• November 1, 2014
November 01, 2014, 3:34:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with your Chronicle username and password
News: For all you tweeters, follow The Chronicle on Twitter.
 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Standing on principle for animal rights -- or crossing the line?  (Read 50355 times)
Leana Stormont, J.D.
Guest
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2005, 10:06:48 AM »

Dr. Best is a courageous and provocative thinker. His unequivocal commitment to principal merits admiration. He rightly points out that violence can be viewed on a continuum and that there is an important difference between violence towards property and violence towards people. To conflate the two is to exalt the status of property as if it were sacred.

One can argue that the destruction of shock boxes, stereotaxic devices, cages and other tools that exist solely to confine, maim and injure animals is violent. Like Dr. Best, I would argue that leaving them intact is more violent. Individuals are free to condemn the destruction of that property just as Dr. Best is free to condemn its very existence.

It is sublimely perverse to suggest that animal rights activists are terrorists. Dr. Best’s praxis is grounded in opposition to the indiscriminate destruction of life. Only in America, where property is sacred and life is cheap, could that opposition be so cunningly conflated with terrorism. The comparison would be laughable if the scale and sorrow of animal suffering today was not so heartbreaking.

[%sig%]
Logged
Leana Stormont
Guest
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2005, 10:20:19 AM »

As an animal rights activist I would like to clear up some confusion. Animal rights opponents often suggest that the notion of animal rights is ridiculous because animals and humans should not have the same rights.

Any dialogue about animal rights must immediately dispense with the notion that animal rights activists believe animals should be given the same rights as humans. The guiding principle of equal rights that permeates American jurisprudence requires only this: that we treat like beings alike.

When African Americans and women engaged in their respective movements for suffrage, they were not suggesting that two year olds should have access to ballot boxes. Their struggle was about likes being treated alike; if adult African-Americans and women were similar in relevant respects to white men, they deserved equal consideration. Access to elections, they argued, should not be decided on arbitrary characterizations like race, gender or whether one owned property.

Discussions about human rights do not suggest that every human being should have every human right. Minors do not have the right to vote, marry or enter into contracts, yet no one would suggest that minors should not have any rights simply because they do not have every right. Such is the case for animal rights.

Much of what matters to humans in the context of rights is of no consequence to animals. My cat has no use for most human rights. She uses her litter box and takes baths in front of God and everybody. Privacy rights? She couldn’t care less. The point is, broadening the class of rights holders to include animals is not as revolutionary as some might think. All animal rights activists want is for human animals to quit doing horrible things to nonhuman animals. What’s so radical about that?
Logged
Leana Stormont, J.D.
Guest
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2005, 10:50:02 AM »

Dr. Best is a courageous and provocative thinker. His unequivocal commitment to principal merits admiration. He rightly points out that violence can be viewed on a continuum and that there is an important difference between violence towards property and violence towards people. To conflate the two is to exalt the status of property as if it were sacred.

One can argue that the destruction of shock boxes, stereotaxic devices, cages and other tools that exist solely to confine, maim and injure animals is violent. Like Dr. Best, I would argue that leaving them intact is more violent. Individuals are free to condemn the destruction of that property just as Dr. Best is free to condemn its very existence.

It is sublimely perverse to suggest that animal rights activists are terrorists. Dr. Best’s activism is grounded in opposition to the indiscriminate destruction of life. Only in America, where property is sacred and life is cheap, could that opposition be so cunningly conflated with terrorism. The comparison would be laughable if the scale and sorrow of animal suffering today was not so heartbreaking.
Logged
Jerry Vlasak, MD
Guest
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2005, 11:10:59 AM »

brian states perfectly:
"To fully understand what Animal Rights is, you must understand that AR people believe that there is no difference between the value of an animal life and a human life (to claim there is would be to commit the sin of "speciesism", and that would be as immoral as committing an act of racism)."


Only an egocentric, anthropocentric human could find a way to believe that their species is the only one that really matters. That they have the right to exploit any being weaker than themselves if it provides them with amusement, tasty meals or a potential cure for an ailment.

Humans are destroying the ecosystem millions of species need to survive, and along the way inducing terror, suffering and misearable, ugly deaths on billions of human and non-human beings. Just as activists like John Brown did when citizens of this country enslaved other humans barely 150 years ago, modern warriors of the animal liberation movement of today will fight for the freedom of those oppressed in our society.

Like Brown, like Mandela in South Africa, like millions of others in places like Vietnam, Algeria, Iraq and elsewhere, animal liberationists will continue to break an unjust society's laws until all its members are free from oppression.

Those unlucky enough to have been born non-human are lucky to have Dr. Best speaking and acting on their behalf.

[%sig%]
Logged
Nathan Nobis, UAB
Guest
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2005, 11:32:40 AM »

In these contexts, too many people forget that what's permitted by law is not necessarily morally right. Sure, nearly all harmful treatment of animals is legal, but -- just like any other moral issue -- it's an entirely separate question whether this treatment is moral, or just, or right. That's true about EVERY issue, and too many people seem unable to abstract away from the concrete details of this particular issue to see that.

Once this is seen, the question is whether this (any, all) harmful treatment of animals is right, justified, just or not. Reasons can be given for a variety of perspectives. However, again -- like any other moral issue -- those reasons can be rationally evaluated.

Interestingly, there are whole departments in colleges and universities dedicated to trying to develop this skill at identifying and evaluating reasons for moral views: philosophy departments. While they are not perfect, many of them do a great job at teaching students (and faculty) how to better think critically and carefully about moral issues.

An interesting fact is that nearly all philosophers who address issues about ethics and animals come down on a pro-animal side: they agree that the best reasons support thinking that, at least much, of what's done to animals is wrong and ought to stop.

Unfortunately (especially as someone who teaches these topics) there is not a whole lot out there defending the status quo; again, like many things, common assumptions seem to lack rational support.  Most of these arguments are ideal fodder for "critical thinking" courses, ideal examples for how NOT to reason.

So, here's an abstract question: when someone is doing something that there's very good reason to think is wrong, BUT it is legal, what are (and are not) morally permissible ways to respond to that person? If the treatment of animals is just one of those issues (and there is good reason to think it is, if one takes the time to learn about all this), then what ought to be done regarding those who treat animals badly?  Hopefully one's answers here would have something in common with one's answers in other cases; otherwise the response is likely entirely ad-hoc.

The Chronicle is an academic publication and the best tools of academia should be used in addressing its issues. Unfortunately, financial and gustatory motivations can cloud clear thinking. We should work to overcome that.

Nathan Nobis
www.NathanNobis.com
www.WhyThinkThat.com

[%sig%]
Logged
Beth J, Humanities, Axia
Guest
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2005, 3:13:26 PM »

It depends on where he stands for those rights.  Although I find his position moronic, I stand wholeheartedly for his right to hold it and to espouse it - OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM AND AWAY FROM HIS STUDENTS.  No professor has the right to influence his students, because he stands in a power relation to them.  That extends to anything he does AROUND them - signs on his door, if he holds office hours, etc.  Since they are lesser in power, they are in a position to be intimidated, and that is wrong.  Outside that space, he can and should be free to talk and write his head off.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech - unless he advocates violence.  The freedom of speech law is perfectly clear: incitement to violence is illegal, and always has been.  The cause does not matter.  I teach courses on freedom of speech, and everybody should know that line.
Logged
brian
Guest
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2005, 5:04:34 PM »

Nathan:  You may well be interested in discussing abstractions, but the people who were attacked by ALF at Iowa and in Lousiana are not abstractions:  they are human beings who now fear for the safety of their children, their spouses, their technicians, their graduate students and themselves.  

Do you really want to know what you should do with your abstractions?

Now — for openers, I'd like to thank Dr. Vlasak (himself a self appointed ALF "Press Officer") for validating my phrasing of the core AR "principle" (that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value).  

The uncompromising stand against "speciesism" of Animal Rights activists like Professor Best and his apologists (read Stormont and Vlasak) is what separates AR from Animal Welfare.

Dr. Vlasak's imprimatur validates the points I made above — it validates why Dr. Vlasak feels it's morally acceptable to assassinate a few scientists to save more animal lives, and why he would openly advocate assassination on television.  For Dr. Vlasak, a human life is no more valuable than an animal life.

It also affirms why Professor Best would save his dog from a burning house before he'd save a human stranger, who could be your sib, spouse, parent, child or friend:  his dog is more important TO HIM than your relative or friend is TO HIM.  For Professor Best, a human life is of no greater value than an animal life.

Or so they claim . . . and yet . . .

I'm not altogether comfortable with the notion that my Animal Rights friends (Professor Best, Dr. Vlasak and Ms Stormont) are defending an anti-speciesism principle, and you shouldn't be either.  In my opinion, he/they are instead motivated by an attitude, one that is selectively applied against the bad guys (we scientists) but not applied against their ideological fellow travelers.  The attitude shifts on expedient sands.

I have looked in vain for Professor Best, Dr. Vlasak or Ms Stormont to condemn Animal Rights organization PeTA for killing animals at a far higher rate, and in far greater absolute numbers, than are killed by other shelters in PeTA's area.  PeTA kills just shy of 80% of the animals they take in, about 12,500 in the past 5.5 years alone.   PeTA does so even though they admit they could become a no-kill shelter immediately (they have an annual budget of $24 - $28 million).  PeTA claims that most of them are "unadoptable" — but what an odd reason for an animal to lose his right to live!  It would seem to me that unadoptable animals, especially those damaged by human abuse, would be precisely the animals most deserving of AR protection.

Professor Best's silence on this egregious violation of the "rights" of thousands of animals is deafening, as is the silence of Dr. Vlasak and Ms Stormont, who become incendiary in their condemnation at scientists because they use animals in their research, but in this case turn a demurely blind eye!

And then, there is the matter of spaying and neutering, unnecessary surgical procedures forced on sentient, non-human interest holders (as the AR people might refer to them) for no other reason than human convenience.  Not only is this forced surgical procedure a violation of an animal's right to reproduction, but it also deprives the hapless "non-human persons" (as the AR zealots refer to animals) of the pleasures of sexual intercourse and the rearing of offspring, even as it modifies their behavior to make them more compliant, more susceptible to human "exploitation."

Why is that not a violation of the animals' rights, and a trampling of the AR anti-speciesism "principle"?  Again, Professor Best is silent, as are Dr. Vlasak and Ms Stormont.

So — are my Animal Rights friends willing to act out of principle and condemn the actions of PeTA and demonize PeTA's administration and employees for their blatant "speciesism", or will they prove my point that they are acting on the basis of an attitude, not a principle, and remain silent or uncommitted?  

I know where my money lies . . .

There is, of course, one other ugly possibility.  Perhaps Professor Best and his apologists would avoid the sin of "speciesism" by treating humans the same way they treat animals — snuffing those who are too numerous or those it's inconvenient to care for, and forcing undesirables to be sterilized.

I know where I stand . . . you're free to make your own call.

Brian
Logged
JT
Guest
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2005, 8:28:54 PM »

 Leslie Johnson/Antioch Univ  wrote


"We have a process for effecting change in this country. Although it may not be as sensationalist as destroying property, and although it may take awhile to accomplish the end result, changing laws and educating the public are the best routes for making long-lasting change."



Meanwhile, the suffering continues...
Logged
Leana Stormont
Guest
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2005, 6:52:52 AM »

brian wrote:

> I have looked in vain for Professor Best, Dr. Vlasak or Ms
> Stormont to condemn Animal Rights organization PeTA for killing
> animals at a far higher rate, and in far greater absolute
> numbers, than are killed by other shelters in PeTA's area.
> PeTA kills just shy of 80% of the animals they take in, about
> 12,500 in the past 5.5 years alone.   PeTA does so even though
> they admit they could become a no-kill shelter immediately
> (they have an annual budget of $24 - $28 million).  PeTA claims
> that most of them are "unadoptable" — but what an odd reason
> for an animal to lose his right to live!  

These comments are interesting. If I didn't know better I'd think they were emanating from someone who actually cared about the fate of homeless companion animals.

Animal rights are not synonymous with the belief that animals have a right to be alive. Like all organizations grappling with the problem of companion animal overpopulation, PETA euthanizes animals.

When PETA learned that homeless animals in North Carolina were being gassed with fumes from the tailpipe of a pick-up truck and being shot with a .22 rifle while tied to a pole, they began subsidizing euthanasia through a local veterinarian, spending almost $9000 on those services to date. Further, PETA has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars improving facilities in N.C., has delivered hundreds of dog houses, free food and sterilized 7641 animals at minimal or no cost.

I think we can all agree that a painless death is better than being shot and left for dead.

Is killing homeless animals a travesty? Absolutely. Those of us who have had to do society's dirty work by euthanizing healthy dogs and cats will be the first to admit it. But if euthanizing dogs and cats and disposing of their bodies was a crime, I, along with almost every animal control officer and animal shelter employee in this country would be guilty of it. We are only doing the grim work that our throw away society has delegated to us.

As a former animal control employee I can tell you that there is nothing quite as tragic as looking into the eyes of a dog who wags her tail as you stroke her head and apologize for the fact that you could not find her a home while your co-worker injects an overdose of drugs into her vein to kill her. Nobody wishes euthanasia were not necessary more than we do, but a painless death is better than what life has in store for homeless animals who are born into a world that does not want them, that does not care for them and that does not deserve them.

People who are shocked or outraged by the fact that the bodies of dead dogs and cats find their way to landfills and rendering facilities by the millions every year should wake up and do something about it. More than 15,000 dogs and cats will be killed in shelters across the country today. Their blood is on the hands of those who continue to patronize breeders, puppy mills, pet stores and people who fail to spay and neuter their animals.

The only thing more tragic than the fate of homeless animals is the fact that their deaths are entirely avoidable. A humane society would prevent them from being born in the first place.



> And then, there is the matter of spaying and neutering,
> unnecessary surgical procedures forced on sentient, non-human
> interest holders (as the AR people might refer to them) for no
> other reason than human convenience.  

Spaying and neutering are done to prevent companion animal overpopulation.

> Not only is this forced surgical procedure a violation of an animal's right to
> reproduction, but it also deprives the hapless "non-human
> persons" (as the AR zealots refer to animals) of the pleasures
> of sexual intercourse and the rearing of offspring, even as it
> modifies their behavior to make them more compliant, more
> susceptible to human "exploitation."
>
> Why is that not a violation of the animals' rights, and a
> trampling of the AR anti-speciesism "principle"?  Again,
> Professor Best is silent, as are Dr. Vlasak and Ms Stormont.

For the same reason that circumcision is not a violation of a human right. We recognize and weigh competing interests all the time. We make decisions on behalf of individuals who, for one reason or another, are incapable of consenting or making informed decisions. Infants cannot consent to medical treatment, but we are not violating their rights when we carry out medically necessary procedures. We act in their best interests. It is no different with animals. I think it is safe to assume that a dog or cat would prefer to be sterilized given the fact that her offspring would be born into a world that would not care for her babies. I know I would.

[%sig%]
Logged
Richard Kahn, UCLA
Guest
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2005, 8:27:59 AM »

The claim from "brian" is that Steve Best is hypocritical because of his silence on the issue of PETA's euthanization practices...

Actually, the upcoming issue of the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, of which Best is Editor, will comment upon this matter in a critical fashion within my Reply to Nathan Snaza's previous paper on PETA's Holocaust on Your Plate campaign -- which he interprets through the lens of the philosophy of Giorgio Agamben -- and PETA's own Kathy Guillermo, who responded to Snaza in the following issue.

Ms. Stormont is correct (above) that rights are not synonymous with life, and in fact this is why Snaza draws upon Agamben's work, which demonstrates how the legacy of rights can be correlated with the creation of a biopolitics (the politics of life and death) over a socially included/excluded Other. The question our journal has been addressing is what this means for animal rights politics, and whether rights are worth fighting for or if we need to move laterally to a new project of liberation that might be centered around a different paradigm, like the feminist ethics of care.

This said, to answer "brian's" concern about AR figures failure to out animal rights organizations for their animal cruelty practices...

One needs to realize Brian that animal rights (whether practice or philosophy) is a politics -- it does not cohere to the absolutist abstract principles of truth that are historically generated by the ruling classes, but instead is concerned with strategic questions of how best to navigate society and its institutions in a manner that will best promote the truth evoked by the ending of systemic violence against animals. Obviously, a major tactic of what Herbert Marcuse called "counter-revolutionary" forces in society is the attempt to divide and conquer social movements. Thus, just as political parties -- and one might also include other political organizations like academic departments and discursive fields in this respect -- subject discourse to institutional norms and needs, so too with the AR movement in which people involved often think twice before doing or saying something that may play into the hands of the opposition.

With this said, animal rights figures and organizations certainly have made and will make errors. The ubiquity of the daily horror committed upon animals hardly releases those working for and with them from the possibility of being fallible. On the other hand, the larger question is whether those involved are learning from the movement's errors and is the movement as a whole therefore developing in its position. To my mind, AR philosophy has grown by leaps and bounds and continues to evolve. Again, to read Steve Best's work alone is to recognize how imaginative and fruitful the present state of AR theory actually is.

All told, then, the academy can be very helpful for studying animal rights -- those outside its ranks can look at it sociologically, politically, and philosophically as a leading social movement of the present age and those within the AR community can continue to evoke it as a new standpoint theory capable of producing unique knowledge about society from the position of those who identify themselves with helping to end the needless suffering of animals and ecological crises.

[%sig%]
Logged
Rick Norwood, ETSU
Guest
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2005, 9:41:47 AM »

On my campus some years back, there were two groups of people killing rats.  The first group cost the university money, had no higher goal than killing the rats, and killed the rats in a horribly painful way.  The second group brought in a lot of money to the university, had the higher goal of finding cures for disease, and killed the rats painlessly.  Guess which group drew the protesters?

The first group, of course, were exterminators.  Countless rats are killed by exterminators every day, and nobody would dream of protesting.  The rats are fed a poison that causes them to experience extreme thirst, so that they go out of building to seek water before they die.

And yet, the "animal rights" protestors on my campus threw blood on the scientists and did not even notice the  exterminators.  Which leads me to conclude that like, so many others in the public eye, their motivation is not really love of animals, but love of telling other people what to do, of feeling superior.

There are sensible people who work for humane treatment of animals, but they are too busy to go around throwing blood on scientists.

The same is true of people who try to harass people eating meat or wearing fur or leather.  As environmental activist Barbara Kingsolver has pointed out, harvesting wheat kills many more animals, animals who make their homes in the wheat fields, than butchering cattle kills.

To object to the use of animals for food or clothing or research in a country where we kill more than a million cats and dogs every year because nobody wants them is a form of moral myopia.  If you really love animals, adopt a pet.
Logged
Nathan Nobis, Ph.D
Guest
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2005, 10:01:37 AM »

"Nathan: You may well be interested in discussing abstractions, but the people who were attacked by ALF at Iowa and in Lousiana are not abstractions: they are human beings who now fear for the safety of their children, their spouses, their technicians, their graduate students and themselves.

Do you really want to know what you should do with your abstractions?"

=========

There's a great quote by JFK about how people who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

Brian, you are just one of these people.

Peaceful revolution -- or peaceful change of any kind -- requires people to step back and reason about an issue: it requires some abstract thinking, not the gut reactions given above.

Again, if these people above whose labs were investigated are doing something wrong, then an important question to think about is what, if anything, should be done about this.  

Again, very good cases can be made that these experimenters are doing something wrong. You are probably aware of the fact that very little careful intellectual work has been done in favor of the status quo: what's out there is just very poor. That's unfortunate, since it'd be better to engage with arguments that are high quality, instead of the standard sophistry and tactics that are gleaned from doing just the opposite of what any 'critical thinking' text teaches.

It's very interesting how most people entirely forget that animals who are
-drown,
-suffocated,
-starved,
-burned;
-blinded,
-their ability to hear destroyed;
-their brains damaged,
- their limbs severed,
-their organs crushed;
- have heart attacks, ulcers, paralysis, seizures induced;
- are forcing them to inhale tobacco smoke, drink alcohol, and ingest various drugs, such as heroine and cocaine,
- and so on,

are also, as you put it, are "not abstractions: they are [conscious, feeling beings] who now fear for the safety of their [fellows] and themselves." That's entirely ignored, and it shouldn't be. Reasonable people agree.

[%sig%]
Logged
Disheartened
Guest
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2005, 11:15:51 AM »

Reading Nathan Nobis' message is truly disheartening.  He calls for people to reason and use rational discourse, yet takes positions that are AT LEAST as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christains discussing a "woman's right to choose" or Al Qaida discussing western culture, women's rights, and freedom of religion.  Rational conversation is not possible or productive with someone who holds a view with such single-minded passion that they are willing to kill over it.  Nathan Nobis' response to Brian indicates that his antipathy towards Brian's views is so deep that he believes this is a rationale for "violent revolution."  It is yet another version of fanaticism, based not on reason but on imposition of absolute control and power over others, but this time it is not done in the name of religion but in the name of intellectual elitism.  Fortunately, most people in this country who have practical, common sense, and have watched loved ones face diseases for which there were no treatments or cures, have the sense to realize that medical research using animals, particularly rodents, is an important contribution to HUMAN health and well being, and have the sense to realize that the life of a human being is more important than the life of a rat.
Logged
Leana Stormont
Guest
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2005, 12:05:35 PM »

Disheartened wrote:

> Rational conversation is not possible
> or productive with someone who holds a view with such
> single-minded passion that they are willing to kill over it.

This ignores the fact that Mr. Nobis is challenging the views of those who are not only willing to kill but who are in fact actually engaged in the act of killing on a regular basis. There is nothing theoretical or abstract about the loss of life that takes place within the confines of our University laboratories in the name of science or scholarship.

Fortunately, most people in this country who have
> practical, common sense, and have watched loved ones face
> diseases for which there were no treatments or cures, have the
> sense to realize that medical research using animals,
> particularly rodents, is an important contribution to HUMAN
> health and well being, and have the sense to realize that the
> life of a human being is more important than the life of a
> rat.

On the contrary, some oppose animal modeled research precisely because their loved ones are suffering from diseases that animal research has failed to cure. For example, researchers have been studying diabetes in rats for decades yet it remains a very enigmatic disease with no cure in sight.

A great deal of scholarly research shows animal research is misleading, yields information of limited extrapolative benefit to humans and actually hinders medical progress by diverting economic and intellectual resources away from methodologies better suited to curing human disease.

[%sig%]
Logged
brian
Guest
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2005, 12:10:44 PM »

I thank Ms Stormont for her lengthy response to a couple of the points I made, but I'm afraid that I'm still somewhat unclear about what she's really saying.  If I am, other readers may well be too.

Would Ms Stormont advocate killing humans as easily and for the same reasons she and PeTA find it justifiable, though regrettable, to kill animals?

That's a very simple question, and the logic of the AR anti-speciesism position dictates that she must.  

For if she does not, she is by definition advocating speciesism — discriminating on the basis of membership in a species, a sin that is every bit as great a moral transgression to an AR activist as is racism to the rest of us.  She would be privileging humans over non-humans for no other reason than that humans are, well, members of H. sapiens.  Or, instead, perhaps she would be privileging animals over humans by providing the former with a kinder, gentler death, a death she would deny the latter, those of us who are humans.

Either way — bestowing the kindly benefits of a loving death on humans but not animals, or on animals but not humans — Ms Stormont would be advocating speciesism.

And is Ms Stormont really equating sterilization with circumcision?  Oh, la!

But the issue of circumcision is really a red herring, and comparing sterilization with circumcision is a red herring on steroids.  Neither is at issue.

The issue is consistency in applying the AR "principle" of anti-"speciesism," a concept that AR advocates claim to be at the very core of their movement, and applying it to a very specific act, one with deep moral, social and political ramifications.  (Don't take my word for the centrality of "speciesism" in the AR world. See Dr. Jerry Vlasak's comment above.)

If one is going to advocate forced sterilization in animals, the only way to avoid "speciesism" is to advocate it for humans as well.

The fact that AR luminaries oppose "speciesism" selectively, when it suits them or is to their advantage, but they run and hide from it when it works against them, tells us all that their high-falootin' principle is merely a conceited attitude, albeit one with lipstick.

Brian
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.