The eyes of the world’s environmentalists are increasingly turning towards the vast and relatively untapped oil resources of the Canadian state of Alberta, about which a policy debate is unfolding in multiple jurisdictions that could be a definitive moment in understanding mankind’s relationship with natural resources.

The reason that the usually little considered topic of Albertan development . . . → Read More: Facts and fictions]]>

The eyes of the world’s environmentalists are increasingly turning towards the vast and relatively untapped oil resources of the Canadian state of Alberta, about which a policy debate is unfolding in multiple jurisdictions that could be a definitive moment in understanding mankind’s relationship with natural resources.

The reason that the usually little considered topic of Albertan development is firmly on the agenda is that Alberta’s oil resources are not of the poke-a-hole-in-the-ground-and-wait-for-it-to-bubble-out variety. Rather, Alberta’s oil wealth is in the form of ‘tar sands’ – bituminous deposits that must be baked, steamed and cajoled out of the ground where they reside.

This process is a treble no to the environmental movement. Firstly, the process is massively environmentally destructive to local habitats – referring to the steaming ponds of noxious stagnant water that characterise these developments as a moonscape is doing a disservice to the Moon. Secondly, the process is energy intensive – much more so than traditional oil extraction. This means that the carbon footprint of tar sands oil is much higher than the equivalent ‘conventional’ output. In a context of global action to avoid climate change, tar sands are a definite step in the wrong direction. Thirdly, and the reason that I describe this brouhaha as a definitive one, tar sands represent the opening salvo in what will become a concerted battle by to demand that fossil fuel resources are left in the ground. Coal is already a case in point, with the environmentally conscious decrying new coal power stations as anachronistically ill conceived – but the tar sands are the key front in this argument, the place where the environmental movement can score an early victory against the pressure to continue to exploit everything we can dig up. If a precedent can be set against tar sands, then the same may be done for the similar-but-different oil shales, and other high carbon energy technologies.

Now, all this is an extended introduction to the point that I really want to consider here. As is so often the case in these environment-vs.-business disputes, the Albertan establishment, from oil companies to Government to local universities has been drafted in to protest the innocence of the tar sands. They make a variety of protestations, from claiming that tar sands are not worse than all oil (true, but the flame belching monoliths of inefficiency that they are invoking are hardly a complimentary comparison), to claiming that tar sand emissions are not that much higher than normal oil and to protesting that they are getting better, that an environmental footprint to rival Chernobyl is an interim situation as they get better at fending the ducks away from the toxic lagoons.

And then, as with all the best business arguments against other people who are essentially right, they claim that the environmentalist’s campaign has been ‘emotional’. I draw this allegation from an article in the Edmonton Journal http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Eyes+world+watching+Alberta/3616245/story.html, in which a local Albertan academic is attributed the memorable paraquote that, ‘Industry and government have responded “with facts” — describing what they are doing to mitigate environmental footprint — “to a discussion taking place in an emotional arena.”’

This is a tasteful example of the old pursuit of damning with faint praise – the success of the environmental campaign is acknowledged, and with a deft sleight of hand allocated gently to a surfeit of irrational, emotional thinking. There are so many reasons to take issue with this casual dismissal of emotionally overwrought hippy reactionaries that I’m not sure where to start, but given the focus of this blog, I’ll start by reflecting on how this type of conversation epitomises the truism that ‘The thinker thinks…’.

You see, the environmentalists have been invoking emotions. Rightly so. When something evokes an emotional response, it is entirely appropriate that we should step back and take note of this. If people are emotionally activated by images of the unpleasant deaths of thousands of animals, by the sight of vast acreages reduced to slag heaps, this is not a signal that people are not to be trusted, but that there may be something wrong with killing thousands of animals and with destroying vast areas of wilderness. But this is not all that environmentalists have been doing. They have been using facts. Indeed, the statement I just made includes the kernel of at least two facts – that tar sands results in animal deaths and destruction of habitats.

As it happens, they have been wielding rather more facts than this. They have been invoking detailed lifecycle assessment of the carbon impact of oil sands development. They have a vast weight of science on global warming behind them. But our journalist and academic have conspired (either purposefully or through an accident of sub-editing) to ignore all this within the article. The environmentalists use ‘emotions’, and business is hobbled by being able to respond only with ‘facts’.

Now, it is true that business and Albertan local government have been wielding various facts. Indeed, some of them are actually the same as the ones the environmentalists use – statistics can be like that. Some of them are undoubtedly even true. But what we are seeing is people for whom it is almost an article of faith that environmentalists, campaigners and progressives base their positions on rash value judgements rather than actual analysis, letting their internal prover point out to them every emotional statement by a activist while they let the underlying evidence being used wash over them.

And anyone of a similar instinctive tendency reading this article will let themselves believe the same – the NGOs are floating in a data void, and poor old much abused business is, as normal, required to compete with an uneven arsenal, equipped only with truth and the desire to create wealth for everybody else.
The treatment of the facts is thus not only not even-handed – for many readers, it has been entirely vetoed. The journalist has, probably without malice, written an article that emphasises the weight being given to the view against the tar sands, but implicitly denies that it has legitimate basis. Foolish indeed, oh European Parliament, to be taken in so. But let us also reflect for a moment on what those facts actually are that business is using. It is vital that we should understand that the facts being wielded in defence of the tar sands are being massaged and manipulated to read the way they are wanted to.

A good example from a recent report was the publication of a headline emissions figure for tar sands when mixed with conventional oil. One might as well judge arsenic safe by testing it in homeopathic infusion. The report points out that the average carbon footprint of oil reaching the States from Canadian tar sands is ‘only’ 6% higher than normal oil – because the tar sands oil is mixed with conventional crude. This is, strictly speaking, true. But to emphasise it is beyond disingenuous. The way that the tar sands literature is presented ‘factually’ by business and government is replete with these examples – numbers being selectively presented and subtly misadvertised to create the impression that things are better than they are.

Factual argument indeed. The statistics of tar sands production are being misleadingly presented to legislators and officials at the highest levels of governments around the world.



Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

The NGOs have manufactured yet another Western justification for the villages of Africa and Asia to be denied the very benefits of economic development that no sane Dane ever denied to Denmark. In moral terms, it reminds us of the man who . . . → Read More: In response to Biofuels Digest (@bdigest) on the World Bank, ‘World Growth’ and palm oil]]> Biofuels Digest blotted its moral copy book in a recent article on palm oil development:

The NGOs have manufactured yet another Western justification for the villages of Africa and Asia to be denied the very benefits of economic development that no sane Dane ever denied to Denmark. In moral terms, it reminds us of the man who wolfed down his food, and then declared to the rest of the family that dinner time was over.

I never cease to be amazed at the intellectual dexterity of capitalistically minded advocates of unfettered market access in accusing the environmental movement of being fundamentally anti-development.

The Digest would do well to take care for its credibility when quoting in the same article Mr Oxley and making statements like: “If you can’t prevent development in the Third World, starve it by imposing conditions that were never imposed on the OECD in its developing years.”
Mr Oxley is notable (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Oxley) as an advocate of free trade agreements such as propagated by the WTO – and if ever there was a set of rules imposed by the west on developing countries that the OECD did not adopt in its own development, the WTO is it.
There is little evidence, as far as I can tell, to suggest that ‘World Growth’ has the interests of any poor person in Malaysia or Indonesia at heart – if it did, one might expect it to be more positively inclined to the sustainability programs such as RSPO that help protect palm oil workers from illness, poisoning and exploitation.

There are many things the west exports that have a dubious moral standing – however, I think that if the Digest reflected a little more fully on the issue, it would find that environmentalism is probably not one of them, and that the activists at Greenpeace and elsewhere want to save the developing world from exactly the mistakes that rampant ecologically damaging industrialisation has done to the long term interests of the American communities that this article invokes.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

Vinay, I think that you’ve missed a fundamental point here. In both the UK and the USA, there is a sense in which these ‘supreme councils’ for the environment already exist – the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environment Agency in particular,and a handful of other quangos . . . → Read More: Response to Vinay Gupta’s musings about an environmental supreme court]]> This in response to a post on Vinay Gupta’s blog.

Vinay, I think that you’ve missed a fundamental point here. In both the UK and the USA, there is a sense in which these ‘supreme councils’ for the environment already exist – the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environment Agency in particular,and a handful of other quangos and agencies.

Part of the quango philosophy is taking decision making and putting it at one remove from elected politicians. In the UK, the EA ploughs a different furrow to central Government, with arguably a more consistent and unarguably more environmental focus. In the US, the EPA has been able to begin the process of regulating CO2 under laws laid down by central government that were conceived with different pollutants in mind.

Your supreme court for the environment, if the analogy is tolerably close, would work in a legal framework set by democratic government. I think you would agree that democrats are able to pass general principles of environmental protection (e.g. the Clean Air Act) but tend to fall short when they are called upon to balance these environmental protections with other priorities. Regulators like EPA, in principle, are ready to do the job you’ve outlined.

So, the question follows, why isn’t this system, already set up to do what you want, doing it?
Well, part of the explanation can be a measure of degrees of freedom. The supreme court in the US, and the courts in general, are widely understood to be somewhat above political interference, and tend to appoint judges for the long periods you mentioned. Agencies tend to have short term appointees more directly answerable to their political masters, and therefore must tread a careful line between fulfilling their role and poking the democratic bear too firmly. The reduced activity of the EPA under Bush, and the many areas in which environmental legislation remains unenforced are good examples of this probably higher susceptibility to political interference.

More widely, however, the EPA and EA aren’t achieving what you want from them because they do not have the scope of powers to do so. They are limited within the framework of powers granted by the democratic government. The Supreme Court acts only within the legal framework of the democratic government, but because it acts as an arbitrator between two third parties (whether private or public, corporate or individual) it has no limitation of power – it has power wherever a case is brought. Of course, it has no power if a case is not brought – the supreme court cannot see a guy littering and decide to adjudicate without a prosecutor setting the ball rolling. Perhaps one answer would be to bring environmental crime into the purview of the existing courts by empowering citizens to bring complaints against environmental degradation *regardless of whether they or their property were directly affected*.

Of course, there is additional context in the UK at the moment – the SDC had some of the characteristics of the type of body you advocate, and has just been shut down. We are in a phase in which government is downsizing but also bringing decision making power back to its heart. In that climate, your argument may be one that pisses into the wind a little. But more fundamentally, environmental issues are increasingly ubiquitous – if you’re a political Green, you believe that all economic decisions are environmental decisions. I’m not sure that democratic government is ready to further empower external environmentally focused decision makers to take decisions that would inevitably impinge upon centres of wealth and power, and potentially seriously affect growth. And if they just aren’t going to do it – I’m not sure whether you’ve got this question posed in a useful way yet.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

The following is the contribution from Andy Novocin, my reflections upon it are below:

I remember learning about the scientific method through an example in a textbook. The example . . . → Read More: The future we deserve blogathon – reflections on “A systemic revolution, or, the need for a post-scientific approach”]]>

This post is a response to Vinay Gupta’s call to blog on submissions to The future we deserve.

The following is the contribution from Andy Novocin, my reflections upon it are below:

A systemic revolution, or, the need for a post-scientific approach

I remember learning about the scientific method through an example in a textbook. The example was that of spontaneous generation in which someone tested the statement that rotting meat generates flies. They did this by placing rotting meat in a sealed jar and directly observing that flies never emerged from the meat. From this example we were supposed to learn about attacking a problem through the process of observing, questioning, isolating out a testable hypothesis, experimenting, and finally concluding the validity of the hypothesis. The aspect that I want to focus on in this piece is the separation of aspects of a problem. I believe that the scientific approach of analyzing a problem by breaking it down into manageable chunks is very pervasive in our world, and exists in many aspects of our culture. I see ripples of this divide and conquer approach in many facets of industrialized modern life: in the production world via the separation of labor, in the academic world with the near-infinite specialization of fields, the artistic realm in which the separation of elements in a viewing experience are abstracted into various components (think the chain from impressionists through cubists through object-less art into formless art and beyond), we analyze food in terms of it’s constituent nutrients, and we educate students in specific and separated subject matters from a young age right on through to post-graduate work. This cultural shift formed a type of revolution, in the sense that a new mode of seeing the world emerged to challenge the old and then traditional modality of knowledge. This new scientific modality allowed better predictive models which could be generated, tested, and improved. A working predictive model leads to confidence in the approach that generated the model and this helps to fuel these generational changes and slowly replace the old models.

In the future that we deserve I envision a dethroning of the divide-and-conquer approach by a more systemic mode of thought. We are witnessing real-time worldwide inter-connectedness and its impacts. I suspect that this connectedness will be echoed in a new language and paradigm for combining previously separate parts of scientific models for problem solving. The systemic approach to problem solving will be to see and model the inter-relationships of aspects that science/abstraction/industry has separated. We are discovering just how connected and complex things really are, and new models must be formed in light of this. Such new models will require more synthesis as opposed to separation. Just walk into the mathematics section of any university library and see hundreds of books which are only readable by a handful of experts in a highly specific field, I suspect the same is true in many core sciences. We are producing specialists who are becoming increasingly marginalized, what we don’t have are people to glue together the disparate parts.

Many important and interesting problems are not attackable by a divide-and-conquer approach. For instance the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the over-usage of our planet’s non-renewable resources, inter-nation and inter-cultural conflicts, or appropriate and adaptive education. We are just now beginning to develop the language infrastructure to even describe the extent of these problems largely as a matter of necessity. As we address more complex problems via synthesis and system thinking we will form the way for new approaches and paradigms by which inter-connectedness is understood, modeled, and more accurate predictions are made. Such models could bring confidence and such confidence could fuel the new modality by which future generations see knowledge. This modality would of course be echoed in many aspects of life and culture in unforeseeable ways, leading to better insights and thus wider or more refined approaches and the positive feedback loop of new ideas would carry the process. Think from the top-down and bottom-up about how to see and describe interconnected aspects of problems and you’ll be working towards solving the systematic problems we face and unlocking new insights into the world that the old approach is unequipped for.

I can relate very closely to the phenomenon of compartmentalisation that Andy describes. Indeed, I am one of those to whom he refers, one of the multitude trained in great depth in a tiny subsection of a subsection of science. I have always been fascinated by the concept of the true polymath, the person able to stand astride the many disciplines of science and the humanities, understanding all. The depth and wealth of human knowledge precludes such status from modern thinkers, but I think that it is alo true that the habits of science and scientific enquiry introduce a needless barrier between the layman and comprehension in most scientific fields. I say this not only as one who has experience of penning journal papers obscure to all but a few dozen readers, but as one who considers himself relatively well versed across many fields, and who often wades into specialisms taht are not my own trying to understand and advance in them.

Andy has captured some of the difficulties presented by this compartmentalised approach to thought, but I think could have even more firmly expressed the potential gap between this compartmental understanding and a return to systemic thinking. The language of combining models invokes the development of behemothic combinations of arcane knowledge, the computerised association of the sub-disciplines that have grown so esoteric. There is a risk that even as one tries to move beyond analysis at a level of detail beyond the capacity of the non-expert to understand, one internalises the mysteries you seek to overcome. Economic models of the world, growing with more and more modules and details, are an excellent example of this – it is too easy for the workings of a systemic model to become mysterious both to the generalist doing the modelling, who does not understand the detail, and to the specialist in the field, who does not understand how her data is applied.

This is not the approach to modelling that, I think, Andy intends for us to imagine. His version, I think, puts human ingenuity and intuition back at the centre of the enterprise – it demands a school of scientific publishing in which references to past work are included to elucidate rather than disguise meaning, in which we reignite some of the 19th century’s ability to write ground-breaking science in beautiful prose. Policy makers, politicians, the decision makers at the centre of the web spun by modern data collectors, have been too often ill equipped to judge and act on it. Witness the level of denial of the existence of climate change among politicians compared to scientists. The education of the future might do well to recognise that a scientific and numerical literacy is not an alternative but a complement to a rounded ability to argue and comprehend prose.

The more the thought leaders of tomorrow are equipped not only with sophistry but with the tools to examine, question and synthesise the overwhelming streams of data available to them, the more they will be able to construct the intelligent systemic models Andy yearns for. To return full circle to the premise behind this blog, the development of these systemic models might just empower the thinker to challenge it’s own assumptions, and reach better conclusions.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

It is an open secret that, as with any . . . → Read More: Independently illegitimate?]]> The history of Britain’s quangos is a vexed one. They exist in a space where independence and unaccountability overlap – designed to work at ‘arm’s length’ from ministerial influence, depending on your perspective they can be regarded as released from political interference or as removed from democratic accountability.

It is an open secret that, as with any other ostensibly independent body set up by Government, for all their independent boards of directors and non-departmental status they are subject to a degree of political push and pull. The most admirable people at ‘Yes Minister’ illustrated the potential duplicity present in the concept of the ‘independent enquiry’ in their episode ‘The Compassionate Society’. The careful determination of the people you will allow to run any independent body goes a long way to determining how it will act – and, of course, the quango boards have always been appointed by ministers.

The reason I am reflecting on the life of the quango is the abolition by the UK Government of a body known as the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or IPC. This was a body established to take decisions on major infrastructure projects such as nuclear power stations, windmills and new houses for John Prescott, which were by their nature likely to be subject to hostile nimbyism, and therefore at risk of being held hostage by local planning processes. I shall not comment on the  fitness or otherwise of this body for the task it was given, but I am interested in the narrative presented by the Government around its abolition.

The responsible Minister, Greg Clark, is quoted on the BBC as saying that, “The previous system lacked any democratic legitimacy by giving decision-making power away to a distant quango on issues critical to every community in the country.” The fundamental premise exposited here is simple – a quango is a less legitimate decision making body than an elected Minister, and thus should not be given responsibility for any important decision. This, of course, rather begs the question of exactly what Greg believes a quango should be doing. If it is making decisions on issues that are not critical to anybody, than why would there be a need for independence in the first place?

There has been talk of a bonfire of the quangos, and it is entirely possible that this isn’t that bad an idea. However, the Government would do well to remember that the stock of politicians is not at an all time high at the moment – the expenses scandal on one hand, and the repeated failure of the previous Government to take independent advice when it didn’t suit the tabloid agenda (c.f. Professor Nutt) on the other, have both worn away at any remaining sense that Ministers are innately trustworthy. Mr Clark may find that although the independence of the quangos was not and never would be complete or perfect, the ability to have important decisions taken on a relatively evidentiary basis without reference to Mr Murdoch or the Tory backbenches may be rather missed.

Quangos were created, time and again, for a reason – and often the reason was to give ministers insulation from decisions that would not prove popular in all quarters, and for that matter that ministers may often be ill-qualified to take. Dissolving the IPC will put the responsibility for advising on these key infrastructure decisions with the central civil service, a body of generalists rather than experts. In my experience, civil servants, even the better ones, can often be alarmingly ill informed on complex and technical questions – they are not expected to be experts. But if he can’t go to the IPC for answers, Greg will have to rely on those civil servants – or, failing that, on paying consultants to tell him what to think. And really, just how democratically accountable is that?

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up over two months ago now, and since that time the Macondo oil field has . . . → Read More: 100 years of oil spills?]]> “One hundred years of refusing to acknowledge the world outside of their village had destroyed them; and races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on Earth.”

BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up over two months ago now, and since that time the Macondo oil field has been spewing oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico – the disaster is widely described as the worst environmental disaster in US history. It has not escaped notice by others in the blogospere that BP had made the perhaps prophetic decision to name their oil field after the fictional town of Macondo – the town which features in Gabriel García Márquez’s masterpiece 100 years of solitude.

The association is particularly striking because the town of Macondo in the book commences life as a peaceful somewhat idyllic and isolated village – however, with progress capitalists from America are able to access the rich natural resources of the town, which eventually succumbs to catastrophic environmental disaster. I shall not labour too much the parallels that others have already well explored – needless to say, the prover is able to work overtime to identify the links between the two scenarios.

However, one area that I have not seen explored is the parallel between the greatest tragedy in the book, and actions undertaken by BP in Colombia (Macondo is thought to be based on the Colombian town of Aracataca) that are contemporary to but unlinked to the spill. In the novel, the character José Arcadio Segundo witnesses a terrible massacre. A banana company has come to Macondo, owned by gringos from America, and starts to exploit the natural wealth of the town. However, José Arcadio Segundo believes that the company mistreats it’s workers, and leads a strike against the company. The strike goes on for some time, but comes to a bloody conclusion when the company, with the implicit backing of the state, machine guns three thousand striking workers in the town square.

This operation is carried out with such careful planning that the bodies are all immediately disposed of, and no one will believe José Arcadio Segundo that it has happened – nevertheless, his last words are an exhortation to the young Aureliano never to forget. While BP do not stand accused of machine gunning thousands of workers just at the moment, they are in conflict with workers in the Casanare region of Colombia, where it is reported that Colombian police have attacked strikers.

The Macondo oil spill will continue for some time yet, but it’s worth reflecting not only on the damage arising from the failure of BP to conduct this operation successfully, but on the consequences of business as usual oil drilling. If the oil from Macondo were not leaking, the majority of it would be destined for combustion, for electricity, in cars or by industry, with the associated spewing of CO2 into the atmosphere, just as oil now spews into the sea. Oil extraction is a dirty business, and Latin America is well provided with environmental catastrophes of its own, the result not of failed blow out preventers but the normal consequence of the prioritisation of returns over environmental protection by corporate entities such as BP. And the environment is not the only victim – Colombia and the Niger delta are prime examples of regions where the drive for oil has brought great suffering on many people, and while arguably enriching relatively few.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post

The human brain is a wonderful instrument. Despite being ostensibly evolved to deal with a set of tasks that to a very great extent most modern people are in general not called upon to perform, it has excelled it’s design specification with a powerful aplomb, giving us such wonderful insights into pure mathematics, philosophy and music . . . → Read More: The thinker thinks, the prover proves]]>

The human brain is a wonderful instrument. Despite being ostensibly evolved to deal with a set of tasks that to a very great extent most modern people are in general not called upon to perform, it has excelled it’s design specification with a powerful aplomb, giving us such wonderful insights into pure mathematics, philosophy and music (at risk of arbitrarily implying a few value judgements about the most intellectually valuable activities). Indeed, human history seems to be characterised much more by the successful expansion of the limits of consciousness than by collision with insuperable limitations.

Not only is the brain is truly a wonderful and flexible system, but each is unique to its owner – indeed, each human brain is a unique example of the most complex type of structure in the known universe. Of course, this diversity of thought provides great opportunity for diversity of achievement and perspective, but it also makes it remarkably difficult to get everybody to agree about anything or everything. While a decent, rational argument might put you in the position to receive the benediction of at least some of the people some of the time, I am constantly amazed by the capacity of intelligent, similarly educated people to reach such distinctly different conclusions from such similar evidence.

More than simply disagreeing, however, human dialogue is characterised in great part by the success of individuals in flexing reality to fit their world view – it often  seems that a person’s underlying beliefs do not so much contextualise as pre-determine their response to any new set of evidence.

Robert Anton Wilson, in his seminally weird pseudo self-help epic Prometheus Rising, describes this cognitive phenomenon with the phrase ‘The thinker thinks, the prover proves’. The premise is simple – there is a part of your mind ( the thinker) that decides what you believe, but this part is not primarily the part that undertakes rational analysis of the information you have available to you. Rather, the analytic function (the prover) is not targeted so much as determining what to think, as to proving that what you thought in the first place was right all along. This is why Fox News can boldly assert that the debt crisis of the last few years was anything but due to free markets, while the environmental movement can point to it as proof that run away capitalism is destructive not only to itself but to its environment, while Social Democrats can argue that it shows the need for better and greater Government regulation, and uncivilisationists can argue that it points towards the inevitable failure of conventional economic systems. From the same evidence, each of these types of group and many more can ratioanlly expound their own position, and often never once notice the way that they choose not to acknowledge any stray data that fit less well with their view.

This is not my theory, nor a new one, nor one which I make any claim to develop or nuance. It is, however, a valuable prism to admire the world through – and one which, of course, having adopted it becomes possible to express almost any interaction in terms of – the prover is easily activated. While understanding the world through the eyes of the thinker can be rewarding and insightful, the real challenge is to teach your own prover to think, and your thinker to prove… Good luck!

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook Stumble This Post