed warlords, pirates with bases in America, exacting tribute from the world. The world includes America, which will become just another economic and social basket case. Our impending economic collapse is prefigured by the pallorous state of GM/Delphi and the major airlines. The military privatization is well underway, with the no-bid contracts to Haliburton, the use of mercenaries and non-citizens in the army, the outsourcing of torture and the insourcing of Israeli weapons subsidized by more U.S. tax dollars.

But, it is the fantasy world that enables this power grab in the real world. For almost as long as the Pentagon/CIA/nuclear weapons complex has been sucking the lifeblood out of America, television and movies have been supplying the paranoid-fantasy story line that makes the vampirism tolerable. To mention just a few: Rambo, Top Gun, gangster movies, the Sopranos, the ever-metastasizing "Law and Order" series. With the rise of ultra-violent videogames that make the druugies of "Clockwork Orange" seem stodgy, young boys have been drilled to fight first and negotiate almost never

It is the fantasy media of today, a coordinated, corporate/military/fundamentalist, propaganda apparatus, which has displaced the old news media. It has replaced real, objective politics with "scripted fantasies" that have foregone conculsions. At first, these scripts were at the periphery of politics, although they were heavily deployed at critical junctures, like the whitewashes of the 1960s assassinations. Really good disinformation requires preventing the target from getting alternative viewpoints, which was previously only attainable in tightly controlled situations, like investigating assassinations. But viewpoint control was achieved by corporate conglomeration in the 1990s. The first successful use of this new weapon was to invent three years of fantastic lies about Bill Clinton, to trash him and the Democrats by any means, and to build up a controllable rabble (i.e., mob) of retread, racist losers and fundamentalist thugs who began to take their marching orders from Hate Radio.

Earlier campaigns to replace the external Red Menace with Noriega, the earlier Saddam, black criminals, etc. just didn't crytstallize. But, with the Clintons as targets, the media was able to script liberals into a living monster, an internal enemy, with which to recruit the white lower class. With the media under control, politics became nothing more than a scripted putsch written by Republican operatives. Al Gore was an egomaniac, an insecure guy, as crooked as Clinton. George Bush had no problems with the draft or the Air Force or drunk driving. Howard Dean is a wild-eyed liberal. John Kerry was not a hero, he was a counterfeit. Ditto Max Cleland. No elections have ever been stolen. Untraceable electronic voting is utterly trustworthy. We have no need for balanced budgets. It makes sense to declare "war for the forseeable future" on terrorism. Anyone who opposes George Bush is a traitor.

"Living in the lie" is the mark of declining states and peoples.

"Living in the truth", no matter how awful that truth is, is the only effective counterweight to police and propaganda coercion. Telling the truth is how the resistance to Communism survived and eventually won. The only reason I can even write this truth-facing essay is that the rise of Internet news for the masses in the late 1990s caught the powers that be in their own rhetorical web. (They had used "internet freedom" to undermine laws, most notably the payment of local sales tax.) Fortunately, they have never been able to square the circle of equating shutting down the net with increasing freedom. But, they now have so much power, that they have just trotted out a new "script", the old one having become Zieglerian-ly "inoperable". If things go according to plan, in a few days, "net neutrality" will be a thing of the past; and America will truly be in the dark.

Before the lights go out, I have one thing to say:

....Never have so many supposedly decent people wasted so much and left so
....little hope for posterity. You can't eat paranoia.

[flordehinojos]

1. arendt, thank you for your "truth-facing essay" and the many others that

you have previously written.

i will always wonder whether you are related to hannah arendt.

[arendt]

2. thank you for reading my essays

FYI -

I am in no way related to Ms. Arendt.
I'm male, not female.

Feel free to repost any of my essays, as long as you give me credit.
Feel free to vote for my essays on the greatest page :-)

Regards,

arendt

[flordehinojos]

7. thank you again, arendt.

:) (i always give credit to my sources--something i learned long ago in a still remembered English Lit class)...thank you for letting me not have to wonder whether you are related to hannah arendt.
your style of writing does remind me of her style of writing in The Human Condition which I read many years ago--a book a loaned years ago and never got back.

thank you also for reminding me that i can vote for your essays to post on the greates page. i see it is there now where it well deserves to be.



:toast:

[Vyan]

10. I completely disagree

that there was no "peace dividend". The Internet is one of those dividends. During the 70's and 80's it was the Apollo program and the space race that generated high end technologies that reshapes our economies and our world. In the 90's and beyond, it's been the technologies developed for the Cold War.

Our peace dividend was the Clinton period of prosperity. An economy that expanded faster and longer than nearly any before it, and in the end not only balanced the budget but generated a surplus - while the Federal Workforce, led largely by the closing of former military bases worldwide, was reduced by an average of 15%.

Of course, Bush has squanderd the remainder of that dividend, but it did exist.

Vyan

[Vyan]

12. That wasn't directed

at your post, sorry. It was meant for arendt.

Vyan

[arendt]

16. Sorry, this is like crediting the Hiroshima bomb with...

killing the rats and flies in town.

Everything you mention is an unintended side-effect, a
military version of trickle-down economics.

We have spent over $20 Trillion dollars on the military
since WW2. If we had spent 10% of that Pentagon money on
infrastructure, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

Today, we have B2 bombers to fight "terrorists". It would
be laughable if the waste wasn't so tragic. We are still
trying to build ABM systems - another Military Welfare
program. We have 12 carrier task groups. The rest of the
world has zero.

I completely disagree with your characterization of my
spending my money on a PC to access the net as a "peace
dividend". A dividend is when someone gives me money, not
when I spend money.

In the 1990s, there was an opportunity to cut at least $100
Billion per year out of defense and still be "prepared". That
money is the missing dividend. It would have paid down the
national debt even faster.

arendt

[Vyan]

19. There wouldn't BE an internet

if not for the cold war. The Net was developed by the Government (DARPA) in coordination various University research facilities as a method to do for computers what the MX mobile missle systems did for keeping our vital assets safe from Nuclear Attack.

It created redundancy and hid vital data in order to protect it.

And just in the interests of full disclosure - I spent 12 years as an employee of Northrop-Grumman working on IT directly related to the B2 project (which by the way, was initiated by President Carter). As an emerging technology, the use of CAD (Computer Aided Design) and automated manufacuring systems employed on the B2 were revolutionary. They still are revolutionary. We'll be seeing the dividends of that investment for generations.

I saw first hand how the influx of over 12,000 workers into Pico Rivera California "trickeled out" into the surrounding community. Those people had to eat, somebody had to feed them. They had to live somewhere, they had to wear something, they needed cars, they went on vacation. Service industries boomed.

And when the Cold War Ended and the job cuts came - they busted. At least for awhile. The Computer and Entertainment industries (at least in So Cal) took up the slack, using the technologies which cold war had wrought.

Swords into plowshares.

The divided, for many people during the 90's, was the fact that they had money to spend on something like the internet, which simply hadn't existed fives years earlier.

I would otherwise agree that this country is drowing in rampant paranoia. I only disagree that we didn't see any peace dividend, we did - and now it's being squandered.

Vyan

[arendt]

21. This is the "history can be only one way" school of argument

There most certainly could have been an Internet without the Cold War. The original TCP/IP
(which has been the main internet protocol) was not nuclear physics, just a protocol.
Any decent engineer could and would have come up with something similar. Xerox was just
the first one to address the problem, because it had a government grant (since TCP/IP was
developed for DARPA).

As for CAD, go read David Noble's work on the origins of the "American System of
Manufacture" in the army's standardization of gun parts and the rigid discipline of
its military assembly line. Noble points out there WAS an alternative to CAD in the 1950s -
the recording and playback of machinists' hand motions as they ran tools. But, the
need for CONTROL made the military invest huge amounts and spend two decades
perfecting CAD to make sure that management, not labor controlled the assembly line.

> I saw first hand how the influx of over 12,000 workers into Pico Rivera California
> "trickeled out" into the surrounding community. Those people had to eat, somebody had to feed
> them. They had to live somewhere, they had to wear something, they needed cars, they went on
> vacation. Service industries boomed.

You are scoring a touchdown for me. What you recite is classic trickle-down justification. But,
it is well-documented in the economic literature that military spending has the LOWEST "multiplier
effect" on secondary jobs of ALL ways the government can spend money into the economy. Yes, it
produces SOME jobs; but there are a lot more efficient ways of doing so.

You are trying to justify massive squandering of resources on stuff that has no economic value,
only military value. We have had "military Keynesianism" since WW2. The only way politicians can
justify any kind of government spending is to say "its for defense". So we have the "National
Defense Interstate Highway System" and a higher-ed system that runs on military grants. We get
what we need only by paying a huge rakeoff to miliary contractors.

The only reason that the military had sponsored the science behind the technology is that the
military is the only politically correct justification for government technology planning. You
are trying to make a sad circumstance into a law of economics. Its just not true.

arendt

[Vyan]

27. Theoretically

Yes, there could have been an Internet without the cold war. Yes, visionary entrepreneaurs could have combined with college scholars to invest in a multi-billion dollar network infrastructure project that wouldn't see any potential profit for the next ten to fifteen years. Yeah, that could have happened. It didn't, but in some never-never-land, it remains a small, remote, miniscule possibility.

I'm not by any means saying that military or even government investment is the only way that these types of projects can be jump started. I wish private industry were far more forward looking and daring than they are - but most of the time they aren't. Government, the Military, did the heavy lifting on the net, period. They should get credit for it.

Whether CAD was controlled by labor or management has no bearing on the fact that B2 was the first aircraft entirely designed and even virtually "test flown" via computer. That wasn't easy to achieve and several initial approaches had to be scrapped along the way (hence a large portion of the planes development cost). I was there, i saw as ideas were tried and then tossed aside until the proper solution arose. The advances that have since occured in Computer Animation and Design have been tremendous, you have no further to look than the top of the film charts (Cars) to literally see the results of that kind of investment. Would private industry have invested this much time and money on it's own?

Maybe - I doubt it, but maybe. My point is, that there *Has* been a dividend.

Vyan

[arendt]

28. Your definition of "dividend" is starting to sound Carroll-ian

Look. The accepted definition of peace dividend is that PENTAGON SPENDING GOES DOWN.
It is capable of going down because, by common sense, you need less military spending
during peace than war. The Cold War ended, we won. Therefore, we needed to spend less
on expensive Cold War toys like ballistic missile submarines, the useless Star Wars ABM,
and strategic bombers.

Instead, we spent just as much or more in absolute dollars. There was no peace dividend.
You are attempting to change a commonly-accepted definition to suit your argument.

Do you understand that?

You can make all the claims you want for the military's role in American technology. Just
don't call it a "peace dividend".

And don't claim that because that's the way it happened in paranoid, Cold War America means
that that is the only "realistic scenario" by which we could have gotten peaceful applications
of high tech. The Japanese kicked our ass in consumer high tech like electronics and cars. They
did this with an economy less than half our size, while they were Constitutionally prohibited
from spending more than 1% of their GNP on their military. You want to try again about how
only military spending can do high tech?


aremdt

[Vyan]

30. yeah, right...

Look. The accepted definition of peace dividend is that PENTAGON SPENDING GOES DOWN. It is capable of going down because, by common sense, you need less military spending during peace than war. The Cold War ended, we won. Therefore, we needed to spend less on expensive Cold War toys like ballistic missile submarines, the useless Star Wars ABM, and strategic bombers.

It did go down, dramatically, under Clinton. It's gone thru the roof with Bush.

From the Washington Post Circa 1993.

President Clinton Thursday sent Congress the detailed version of a $1.52 trillon budget that is already being altered by the politics of compromise.

As promised in Clinton's earlier budget outline, the president's 1,478-page plan would slash military spending while raising taxes on energy and on the income of top earners. In those priorities lie its broadest difference with the last 12 budgets of Republican rule. Overall spending during the year starting Oct. 1 would be only about 3 percent more than the current year, in line with inflation.

Clinton would use that money for new spending programs and to reduce the size of projected budget deficits. But even with the deficit-reduction efforts, the national debt would grow by $1.45 trillion over the next five years under the Clinton plan.

Clinton's budget ultimately passed, without the energy tax, but with the cuts in military spending.

Instead, we spent just as much or more in absolute dollars. There was no peace dividend. You are attempting to change a commonly-accepted definition to suit your argument.

No, I am not. I am pointing out that we used to have a peace dividend - regardless of what definition you use (overall government spending was drastically down, especially within the Pentagon) - but we don't anymore.

You can make all the claims you want for the military's role in American technology. Just don't call it a "peace dividend".

Whatever. The investments made then helped foster the enormous prosperity that followed. I would agree that that period has ended, and the benefits we gained have since been tossed in the dumpster. I simply disagree with your claim that there was no dividend what-so-ever.

And don't claim that because that's the way it happened in paranoid, Cold War America means that that is the only "realistic scenario" by which we could have gotten peaceful applications of high tech. The Japanese kicked our ass in consumer high tech like electronics and cars. They did this with an economy less than half our size, while they were Constitutionally prohibited
from spending more than 1% of their GNP on their military. You want to try again about how only military spending can do high tech?

Since WWII the Japanese have been prohibited from rebuilding their former Military might. They have instead chosen to turn the Marketplace itself into their battlefield, and they've done well. At least they did for a while. Japan is now plagued with rampant inflation and other problems.

But that's not the point.

I didn't proclaim that America couldn't do the same, we could - but we simply haven't, not yet. At this time we simply aren't geared culturally to do so. I would welcome it, but it's not on the horizon. It's not even past the horizon.

Vyan

[a la izquierda]

3. your essay reminds me...

of this "cree proverb" i read on a t-shirt...who know if it is really a cree proverb, but it fits. It says "only when the last tree has died, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught will humans realize that we can't eat money".

you write very well. i like your posts.

[Nordmadr]

4. As the memorial of Thermopylae, honoring the fallen Spartans

translates:

"Go, tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie".

I just finished reading the historical novel "Gates of Fire" which covers this epic battle as the Greeks defended themselves against a Persian invasion. These men guarded the gates of their Nation to preserve the freedom of their people. What is preserving freedom in our Nation now? Men and women still sacrifice...but I think they know not for what. This tale reminds me of our situation, and how great nations rise and fall.

It seems we can not see the forest for the trees.

Olafr

[lectrobyte]

5. Before the lights go out. I've been feeling that feeling a while now, and

really wish something or someone could convince me that things are heading otherwise. By way of a postscript to your excellent essay, a quote from Hunter S. Thompson:

The American nation is in the worst condition I can remember in my lifetime, and our prospects for the immediate future are even worse. I am surprised and embarrassed to be a part of the first American generation to leave the country in far worse shape than it was when we first came into it. Our highway system is crumbling, our police are dishonest, our children are poor, our vaunted Social Security, once the envy of the world, has been looted and neglected and destroyed by the same gang of ignorant greed-crazed bastards who brought us Vietnam, Afghanistan, the disastrous Gaza Strip and ignominious defeat all over the world.

The Stock Market will never come back, our Armies will never again be No. 1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of our lives.

The Bush family must be very proud of themselves today, but I am not. Big Darkness, soon come. Take my word for it.

[Sad4world]

29. Ditto

[Totally Committed]

6. Excellent!

Thank you.

TC

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. I'm reading James Carroll's book --House of War-- right now

It's one of the most enlightening books I have ever read on the subject.

I could not recommend any book more than this one.

It is interesting that since the author's father was the founding commander of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) he was able to humanize so many of the key players while showing how paranoia, domestic politics, and fighting between the various branches of the military was a major part of what fueled the cold war and the arms race. It's also amazing just how many times thermonuclear Armageddon came so close. And he accomplished this while showing how so many of the key players were just decent normal people "just doing their job".



House of War
by James Carroll

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618187804/qid=1151417669/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1846545-3744063?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[arendt]

13. Thanks for plugging the Carroll book for me...

it was an amazing, eye-opening tour of the background to my entire life.

It never really dawned on me, before Bush, that the military had completely
eclipsed diplomacy in America since WW2. Carroll slams this point home,
repeatedly.

His list of major-league paranoids who have shaped America is scary - the
first time I had put all these toxic creatures into the same suicidal
cocktail:

..........LeMay, Forrestal, Nitze, Teller, Wolfowitz

This pentagon of paranoia has defined America's brief moment in the sun.

arendt

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. yes he brought out their paranoia -- but I think he tries to be fair to

them and shows how human they were.

The book made LeMay sound like a likable character except for those little flaws of his -- persistently pushing the world to the brink of destruction and emotionlessly executing mass extermination of civilian populations.

[Karenina]

33. Ike warned us!

:loveya: :kick:

[4_TN_TITANS]

9. Very well written.... and sad...

that so few of us see the inevitable course of this nation, but we can't be heard over the stampedes to Walmart or the DVD players in the Escalades.

[tblue37]

11. You're good. (eom)

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. What a stunningly profound, discursive, enlightening synthesis

of the seminal facts underlying the past development and the current situation of the US today. All the more horrifying, of course, for being clear and compelling. (Unlike, unfortunately, my turgid attempt at a worthy tribute).

[DirtyDawg]

17. What this guy/gal...

...just said.

[Gregorian]

18. Absolutely brilliant.

This sums the whole story up into one concise article. You've nailed the nail on the head. Perfectly. What else can I say? It's a pleasure to see such clarity and insight. And the pleasure comes from knowing that someone else knows and can express it in a way I never could. Thank you Arendt. You are an inspiration.

This is the finest piece of writing I've ever seen on this forum.

Edit- Sadly, that is where the enthusiasm ends, I'm afraid. We are entering into a new history. I suppose it won't be long before I look back upon this moment with nostalgia.

[OneBlueSky]

20. right on, arendt . . . as usual . . .

some of us have been sounding the call for "The Truth" to become the hallmark of Democratic politics, often to no avail . . . if we can't get our candidates to pledge to tell the nation "the truth, the whole truth, an nothing but the truth," then we remain part of the problem rather than a catalyst for solutions . . . thanks for articulating this so clearly . . .

in this day and age, "The Truth" is anything but pleasant . . . but it is a prima facie fact that you cannot possibly solve a problem unless you define it clearly and accurately -- and you can only do that by telling the truth . . .

we Democrats must be the ones to tell the nation the truth -- about election fraud, about global warming, about the 9/11 coverup, about the war, about depleted uranium weapons, about all of it . . .

thanks largely to BushCo, The Truth is indeed very unpleasant . . . but we must face it, name it, and deal with it if we are to survive as a nation and, ultimately, as a civilization . . .

[arendt]

22. HI, OBS-

The truth is absolutely necessary. Getting killed being the messenger is not.

I think that we have to get the truth out at the personal level, below the propaganda
radar. It is only once we have crystallized a meme in the society at large that we
can stand up with the (truthful) meme and call upon people's common knowledge of it.

Right now, we try to go head to head at the corporate/national level. Its like pulling
a pistol on an army division.

We need the truth, and we need to build up truth-broadcasting institutions.

arendt

[femrap]

25. I printed your essay and gave it to my mother to read...

she became depressed thinking that this country is toast...that we can't get the Truth out. But think back, for example, to the Suffragette movement...there were no TVs, no cell phones, yet women organized and marched and fought and kept fighting for years until they got the VOTE.

I think most people today are afraid...so they watch 'American Idol' so they don't have to think. Cuz if one thinks, the fear starts to awaken. Same with shopping/consumerism....it keeps one from thinking and seeing the Truth. Yet when I talk to people and speak a bit of the Truth, they seem relieved and maybe even happy to hear it. As if they were afraid to say 'it' yet I validated their thoughts.

OTOH, there are folks out there with their heads so far up their asses, they're ready to turn inside out. I stay away from them.

Sure you're not hannah? lol.

[jaysunb]

23. Great Essay !

as always....

[Flagrante]

24. It occurs that the Founding Fathers

did not institute the vote to select new leaders, but as a means to regularly toss out the old leaders. The next tossing will be a joy to behold.

[pengu1n]

26. As clear as a bell....

This essay is one of the most articulate and compelling arguments I have read here on DU (or indeed anywhere else for that matter).

Well done. This should be printed out and sent to every editor in the country, stuck to every billboard, and slipped under every windscreen wiper.

The problem is that people will do almost anything to avoid unpleasant reality. If there are two choices, the path of least discomfort is the one that most people will opt for, and the choices ahead are not pleasant.

Stick it to them - often and with clarity, and many more will get the message.

Superb and rightly disturbing stuff Arendt...

[BrklynLiberal]

31. I read this at work ,and could not wait to get home so I could recommend

it, and send it out to everyone I know.
It is a masterpiece.
:thumbsup: :hi: :applause:

[unkachuck]

32. beautiful....n/t

[annabanana]

34. thank you.. . . . . . . . n/t