Random Thoughts and Buckshot Opining
If anyone doubts the reasons for the U.S. pressuring Iran to stop uranium enrichment, please allow yourself to cogitate the future for a moment. Once Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's leader, has the political leverage of nukes, he will use it as a trump to bully others in the Middle East. But more heinously prevelent is the eventual selling of these nukes to proxy terrorist groups. Understand, Iran has a weak army, the same is true for Syria. They would be trampled in short order by any of the advanced western armies, including Israel. Hezbollah is Iran's most advanced army in it's war against Israel setting up shop in another weak Arab country (an oxymoron), Lebanon. Once Iran supplies the terrorists with nukes, a skirmish like the one Israel recently had with Hezbollah could have a devastating outcome. Iran will claim it's hands clean and the leftists and liberals of the world will line up to defend the villians, as usual.
If there are people in America I am at more odds with among the social catacombs in the arena of ideas, then it is the modern day environmentalists. They are non-prorogressives in the truest sense. They are the scourge of California and prohibit the building of homes and businesses, exascerbate capital from the people and drive costs to do business to heighths that are nothing short of penalization. In the name of the spotted owl an entire sprawling potential neighborhood is scoffed, held up, battled, and finally squashed. It can devastate a construction contract, stifle a city council and bottle up progress in the name of unbridled ridiculousness.
Behind the veil of do-gooder for Mother Earth, these people are nothing more than anti-capitalists in green clothing. Lobbying the state and federal government for sanctions against the art of production and entreprenurial ambition, environmentalists wreak their havoc on society in the form of emotion-to-tears policy and crippling regulation.
Now let's move on to the green party's kingpin, Algore. Algore has a new movie being released called "An Inconvenient Truth". It shows every disaster that Mother Earth is concocting for us in the next milleneum. Ice caps melting, seashore recession and temperature trends are his evidence fait accompli. Mainstream media is having an incredible orgasm over all this. They love crisis anyway but a documentary from a Clintonista is more than they can contain. So the Oped pages are singing Algore's tune partly to cleave Hilllary's chances and partly to create a crisis-de-jour.
Just for kicks let's say we implement everything Algore and the greens propose. Would we be better off environmentally? That would be a definite no. Nine million Prius', Kyoto Protocols and tofurkey on Thanksgiving does the earth no better, or worse for that matter. The earth is an ever-changing body of energy that no human can control or harness. As an industrialized nation since the 1940s, America is blamed for every natural disaster from acid rain to hurricanes. As human beings we are arrogant to think we can control the cosmos. The only cosmsos we control are the ones with vodka and cranberry juice thank you very much.
Behind the veil of do-gooder for Mother Earth, these people are nothing more than anti-capitalists in green clothing. Lobbying the state and federal government for sanctions against the art of production and entreprenurial ambition, environmentalists wreak their havoc on society in the form of emotion-to-tears policy and crippling regulation.
Now let's move on to the green party's kingpin, Algore. Algore has a new movie being released called "An Inconvenient Truth". It shows every disaster that Mother Earth is concocting for us in the next milleneum. Ice caps melting, seashore recession and temperature trends are his evidence fait accompli. Mainstream media is having an incredible orgasm over all this. They love crisis anyway but a documentary from a Clintonista is more than they can contain. So the Oped pages are singing Algore's tune partly to cleave Hilllary's chances and partly to create a crisis-de-jour.
Just for kicks let's say we implement everything Algore and the greens propose. Would we be better off environmentally? That would be a definite no. Nine million Prius', Kyoto Protocols and tofurkey on Thanksgiving does the earth no better, or worse for that matter. The earth is an ever-changing body of energy that no human can control or harness. As an industrialized nation since the 1940s, America is blamed for every natural disaster from acid rain to hurricanes. As human beings we are arrogant to think we can control the cosmos. The only cosmsos we control are the ones with vodka and cranberry juice thank you very much.
As far as pounding sand goes, if you don't like brawling in baseball you're welcome to do just that. Whether its the big Dominican Jose Mesa putting one between the blasdes of Omar Vizquel or perennial red-ass Jason Kendall charging the mound on John Lackey who has about 6 inches and 45 lbs. on him. Tell me you didn't love that one. Kendall and Lackey. Lackey threw inside and Kendall tried unsuccessfully to lean into the pitch. Lackey noticed and gave Kendall a second look and a few choice words before Kendall charged the mound. It was like someone had just slapped Kendall's Mom. Kendall blew his stack and attacked the mound empying the benches.
I was at a Reds game in the early eighties when Ray Knight and John Milner fo the Pirates got into it on third base. Also I recall vivivly Mario Soto throwing a one hitter against the Phillies and late into the game Ron Reed stuck one in his earpeice. Davey Concepcion lost his gourd on the field that day and Soto charged the mound with bat in hand. It was great. Although in poor taste I also enjoyed The Gerbil Don Zimmer getting suplexed by Pedro Martinez. Another classic is Robin Ventura charging the mound on Nolan Ryan who then used Ventura's dome as a speed bag.
But my favorite of all time baseball brawl was during a spring training agme in 1990 ish. Mets vee Blue Jays. Todd Stottlmyre driled Daryl Strawberry in teh buttocks and then glared at home plate as Strawberry first talked trash and then headed for the mound. He never reached Stattlemyre because 3rd baseman Kelly Gruber de-cleated him before he was more than halfway. It was a textbook form tackle and I always admired Gruber after.
I was at a Reds game in the early eighties when Ray Knight and John Milner fo the Pirates got into it on third base. Also I recall vivivly Mario Soto throwing a one hitter against the Phillies and late into the game Ron Reed stuck one in his earpeice. Davey Concepcion lost his gourd on the field that day and Soto charged the mound with bat in hand. It was great. Although in poor taste I also enjoyed The Gerbil Don Zimmer getting suplexed by Pedro Martinez. Another classic is Robin Ventura charging the mound on Nolan Ryan who then used Ventura's dome as a speed bag.
But my favorite of all time baseball brawl was during a spring training agme in 1990 ish. Mets vee Blue Jays. Todd Stottlmyre driled Daryl Strawberry in teh buttocks and then glared at home plate as Strawberry first talked trash and then headed for the mound. He never reached Stattlemyre because 3rd baseman Kelly Gruber de-cleated him before he was more than halfway. It was a textbook form tackle and I always admired Gruber after.
Gas Prices
The most brilliant people I know are economists. Their field is a vast one. So when the topic of gas prices and its effect on the economy hits the news cycle, inevitably some news show will pair up, as a debate, an economist and a politician. One schooled on trend theory and the other schooled on trendy theories. Neil Cavuto had a discussion with Dick Durbin (D) Ill. the other day. Cavuto peppered Durbin with pointy jabs about the government's role in the price of a gallon of gas. Durbin's reply to each question referred exclusively to Lee Raymond's retirement package worth $400 million and the oil company's record profits. This is classic right/left-wing jousting on display. The right is amplifying the government's wasteful role while the left uses class warfare.
UPDATE: I just came across this gem from the master Mark Steyn.
Isn't the real question this: Why do so many citizens need professional tax preparation? These days, tiny towns without a gas station or general store nevertheless manage to support an H&R Block office. Why? because no reasonably well-informed citizen can understand-or even read- the tax code. So a minimum wage waitress with a part-time house cleaning business requires professional assistance to file her taxes. That's a disgrace to a free society.
The most brilliant people I know are economists. Their field is a vast one. So when the topic of gas prices and its effect on the economy hits the news cycle, inevitably some news show will pair up, as a debate, an economist and a politician. One schooled on trend theory and the other schooled on trendy theories. Neil Cavuto had a discussion with Dick Durbin (D) Ill. the other day. Cavuto peppered Durbin with pointy jabs about the government's role in the price of a gallon of gas. Durbin's reply to each question referred exclusively to Lee Raymond's retirement package worth $400 million and the oil company's record profits. This is classic right/left-wing jousting on display. The right is amplifying the government's wasteful role while the left uses class warfare.
UPDATE: I just came across this gem from the master Mark Steyn.
Isn't the real question this: Why do so many citizens need professional tax preparation? These days, tiny towns without a gas station or general store nevertheless manage to support an H&R Block office. Why? because no reasonably well-informed citizen can understand-or even read- the tax code. So a minimum wage waitress with a part-time house cleaning business requires professional assistance to file her taxes. That's a disgrace to a free society.
Watching Deicide live in 2006 is more nostalgic since last seeing them perform in 1993. Glen Benton was his usual cranky self, playing in a less than enthusiastic manner. If it's just exhaustion it is to be excused since he is also singing for the opener Vital Remains, sporting full-body leather armor complete with a leather facemask. I caught him walking through the halls and grabbed this classic pose.
Immigration and the failure of our idiot politicians
Published Saturday, April 01, 2006 by Larry Meiring.
George Will's latest essay entitled "Guard the Borders-and face facts too" gives a four-point assignation to the role of 'control' at the top of the immigration issue.
But control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve.
The second point is most likely the one that abhors people the most. But abhorrence topped out during the large protests last week where school kids, prompted by activist, walked out of classes all across California. These walkouts spilled onto highways clogging up traffic for miles. Especially irksome was the Mexican flag being flown above or sometimes in place of Old Glory.
But personally, I would be protsting too if my current livlihood and a potential family relocation were being bandied about in Congress. Lawlessness from vigilantes inside and needfully across the border need to be dealt with with force. Once the federales spot a troupe of border-jumpers in the act of crossing , the coyotes dump their cargo like Han Solo when Imperial fighters arrive. THe human cargo left behind goes to a holding center and is then deported. The coyote banditos keep every cent of the $1500 per head they charge for services rendered or not. The financial magnitude of the injustices of this nature foment organized crime and territorial beatings.
So who can we blame for all this ribald Mexican nationalism; protesting our country's potential laws? The Mexicans? It's simply an issue of incentives for them. Not only with the obvious financial upheaval, but more like doing it legally takes rigamarole, red-tape and eleven years. To do it illegally costs fifteen hungy and an all nighter running with everything you own in a backpack across a busy highway or two. Two days later you'll be helping lay carpet, carrying 2x4s and getting paid cash money, every day. It's a beautiful thing really. No, you'd be unwise to blame the Mexicans. They are of quality stock and a familial people.
Blame your governments. State, Federal and local. Where the hell are they during all of this? (Insert humor) As usual, they're asleep at the wheel snipping about leaked ex-CIA agents, investigating steroids in baseball and chasing that ultra-priority, Scooter Libby, that's where. American politics is spiraling deep into the helix where every senator wants to be a media superstar, and no one wants to make laws to serve and protect the greatest country that history has ever known. Our melancholy reality is where laws are passed with only emotion, via the "issue of the day". Campaign Finance Reform? McCain-Feingold? Why did we demand that they pass this law again? Or did we at all? This law strips freedom of speech for donating money to cause or candidate. These are the type of lynchpins we will have to deal with in short time. Erosional freedom means eventually there won't be any left.
To be frank, this is an issue with many different angles. It will take senatorial fortitude to hammer out something the people will accept. I'm really not expecting much from them. An issue like this will be so polygonal a Republican majority will become anything but, and Democrats will vote against, and negatively splay anything Republicans put forth. These are the situations where Democrats act incorrigibly at best. Just like the Terri Schivo event, immigration and border security is a difficult situation requiring someone to lead and make difficult and unpopular decisions. WHen a thatch of a problem arises, Democrats say nothing, offer nothing and kick their feet up and watch Republicans flounder and wrestle with potential solutions. Anything decided upon is blasted by them and the negative points shown on CNN every 38 seconds.
But control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve.
The second point is most likely the one that abhors people the most. But abhorrence topped out during the large protests last week where school kids, prompted by activist, walked out of classes all across California. These walkouts spilled onto highways clogging up traffic for miles. Especially irksome was the Mexican flag being flown above or sometimes in place of Old Glory.
But personally, I would be protsting too if my current livlihood and a potential family relocation were being bandied about in Congress. Lawlessness from vigilantes inside and needfully across the border need to be dealt with with force. Once the federales spot a troupe of border-jumpers in the act of crossing , the coyotes dump their cargo like Han Solo when Imperial fighters arrive. THe human cargo left behind goes to a holding center and is then deported. The coyote banditos keep every cent of the $1500 per head they charge for services rendered or not. The financial magnitude of the injustices of this nature foment organized crime and territorial beatings.
So who can we blame for all this ribald Mexican nationalism; protesting our country's potential laws? The Mexicans? It's simply an issue of incentives for them. Not only with the obvious financial upheaval, but more like doing it legally takes rigamarole, red-tape and eleven years. To do it illegally costs fifteen hungy and an all nighter running with everything you own in a backpack across a busy highway or two. Two days later you'll be helping lay carpet, carrying 2x4s and getting paid cash money, every day. It's a beautiful thing really. No, you'd be unwise to blame the Mexicans. They are of quality stock and a familial people.
Blame your governments. State, Federal and local. Where the hell are they during all of this? (Insert humor) As usual, they're asleep at the wheel snipping about leaked ex-CIA agents, investigating steroids in baseball and chasing that ultra-priority, Scooter Libby, that's where. American politics is spiraling deep into the helix where every senator wants to be a media superstar, and no one wants to make laws to serve and protect the greatest country that history has ever known. Our melancholy reality is where laws are passed with only emotion, via the "issue of the day". Campaign Finance Reform? McCain-Feingold? Why did we demand that they pass this law again? Or did we at all? This law strips freedom of speech for donating money to cause or candidate. These are the type of lynchpins we will have to deal with in short time. Erosional freedom means eventually there won't be any left.
To be frank, this is an issue with many different angles. It will take senatorial fortitude to hammer out something the people will accept. I'm really not expecting much from them. An issue like this will be so polygonal a Republican majority will become anything but, and Democrats will vote against, and negatively splay anything Republicans put forth. These are the situations where Democrats act incorrigibly at best. Just like the Terri Schivo event, immigration and border security is a difficult situation requiring someone to lead and make difficult and unpopular decisions. WHen a thatch of a problem arises, Democrats say nothing, offer nothing and kick their feet up and watch Republicans flounder and wrestle with potential solutions. Anything decided upon is blasted by them and the negative points shown on CNN every 38 seconds.
This boy is nutty, but he's got moves I think.
Europe has a problem. Muslims are becoming more and more a part of its' population and the numbers cannot be ignored with any sanity. Further west, northerly migrations of Mexicans have created a national issue that is polygonal and sure to shape future elections. But is America's problem as dire as Europe's? Let's take a global look at the parallels between American and European immigration challenges, first through a social prism and then geopolitically.
It appears that social engineering and a massive welfare system have stricken Europe with a problem that has been all too evident in it's arrival. That is, to astute historians and those learned in en masse ethnic migration and the effect on the nation being settled. Muslim migration numbers and birth rates have skyrocketed in Europe in the last fifteen years. It was an inevitability that they would demand political representation. The problem is the absence of assimilation into the heavily socialist Europen societies. Social structures in these countries more or less segregate Muslims to their own neighborhoods and, coupled with an astronomical unemployment rate (the highest is in France), created a recipe for unrest that is starting to unleash itself. Evidence is in the subway bombing in London, and up to a thousand cars torched in France last year. Not to mention the quasi-riots over cartoons in the Middle East. All perpetuated and carried out by Islamists.
America has its' own immigration problem, that coming from Mexico and Central America, not to mention the vast open border to the north. Our problems' complexities include the security risk of radical Muslims and Arabs with bad intentions entering our country through porous lapses in border security. Influxes of up to a million or more illegal immigrants inot California alone have overwhelmed a state which is, ironically, eager to assist these potential victims. Supposed do-gooders are gifted state money to create programs for illegal aliens creating strange civil rights arguments for people in our country illegally. This is as much a part of the problem as the massive numbers who enter illegally via the coyote el train. An already existing liberal state like California has no boundaries of giving. If money runs short, raising taxes is the first resource begged, creating even more animosity and activism against Mexican illegals.
In Britain, Tony Blair is faced with Islamic fanatics who will occasion to do what they do best; maim and destroy innocent people. Word on the street is that Islam is a religion of peace, but what we and the British have realized is that 9.5 out of 10 acts of terrorism are carried out by Islamic and Muslim fanatics. For Blair though the problem is of a larger and more frightening scale. Determining how to assimilate a people whose religion is at odds with peace and rule of law in a country whose Anglo population is decreasing and whose governement is run by a progressively inhibitive, i.e. liberal party, is a monumental, if not impossible task. WIthout a plan of assimilation, decrepit Olde Europe will continue to spiral into a nightmare of socialist creation. Frankly speaking, Europe's weakness and decline has encouraged AMerica to look elsewhere for a partner in global strategy. Hence President Bush and Condolleza's recent trip to India.
In America ther is an outcry for politicians to do something about border security and illegal immigration. All political solutions are caught in the thorns of this complex issue. President Bush has danced around the 'amnesty' word for over two years now. He has all but endorsed worker permits for those gainfully employed coupled with vouchers from each's respective employers. Background checks would also be a mandatory inclusion in any Bush plan. Frankly, this does not seem unreasonable. Dealing with border security is a whole different ballgame though and it appears to be gaining momentum with Republicans and Democrats, thanks in part to the popularity of the Minutemen's border crusade.
It is easier to strike contrasts rather than comparisons between American and European immigration issues. Think for a minute, would you rather be in Blair's shoes and have a boiling cauldron of Islamofascists in your midst? Or would you rather realize the influx of hard working Mexicanos with strong Catholic backgrounds and a penchant for productivity, as well as the potential conservative votes. America's immigration problems are manageable. Free markets and affordable education are assimilating Mexican immigrants into the American economy with imminentally positive results. Europeans will eventually have to deport their unassailable and unproductive Muslim problem back to the sand.
It appears that social engineering and a massive welfare system have stricken Europe with a problem that has been all too evident in it's arrival. That is, to astute historians and those learned in en masse ethnic migration and the effect on the nation being settled. Muslim migration numbers and birth rates have skyrocketed in Europe in the last fifteen years. It was an inevitability that they would demand political representation. The problem is the absence of assimilation into the heavily socialist Europen societies. Social structures in these countries more or less segregate Muslims to their own neighborhoods and, coupled with an astronomical unemployment rate (the highest is in France), created a recipe for unrest that is starting to unleash itself. Evidence is in the subway bombing in London, and up to a thousand cars torched in France last year. Not to mention the quasi-riots over cartoons in the Middle East. All perpetuated and carried out by Islamists.
America has its' own immigration problem, that coming from Mexico and Central America, not to mention the vast open border to the north. Our problems' complexities include the security risk of radical Muslims and Arabs with bad intentions entering our country through porous lapses in border security. Influxes of up to a million or more illegal immigrants inot California alone have overwhelmed a state which is, ironically, eager to assist these potential victims. Supposed do-gooders are gifted state money to create programs for illegal aliens creating strange civil rights arguments for people in our country illegally. This is as much a part of the problem as the massive numbers who enter illegally via the coyote el train. An already existing liberal state like California has no boundaries of giving. If money runs short, raising taxes is the first resource begged, creating even more animosity and activism against Mexican illegals.
In Britain, Tony Blair is faced with Islamic fanatics who will occasion to do what they do best; maim and destroy innocent people. Word on the street is that Islam is a religion of peace, but what we and the British have realized is that 9.5 out of 10 acts of terrorism are carried out by Islamic and Muslim fanatics. For Blair though the problem is of a larger and more frightening scale. Determining how to assimilate a people whose religion is at odds with peace and rule of law in a country whose Anglo population is decreasing and whose governement is run by a progressively inhibitive, i.e. liberal party, is a monumental, if not impossible task. WIthout a plan of assimilation, decrepit Olde Europe will continue to spiral into a nightmare of socialist creation. Frankly speaking, Europe's weakness and decline has encouraged AMerica to look elsewhere for a partner in global strategy. Hence President Bush and Condolleza's recent trip to India.
In America ther is an outcry for politicians to do something about border security and illegal immigration. All political solutions are caught in the thorns of this complex issue. President Bush has danced around the 'amnesty' word for over two years now. He has all but endorsed worker permits for those gainfully employed coupled with vouchers from each's respective employers. Background checks would also be a mandatory inclusion in any Bush plan. Frankly, this does not seem unreasonable. Dealing with border security is a whole different ballgame though and it appears to be gaining momentum with Republicans and Democrats, thanks in part to the popularity of the Minutemen's border crusade.
It is easier to strike contrasts rather than comparisons between American and European immigration issues. Think for a minute, would you rather be in Blair's shoes and have a boiling cauldron of Islamofascists in your midst? Or would you rather realize the influx of hard working Mexicanos with strong Catholic backgrounds and a penchant for productivity, as well as the potential conservative votes. America's immigration problems are manageable. Free markets and affordable education are assimilating Mexican immigrants into the American economy with imminentally positive results. Europeans will eventually have to deport their unassailable and unproductive Muslim problem back to the sand.
The deal to sell the American ports to the United Arab Emirates has wrought a puzzling change in Washington's political spinzone. President Bush has stated the deal should go through, reminding us that the British have ran American ports in the past and so Arabs running them shouldn't be any different. Democrats, smelling blood, have taken the route of strong national defense, decrying this as just another Bush blunder. Some Republicans up for '06 elections have also sensed the people's irked reception to the White House's insistence that the deal is kosher.
There are two things we can incur as near certainties. President Bush will stick to his original opinion, popular or not, and Democrats will always play politics even if it means an assault on logic from their past arguments. For example, their previous lamentations that America is losing its' respect in the world and that we should nuance everything is dashed against the rocks with this stance on this issue.
The argument for the deal delves into the rules and regulations of whom actually writes the rules of hiring and inspecting the cargo coming in. The U. A. E. has been our ally in capturing terrorists and has a vested economic interest in American commerce, in the growing world market. Some columnists have espoused a xenophobia, announcing an American bigotry as the reason for being anti-Arab-American-port-ownership. Frankly, that may have some validity.
The argument against the deal is easier to grasp. While at war with Arab nutjobs we should not be serving up potential gateways into our country to factions known to be sympathetic to terrorists. Period, end of story. President Bush claims, to coin a Jedi phrase, these U.A.E. Arabs aren't the droids we're looking for. I'm not so sure of that Obi Wan.
The bottom line is this, the White House and the State Department are trying to save face with one of the few Middle Eastern countries that we have good relations with. The American people are not hesitant, but eagerly agog,to give Arab Islamists the middle finger. Bush's arguments are not strong enough to overcome visuals of Islamic maniacs committing treachery across the world and on our TV screens every ngiht. This deal should die. In my opinion, the symbolic gesture of telling an Arab country to go pound sand (and they have plenty to pound) outweighs any face-saving political alignments.
There are two things we can incur as near certainties. President Bush will stick to his original opinion, popular or not, and Democrats will always play politics even if it means an assault on logic from their past arguments. For example, their previous lamentations that America is losing its' respect in the world and that we should nuance everything is dashed against the rocks with this stance on this issue.
The argument for the deal delves into the rules and regulations of whom actually writes the rules of hiring and inspecting the cargo coming in. The U. A. E. has been our ally in capturing terrorists and has a vested economic interest in American commerce, in the growing world market. Some columnists have espoused a xenophobia, announcing an American bigotry as the reason for being anti-Arab-American-port-ownership. Frankly, that may have some validity.
The argument against the deal is easier to grasp. While at war with Arab nutjobs we should not be serving up potential gateways into our country to factions known to be sympathetic to terrorists. Period, end of story. President Bush claims, to coin a Jedi phrase, these U.A.E. Arabs aren't the droids we're looking for. I'm not so sure of that Obi Wan.
The bottom line is this, the White House and the State Department are trying to save face with one of the few Middle Eastern countries that we have good relations with. The American people are not hesitant, but eagerly agog,to give Arab Islamists the middle finger. Bush's arguments are not strong enough to overcome visuals of Islamic maniacs committing treachery across the world and on our TV screens every ngiht. This deal should die. In my opinion, the symbolic gesture of telling an Arab country to go pound sand (and they have plenty to pound) outweighs any face-saving political alignments.
About me
- I'm Larry Meiring
- From Laguna Hills, California, United States
- My profile