Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 21, 2012

What Alexander Cockburn meant to me

Filed under: Alexander Cockburn — louisproyect @ 7:32 pm

Returning to New York in 1979 after an abortive attempt at becoming an industrial worker in Kansas City as part of the SWP’s “turn”, I wanted to put as much distance between me and the left as possible. Keeping in mind that I was still loyal to the cult, the left was pretty much synonymous with the SWP.  When I rejoined the consulting company I left to go out to Kansas City, I asked around to see if anybody knew of an available apartment. When my boss told me that he changed his mind about renting a place on 91st and Third and that I could take it if I wanted, my first reaction was to almost turn the offer down. Why would I want to live among a bunch of yuppies in a neighborhood whose only real distinction was that Woody Allen lived there (you have to remember that he was still funny at the time)? Upon further reflection, I decided that the neighborhood would make sense given my state of mind. At least I wouldn’t be running into any SWP’ers.

I had plans back then to begin writing novels and enjoy New York’s cultural attractions. (I have long given up on the first option.) In order to keep track of what was happening in NY at the time, the Village Voice was still necessary reading. With film reviews by J. Hoberman and other informed pieces, the paper was worth the dollar or so it cost at the time. (Now it is free and correspondingly worth nothing.)

Alexander Cockburn had begun writing a “Press Clips” column for the Voice in 1973, a good 3 years after I had departed the city. He was still writing it in 1979 upon my return and I became addicted to it immediately. Having been used to the stodgy and dogmatic style of the Trotskyist press, it was a wonder to see someone who was both radical and fun to read. Cockburn also partnered with James Ridgeway to write a weekly column on politics. Many of their articles were collected in “Corruptions of Empire”, one of the best books ever to carry the Cockburn brand.

In 1982 Cockburn was suspended from the Voice for taking money from an Arab studies foundation. As a highly marketable journalist, Cockburn told the Voice to take their job and shove it. From there he went to the Nation Magazine, which like the Village Voice (most of the time) was worth reading.

I took out a subscription to the magazine for the express purpose of reading Cockburn and cancelled my subscription in 2010 after his column was cut back to one page. Around the same time I began subscribing to Harper’s, another venue for Cockburn. In August 1982, he wrote a critique of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS that can be described as vintage Cockburn. It opens with the two centrist bores reporting from Galilee way back when:

ROBERT MACNEIL (voice over): A Galilean preacher claims he is the Redeemer and says the poor are blessed. Should he be crucified?

MACNEIL: Good evening. The Roman procurator in Jerusalem is trying to decide whether a man regarded by many as a saint should be put to death. Pontius Pilate is being urged by civil libertarians to intervene in what is seen here in Rome as being basically a local dispute. Tonight, the crucifixion debate. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the provinces of Judaea and Galilee have always been trouble spots, and this year is no exception. The problem is part religious, part political, and in many ways a mixture of both. The Jews believe in one god. Discontent in the province has been growing, with many local businessmen complaining about the tax burden. Terrorism, particularly in Galilee, has been on the increase. In recent months, a carpenter’s son from the town of Nazareth has been attracting a large following with novel doctrines and faith healing. He recently entered Jerusalem amid popular acclaim, but influential Jewish leaders fear his power. Here in Alexandria the situation is seen as dangerous. Robin?

I have taken the liberty to put the entire article on my website. Read it to see how good Cockburn was when his juices were flowing.

I became such a huge Cockburn fan that I even began subscribing to the Wall Street Journal just to read his once every 3-week column (triweekly?), a token to diversity that would never be allowed under Murdoch’s ownership. Taking advantage of one of my most valued benefits at Columbia University, I looked into the WSJ archives to find something good by Alexander. Ironically, one of the best pieces was a blast at Ted Koppel’s Nightline, which along with the McNeil-Lehrer Snooze Hour was considered necessary viewing by educated middle-class Americans. Written in 1990, it described his appearance on a show devoted to the collapse of the USSR. Needless to say, Cockburn was feisty as ever:

At the ABC studios they make me up and sit me down. The drill with Mr. Koppel is that you look into a camera and listen to you earphone. You can’t see what’s happening. You have to keep looking at the camera because you don’t know when Mr. Koppel, the only person who can see all the people on the show, who controls everything, is going to call on you. Swivel your eyes away from the camera and millions will think you have something to hide.

Suddenly we’re off. I can hear the soundtrack of some footage; of people hammering down the Wall, denouncing communism. Then I hear Mr. Koppel saying, “. . . the state of distress in which Communism finds itself. . . . seems easier for some Soviets to accept than for . . . left-wingers like Alexander Cockburn or leaders of the American Communist Party like Angela Davis.” So it’s a setup: The viewers have been invited to watch scenes of collapsing communism, then here’s Mr. Koppel cutting to the last dinosaurs, clanking into the studio dragging the ball and chain of dead, bad ideas. Had Tracy Day told Mr. Koppel the lines I was thinking along? Had Mr. Koppel decided to shackle me and Prof. Davis as gauleiters of the gulag, offset by the virtuous Mr. Sturua, symbol of New Thinking and penitence for the past?

This was the trend of the show. Mr. Koppel got increasingly testy. Why, he asked, did I keep bringing up capitalism? We were meant to be talking about communism. It became a dialogue of the deaf. I said in order to understand why millions of people around the world are still fired with socialist ideals you have to understand that if actually existing communism was and is abhorrent to some, actually existing capitalism is abhorrent to others.

I was going to add that on the same May Day that Russian workers were booing the Soviet leaders, workers in the Philippines were demonstrating against the regime and the U.S. bases, and in South Korea striking shipyard workers were still battling police.

No time for this though. By now Mr. Koppel was saying that I was putting words into his mouth and Prof. Davis was trying to explain that capitalism was not working too well for black people here in the U.S. and Mr. Sturua was saying that Karl Marx was right when he said that theory was gray but green the tree of life. From the corner of my eye I saw a copy of Business Week featuring on its cover the best-paid executive of 1989, Craig McCaw, weighing in with $53.9 million. Why didn’t I just hold it up to the camera and say that against salaries like this, how could the ideals of socialism ever die? But it was all over. I didn’t even have time to tell Mr. Sturua that Goethe, not Marx, said the thing about the green tree. At least he had Marx associated with living things.

I realize now why I loved Cockburn so much. His business about “Mr. Koppel cutting to the last dinosaurs, clanking into the studio dragging the ball and chain of dead, bad ideas” embraces the idea of being unfashionable. Alexander Cockburn was never interested in being accepted by the political tastemakers. Wherever he wrote, from the Village Voice to House and Garden, he always told it like it is–unrepentantly.

As leftists in the U.S. and other prosperous countries in the First World, our problem has never been repression although we have always had to watch out for Cointelpro, getting fired from a university or a newspaper for having unpopular ideas, and other such inconveniences. It has always been about refusing to bow to the pressure of the intellectual and ideological hegemony of the ruling class. It is so easy to get that cushy job in academia or in the bourgeois press for just playing along. You can even refer to Marx just as long as you don’t try to make his ideas too relevant to what’s going on the world.

Cockburn always put his ideas on the line. He was courageous and he had integrity by the railroad carload. I can honestly say that I only decided to continue with radical politics in the early 80s because of his writing. I can also say that in my own crude and muddling fashion, I have tried to write like him. Granted, my half-assed Bard College education could never compete with the kind of training he must have gotten at Oxford but at least I was encouraged by his example to speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may.

Even when I disagreed with Alexander Cockburn, I always respected the courage of his convictions. He did not give a shit if the entire left disagreed with him on global warming. He had made up his mind and would not budge an inch. With so much groupthink at work on the left, it was essential to its health to have a legendary journalist not to be afraid of being a minority of one. If we are ever going to have a revolutionary movement in the U.S. capable of going up against the most powerful ruling class in history, we will need activists with the courage of their convictions. As Karl Marx once said, we need ruthless criticism of the existing order. I have no idea what words will appear on this great journalist’s tombstone (or if he will be cremated) but “ruthless criticism” are the words I will always see as his epitaph.

32 Comments »

  1. Thanks, Louis. Great tribute!

    Comment by Ron Jacobs — July 21, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

  2. Thanks Lou. I appreciated that, though with one small qualm which is that I think you sell yourself short. AC was no doubt the most talented literary figure which the left managed to produce in the second half of the twentieth century, and none of us could match his wit, productivity and ability to dispatch reactionary idiocy with a few choice words. But what he never did, and which you did, is actively involve himself in attempting to build the kinds of political infrastructure necessary to actually attack capitalist institutions. Journalists are at best an annoyance to capital and those who control it. Revolutionaries, those committed to directly challenging state power, are, at least potentially, a mortal threat. That’s not to denigrate Cockburn’s work-I myself have been posting appreciations, but rather a reminder to keep it in perspective.

    Comment by John Halle — July 21, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

  3. Lou–lovely tribute to a one-of-a-kind guy–gifted, courageous, with a quick intelligence that never simply gloried in itself,
    but always made its point. For me, the authenticity lay in his passion and the emotion visible in his ideas. He was,
    in a word, deeply human as well as entertaining, far seeing as well as polemical. I, like you, followed him from the Voice through
    subsequent venues, and always with a deep appreciation. Your piece bring it back.

    Comment by Paul Pines — July 21, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

  4. [...] With sad hearts, Kasama reported the death of Alex Cockburn. Here is an appreciation that Louis passed on to Kasama. It first appeared on his blog The Unrepentant Marxist. [...]

    Pingback by Louis Proyect: What Alexander Cockburn meant to me « Kasama — July 21, 2012 @ 9:58 pm

  5. Brilliant.

    Comment by Kannan Srinivasan — July 21, 2012 @ 10:41 pm

  6. Only reservation: I don’t know that an Oxford education is any better or worse than one from Bard. I saw a good introduction that Hitchens wrote for a book on British appeasement politics, Liebovitz and Finkel. Why did Cockburn stay on course but not Hitchens? An Oxbridge education has this particular defect, that it gives one a three-year glimpse of a life of attractive and powerful people and good alcohol, that is so hard to abandon thereafter. And journalism offers an afterlife of that, with politicians and their fixers to write about and cultivate. I think Cockburn wasn’t seduced by power and the good life.

    Comment by Kannan Srinivasan — July 21, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

  7. Right Kannan. Being determines consciousness. Cockburn was holed up in a log cabin in the primordial woods outside Eureka, CA. where ghouls & goblins only came out at night whereas Hitchens was living in a DC high rise hob nobbing & cocktail partying with the Jack Boot licking Beltway ghouls & goblins who run the Empire.

    Cockburn drifted a bit rightward after getting citizenship but Hitchens crashed right into the wall like Ayrton Senna at the Parabolica.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 22, 2012 @ 12:52 am

  8. Beautifully put, Karl. I’m not even sure Cockburn turned to the right so much as that he must have been ordinarily cranky (which as I get older, I feel is a good thing) for he had odd opinions such as global warming scepticism.

    Comment by Kannan Srinivasan — July 22, 2012 @ 10:08 am

  9. [...] van mensen die zijn invloed hebben ondergaan en daarop terugblikken, bijvoorbeeld een uitvoerige van Louis Proyect op zijn weblog de Unrepentent Marxist, een hele korte van Asad AbuKhalid op diens weblog de Angry [...]

    Pingback by Alexander Cockburn (1941-2012) – een stem die ertoe deed en doet « Rooieravotr — July 22, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

  10. Many of his strong political analysis of imperialist oppression have made a useful contribution to my understanding of imperialist capitalism. And now he’s gone… Your obituary, Louis, is rich in interesting detail and consideration of Cockburn’s activism, and the final paragraphs are particularly emblematic of the fate of those who choose to remain tied to ruthless criticism: “As leftists in the U.S. and other prosperous countries in the First World, our problem has never been repression although we have always had to watch out for Cointelpro, getting fired from a university or a newspaper for having unpopular ideas, and other such inconveniences. It has always been about refusing to bow to the pressure of the intellectual and ideological hegemony of the ruling class. It is so easy to get that cushy job in academia or in the bourgeois press for just playing along. You can even refer to Marx just as long as you don’t try to make his ideas too relevant to what’s going on the world.
    Cockburn always put his ideas on the line. He was courageous and he had integrity by the railroad carload. I can honestly say that I only decided to continue with radical politics in the early 80s because of his writing. I can also say that in my own crude and muddling fashion, I have tried to write like him. Granted, my half-assed Bard College education could never compete with the kind of training he must have gotten at Oxford but at least I was encouraged by his example to speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may.
    Even when I disagreed with Alexander Cockburn, I always respected the courage of his convictions. He did not give a shit if the entire left disagreed with him on global warming. He had made up his mind and would not budge an inch. With so much groupthink at work on the left, it was essential to its health to have a legendary journalist not to be afraid of being a minority of one. If we are ever going to have a revolutionary movement in the U.S. capable of going up against the most powerful ruling class in history, we will need activists with the courage of their convictions. As Karl Marx once said, we need ruthless criticism of the existing order. I have no idea what words will appear on this great journalist’s tombstone (or if he will be cremated) but ‘ruthless criticism’ are the words I will always see as his epitaph.”

    And here’s an excerpt from Cockburn’s “The Golden Age Is in Us”, dedicated to those still willing to change the existing order – it’s a piece Cockburn wrote on June 2, 1989: Pious folk recommend a war on waste, and lament the waste of war, which constitutes a double slur on two fine American words. The American system – capitalism – needs war (or the permanent war economy) AND waste. Without the stimulus of war, mankind would not have had the production line (first designed by the British Navy in the Woolwich arsenal at the start of the 19th century), radar, or 1950s furniture. Eames developed his techniques for the shaping of laminated wood from the techniques used to male prosthetic limbs for servicemen wounded in the Second World War. An exception is the non-stick frying pan – the NASA program borrowed the non-stick idea from Corning to put on the nose cones of its rockets. Without cold war fever we probably – not so soon anyway – would not have the interstates, which were conjured into being under the Defense Highways Act of the mid 1950s.
    As for waste: our system is based on the production of commodities. If people slacken in their desire for and purchase of commodities, then the system collapses. We have an inherent puritanism that tells us not to waste. This is very wrong-headed from the point of view of sustaining the capitalist system of commodity production. If you don’t throw it away, you won’t buy a new one. If you don’t buy a new one, the system will fall apart.
    The system inaugurated forty years ago with Truman’s NSC 68 installing economic stimulus through military spending has lasted more or less intact until now, surviving several ‘peace threats’, though none so grave as the one posed today. You cannot have a ‘good’ capitalism without military underpinning. Take away that underpinning and it falls apart – unless you urge something else: like redistribution, a reordering of the priorities of the economy. These are not acceptable within the present system. To tell people they will do better in a peacetime economy, without simultaneously telling them what this would involve, is to lie to them.
    If the left is going to provide any vision in the years ahead, it has to think seriously about what ‘ending the cold war’ actually entails. Military Keynesianism is failing anyway. In the 1950s the deficit as percentage of GNP was 0.4, in the 1960s 0.8, in the 1970s 2.0 and in the 1980s 4.3. More deficit spending is needed in every decade to keep the show on the road. Even a $300 billion defense budget is insufficiently stabilizing.”

    Comment by Maria-Cristina Şerban — July 23, 2012 @ 10:24 am

  11. isn’t comment 10 an indulgence of plagiarism? i don’t recall cockburn as a plagiarist.

    we should also note that brother patrick cockburn is probably the best western journalist in the middle east. with father claud and brother andrew, that’s quite a family.

    Comment by jp — July 23, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

  12. sorry, i read 10 more closely and see that’s it’s supposed to be a [very long] quote.

    Comment by jp — July 23, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

  13. Those cushy academic jobs are pretty much far and few between now. It’s adjunct work for the overwhelming majority. The base of support for the ruling class is much more narrow which accounts for their escalating use of force.

    Comment by purple — July 23, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

  14. [...] I forgot to include this one from Louis Proyect. Share [...]

    Pingback by More on Alexander Cockburn « Corey Robin — July 23, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

  15. Agree or disagree – and I found less to agree with in the most recent years – A. Cockburn’s skill at turning a phrase will not soon be replaced and will be sorely missed. This skill was the one reason to read him in the end, to the very end.

    Comment by matthewrusso9 — July 23, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

  16. For me, in addition to the reasons you mention, Cockburn was significant to me because of his abandonment of the organized apparatus of Democratic Party and many sectarian socialist groups.
    He spoke his mind, and allowed others to do so on Counterpunch as well, without any concern as to whether it helped Democrats defeat Republicans or conformed to a leftist line. When I first encountered Counterpunch around 1997, this was a revelation, as I was then marooned in a liberal Democratic university town, Davis, California, where all political action was confined within the boundaries set by local Democratic Party functionairies. His response to the WTO protests in Seattle in 1998 publicly recognized that anti-authoritarians were setting the agenda, something he already knew from the protests against Pacific Lumber over the years near his home. In this, he anticipated Occupy, and it is one of the oddities of his life that he was so dismissive of something that he had identified many years in advance.

    Comment by Richard Estes — July 23, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

  17. Louis,
    Didn’t you recently buy a Counterpunch subscription and then immediately read Cockburn’s weekly piece in which he gently compared you to Odysseus’s dog? Haha! Good times! I was so sad to hear of his death. I hear “he will be missed” a lot when someone dies, but man, Alex is already missed.
    Thanks for the piece. Fine work

    Comment by Brian Gallagher — July 23, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

  18. Cue the looney tunes theme song. You know where all Alex cockburns clever words and phrases and Oxford elitism lead…..North Korea. You sit in luxury like Alex did with his Oxford education and Louie does with his iv league paycheck and pleasure yourselves thinking about communism and you know damn well and Alex did to where it all leads…..N Korea. It’s the logic of communism and the place where it goes. Go spend a week no go spend 3 days in n korea an you’ll cm back here so fast and hug uiu iPads and turn on your a/cs and grab your remote and watch your flat screens an type whatever yo want on your commie blog and the door will never knock a 3am because this is a free country not a g-damn police state. Every sngle word Alex and Louie have ever written point you to one place, the police state. Dont let he fool you with fancy clever Oxford and Columbia words.

    Comment by Galt — July 24, 2012 @ 1:15 am

  19. Stupid is as Stupid does. Galt, all wrapped up in his internet world of relentless masturbation, has not one iota of a clue that the real original underlying reason for the monstrous faces of regimes like N. Korea in particular and Stalinism in general is not so much their peasant revolts that overcame enormous obstacles ruined by war (& grinding poverty before that) but rather by multi-trillion dollar 1st world economies who declared them from the outset their mortal enemy and who sunk trillions into the proceeds they excerpted from the rest of the 3rd world, their economic slaves aka “dependents” (who ironically were the natuarl allies of N. Korea & the USSR) to strangle, isolate & fuck them into the ruins they are today, whereas the degenrated workers’ states had no such luxury. On the contrary, their international trade relations had a NEGATIVE effect on their economies.

    Here’s the analogy I use to teach Soc. 101 students. If you had a baby that was determined to be killed by an 800lb. gorilla and that gorilla jumped onto the chest & sunk it’s knees into that baby and then put it’s hands on its throat with the aim to kill it, you certainly wouldn’t expect that baby to survive, but to the extent that baby did somehow manage to survive, you would sure as hell expect it to have one ugly grimace, like any strangulation victim, being the ugliest baby on the planet. That’s N. Korea today.

    Ignoramus morons blame the mangled crippled baby for his hideous looks & fucked up personality but honest social scientists know that the degenerate child molester that throttled this infant with incessant violence, strangualtion, sabotage and constant mortal threats is the real monster in this terrible saga.

    Q.E.D.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 24, 2012 @ 2:24 am

  20. Moronic delusional bullshit in sentences that are so fucking long they can’t be understood. Go live in n Korea and see how your soc 101 course goes there. A rambling idiot actually teaches young people, no wonder so many young people are stupid.

    Comment by Galt — July 24, 2012 @ 2:31 am

  21. Karl, try a period or a comma once in a while. What’s your soc 101 course called, THE GLORIFICATION OF THE OBVIOUS?

    Comment by Galt — July 24, 2012 @ 2:33 am

  22. Hey Galt. It’s obvious you’re a rookie in rational Marxist philosophical debate by the fact that not only do you harp exclusively on superficial punctuation instead of ideas that turn your banalities on their head but then you go on to shout out utter nonsense in capital letters!

    If my point, which is rarely uttered yet remains an irrefraggable fact is really “glorifying the obvious” then why in the name of fuckall would you sound so uncomfortable shouting at me?

    Res Ipsa Loquitor

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — July 24, 2012 @ 5:26 am

  23. [...] Proyect, of the blog The Unrepentant Marxist, followed Cockburn wherever he wrote—even going so far as to subscribe to the pre-Murdoch Wall [...]

    Pingback by In Tribute to Alexander Cockburn, 1941-2012 | The Nation | Types of Parrots — July 24, 2012 @ 9:09 am

  24. The times you’ve raked Mr. Cockburn over the coals it always seemed to me to come through only out of love and appreciation. Since his writing contributed to a political awakening for this young person a dozen years ago in university, I have the same feelings. I attended an ISO conference in 2004 and got to meet Alex and Jeffrey. Alex was actually quite adept at a “movement” event like this and made a lot of effort to criticize vulgar-Leninism and political posturing by the sponsoring organization. Nobody else at the conference behaved like he did. I always wondered if — hoped even — he would be as belligerent on a Nation boat cruise.

    Comment by Aaron — July 24, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

  25. “after an abortive attempt at becoming an industrial worker in Kansas City”

    You can’t make this stuff up. No wonder the new left were seen as such damn fools. Like the actual industrial hard hats wanted poofy intellectuals and lib arts types like Louie running around the factory playing working man ….just getting in the way!! this is why the left hasnt done a damn thing since fdr or lbj…..guys like louie playing hardhat, slumming it for a while before going back and getting cushy jobs at ivy league schools. what a f-ing joke. like those hard hats wanted louie anywhere near them. “hey lucy….get me some coffeee….,black…..not latte, black coffee.”

    Comment by Galt — July 24, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

  26. Great article, written with style and verve appropriate to the memory of A.C.

    Comment by John Cox — July 24, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

  27. Galt:

    The producers of “Atlas Shrugged” are looking for altruistic Galtian Warriors such as you to be free extras in their masturbatory film.

    So: Bugger off, son.

    Cheers!

    Comment by kjs — July 24, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

  28. [...] na si Alexander Cockburn, at ang sumulat ng magandang parangal sa kanya, hindi inaasahan – si Louis Proyect. Share this:ShareFacebookTwitterEmailTumblrPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. By [...]

    Pingback by Maita Mia « Kapirasong Kritika — July 25, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

  29. Excellent, honest, insightful tribute, Louis. Thank you. There are few, if any, radical working journalists in this country today whose columns I look forward to as I did to Cockburn’s when I first met his wit and wisdom in the pages of Village Voice. I can already picture missing him when the next, major crisis hits and he’s not around to nail it. But were he able to comment on his own passing, I suppose he’d say don’t mourn too much, but rather organize — and write passionately if you can as you do so.

    Comment by Avram — July 27, 2012 @ 4:36 am

  30. [...] Louis Proyect’s Memorial for Alexander Cockburn http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/what-alexander-cockburn-meant-to-me/ [...]

    Pingback by My Memorial for Alexander Cockburn | manuelgarciajr — August 11, 2012 @ 7:04 am

  31. [...] van mensen die zijn invloed hebben ondergaan en daarop terugblikken, bijvoorbeeld een uitvoerige van Louis Proyect op zijn weblog de Unrepentent Marxist, een hele korte van Asad AbuKhalid op diens weblog de Angry [...]

    Pingback by Alexander Cockburn (1941-2012) – een stem die ertoe deed en doet | Ravotr — January 7, 2013 @ 11:45 am

  32. “Alexander Cockburn was never interested in being accepted by the political tastemakers. Wherever he wrote, from the Village Voice to House and Garden, he always told it like it is–unrepentantly.” Yessiree, bravely risking all life’s comforts to proclaim the truths of revolutionary socialism in House & Garden. Do you actually pause to think before you start typing — or are you simply impervious to irony?

    Comment by Noone Nohow — March 10, 2013 @ 6:44 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,828 other followers

%d bloggers like this: