Skip

ATF: Fast and Furious
March 7, 2011 10:14 AM   Subscribe

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives deliberately allowed assault rifles to be smuggled into Mexico, so they could be tracked. The weapons were then used in a spree of murders, including that of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The operation was called "Fast and Furious". The Mexican government was apparently unaware of the operation, and is investigating. The ATF is going to have a review of whether their strategy supports "the goals of ATF to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico".
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 (66 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
New policy: Operations named after Vin Diesel movies require presidential approval before starting.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:17 AM on March 7, 2011 [29 favorites]


so they could be tracked. The weapons were then used in a spree of murders, including that of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Ah, sort of like a barium swallow, except that the barium then murders your liver. Good thinking, ATF.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 10:17 AM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


It's interesting that we're worried about the flow of firearms too mexico.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:18 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, to play devil's advocate, those gangsters were going to get their hands on similar guns at any rate. It remains to be seen if the intel gleaned was worth the cost of the guns, let alone the human cost.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:20 AM on March 7, 2011 [6 favorites]


Of course, we can rest assured that the right of the drug smugglers to keep and bear arms was not infriged.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:21 AM on March 7, 2011


Crap. Did they put some kind of tracer contamination in the barrels that would adhere to the bullets? replace a couple of crucial parts with flawed material that would work a few times then rust out or fracture? Save samples of bullets fired from each gun? Hell, put a remotely triggerable shutoff or worse in the stocks, booby trap the damn things before handing the guns over to murderers.
posted by hank at 10:21 AM on March 7, 2011


Mexico has been doing the same thing in the United States for some time, only with cannabis.
posted by swift at 10:22 AM on March 7, 2011 [7 favorites]


Except of course the cannabis didn't kill anyone.
posted by swift at 10:23 AM on March 7, 2011 [10 favorites]


Okay, it's a terrible analogy.
posted by swift at 10:24 AM on March 7, 2011 [21 favorites]


Also, I can't help but thinking that those cartel bosses knew what the ATF was doing and made sure that goons near the border had the guns just so an incident like Dodson's murder could be like an extra middle finger back across to the US feds.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:24 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Mexico has been doing the same thing in the United States for some time, only with cannabis.

"Duuuude, you have a tracking device in your bong!"
"Seriously?"
"Way serious."
"Way?"
"No way!!!"
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:24 AM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


those gangsters were going to get their hands on similar guns at any rate

Were they? If it's so easy to get illegal assault weapons in Mexico from non-US sources, why would the traffickers be trying to smuggle them in from the US?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:26 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and a few randomly chosen experimental test subjects who turn out to be murderers) will have guns.
posted by DU at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


> why would the traffickers be trying to smuggle them in from the US?

I have no idea, really. But there are a ton of assault rifles manufactured in the US every year, so it might just be easy.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2011


Hmmmm...I'm thinking this one will be in the Republican playbook come 2012...The Obama administration sold assault weapons to violent Mexican drug gangs...Weapons that killed Americans.

Yeah. This one writes itself.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:29 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Weapons bought at Phoenix-area gun shop wind up in high-profile-murder-case of Border Patrol agent, causing Phoenix-area weapons sales to increase...

Time to bust out the Negativland.
posted by mark242 at 10:31 AM on March 7, 2011


BATF: Where people are expendable.

I'm going to go listen to Aus Rotten all day now.
posted by anoirmarie at 10:34 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is in a long line of 'lets do this bad act cuz we are fighting evil'. The Czar funding the communists. Person X being "the USA's chosen man" and later it not working out. The British crown having people in the IRA who were involved with bombings.

Or how about the undercover cop who was married to the hippy gal because he was 'deep undercover' which was featured eairler this year.

Evil to fight evil has blowback. Kinda like voting for the lesser of 2 evils - in the end its still evil.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:39 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


This story has been getting tons of attention in the pro-gun media (primarily because they really hate the BATF). It really does make BATF agents look stupid and, worse, completely insensitive to what those weapons would do once they crossed the border.

On the one hand, this is a tragedy. On the other hand it's a classic investigative tactic.

Having said all that, it's hard to be objective once you learn they called it Operation Fast and Furious. They might as well have called it Operation Testosterone Fucktard.
posted by honkeoki at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2011 [14 favorites]


Oddly enough, there are people calling for the US to provide arms to the Libyan protesters. This is why we shouldn't.
posted by tommasz at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


They might as well have called it Operation Testosterone Fucktard.

Best thing I've seen on the internet in the last week.
posted by metagnathous at 10:55 AM on March 7, 2011


> The Czar funding the communists.

Huh? The tsar did a lot of stupid things, but he did not fund the Bolsheviks. Are you maybe thinking of the Germans?
posted by languagehat at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Were they? If it's so easy to get illegal assault weapons in Mexico from non-US sources, why would the traffickers be trying to smuggle them in from the US?

Two reasons:

1) the cartels have a huge problem repatriating their cash to Mexico. So using cash to buy guns they were going to buy anyway solves two problems at once. The cartels also buy cars, TVs, etc to launder the money and get their profits back to Mexico.

2) It is easy to buy guns here and they can be had for lower prices than from other sources. Getting them from Central American governments or illegal gun dealers costs more and is more complicated than loading up a truck in Phoenix. The cartels know the weak points in the border because they've been using them since Prohibition.

If magically the US/Mexico could stop guns flowing over the border, the cartels would just get their guns elsewhere for sure. Just as if the US/Mexico stopped drugs flowing northward, we'd get our drugs elsewhere for sure.
posted by birdherder at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: Operation Testosterone Fucktard
posted by wcfields at 10:59 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Just to play devil's advocate here: from the perspective of the ATF, would you rather the cartels have weapons that you can track, or weapons that you can't? Tracking devices on a single large shipment of weapons would give you intel on distribution networks, hubs of cartel activity, everything you would need to keep an eye on violence and its origins. Yes, people get killed with those weapons. But you can't just run something like that with fake weapons - you have to go all the way. The simple fact that they knew this specific weapon came from the program means they were able to follow it all the way there. How many lives were saved by that knowledge? I don't know, but am willing to suspect it is worth more than any amount of political spin and negative press.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:00 AM on March 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


*facepalm*
posted by PenDevil at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2011


Just to play devil's advocate here: from the perspective of the ATF, would you rather the cartels have weapons that you can track, or weapons that you can't?

Trick question. The answer is C. I would rather the cartels not have weapons like this and the ATF go after the manufacturers.

Now, I have no idea who the manufacturers are or how that process works, so if this is a "pie in the sky" deal, I apologize.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 11:11 AM on March 7, 2011


Wow, my comment ended up exactly like Burhanistan, that looks terrible. I guess I should RTFC.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:11 AM on March 7, 2011


> would rather the cartels not have weapons like this and the ATF go after the manufacturers.

The ATF should go after the arms dealers here and reform the licensing process. It's far too easy for legal purchases to then be transfered to shady people. The manufacturers are not necessarily the problem in this equation.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:14 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


> exactly like Burhanistan, that looks terrible.

Aw, I'm not that terrible!

posted by Burhanistan at 11:15 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Agents who voiced opposition to the operation were told that they were "limiting the amount of fun we have."

That letter, and more documents are attached to a letter from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the DoJ and the ATF.
posted by JiBB at 11:16 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


The article doesn't make clear whether the ATF had either the legal justification or the ability to stop the sales and movement of these guns in the first place. It's not terribly easy to prevent someone from purchasing a weapon in this country, and after it's purchased you're not going to see that weapon again until someone gets arrested with it in Mexico.
posted by Nahum Tate at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2011


It's interesting that we're worried about the flow of firearms too mexico.

Guns head south; drugs head north. Guns are very loosely controlled and easily available in the US, and are tightly controlled in Latin America, so it makes sense to smuggle them across the border into Mexico. The military checkpoints across Mexico are looking for south-bound guns and north-bound drugs; my experience with the US border is that they are totally unconcerned about the possibility of guns leaving the country.
posted by Forktine at 11:19 AM on March 7, 2011


> my experience with the US border is that they are totally unconcerned about the possibility of guns leaving the country.

I knew there were arms dealers on this website.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:20 AM on March 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


You can't have my guns. I'm not in the NRA, and I'm not some nutball, nor do I have a criminal record. I just like having them. Let's not make this an excuse to try to outlaw guns..... again.
posted by Malice at 11:21 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


Aw, I'm not that terrible!

You're not terrible - but now I'm doubly terrible with the comment and the grammar.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:22 AM on March 7, 2011


"The ATF should go after the arms dealers here and reform the licensing process. It's far too easy for legal purchases to then be transfered to shady people. The manufacturers are not necessarily the problem in this equation."

Saying this will get you the following response:

"You can't have my guns. I'm not in the NRA, and I'm not some nutball, nor do I have a criminal record. I just like having them. Let's not make this an excuse to try to outlaw guns..... again.
posted by klangklangston at 11:27 AM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Malice, isn't it a little funny how law abiding citizens (with staggeringly clean records and military service) can't buy certain guns in their respective states yet the ATF lets this happen? I think they're going after the wrong people. *groan*
posted by ironbob at 11:28 AM on March 7, 2011


> Let's not make this an excuse to try to outlaw guns..... again.

Ok, to be clear I was talking about licensing dealers not individual owners.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:31 AM on March 7, 2011


Outlawing guns is not equivalent to letting a massive illicit unregulated markets go unchecked, no matter what the NRA and its street team will tell you. But that's getting off-topic. More on topic: Well, at least now we know where all that freedom's going.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:31 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


The letter JiBB posted fills in a lot of the details absent from the article. The ATF had suspects making straw purchases, and could have busted them, but concluded (somewhat reasonably, I suppose) that the penalties for straw purchasing aren't all that severe (a max ten year term), Mexico has an inexhaustible supply of straw purchasers, and the ATF's resources could be better spent trying to take out the criminal networks on the receiving end of these purchases.
posted by Nahum Tate at 11:32 AM on March 7, 2011


Somebody should point the ATF toward this FAQ that claims that the "the number of criminals who obtain their firearms through straw purchasing is very low" and "criminals are using older, recycled firearms, not newer firearms bought from licensed retailers". Oh wait, they probably already know about that, because it's their campaign.
posted by Nahum Tate at 11:36 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


and the ATF's resources could be better spent trying to take out the criminal networks on the receiving end of these purchases.
Ah yes, that whole "run the government like a business" so as to maximize efficiency or someshit. Who doesn't like a good omelette?
posted by rhizome at 11:39 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


The military checkpoints across Mexico are looking for south-bound guns and north-bound drugs; my experience with the US border is that they are totally unconcerned about the possibility of guns leaving the country.

Actually the CBP does a half-assed job looking for guns leaving the country to Mexico by land. At the Ports of of Entry they will setup lanes to inspect traffic at the US/MEX border. Presently at San Diego/Tijuana they'll inspect cars at non-rush hour times looking for the obvious offenders (cars weighing way more than the should people that "look" like they're smuggling large amounts of cash/guns. They catch the really dumb criminals but obviously the smart ones get away with it. Because they're not always there, it is easy to smuggle during the off hours. Like making us take off our shoes at the airport, this is mostly theater.

On the Mexican side, they have sensors in the lanes to weigh cars looking for contraband as well that will have to get inspected (versus the luck-of-the-draw red/green inspection scheme). In Tijuana if you do get flagged for revision, Mexican Marines inspect your car and it can be quite intimidating (unlike the conscripts you see on the highways of Mexico, the Marines are professional soldiers) Then again, it is theater for the Mexicans as well because the bad guys don't go through Tijuana but the family bringing back furniture from Ikea gets tagged for inspection.
posted by birdherder at 11:45 AM on March 7, 2011


Operations named after Vin Diesel movies require presidential approval before starting.

it's hard to be objective once you learn they called it Operation Fast and Furious


Please tell me this plan wasn't in one of those movies. I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt since "fast and furious" was a figure of speech before the Vin Diesel movies were made, but you never know...
posted by Hoopo at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2011


"Duuuude, you have a tracking device in your bong!"
"Seriously?"
"Way serious."
"Way?"
"No way!!!"


Wait, no, maybe there really is one in there. Oh shit. They would do that. Would they? Do you think they could? Duuuude, harsh my mellow. Do you hear sirens? Fuuuuuuuck. I think I'm being tracked.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:54 AM on March 7, 2011


From JiBB's link
...If you don't think this is fun you're in the wrong line of work - period!
I think that this combined with the operation name "Fast and Furious" reveals these agents to be douchbags who thought they were in an episode of Fastlane.
posted by quin at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2011


Operation Fast and Furious worked perfectly, as designed and implemented. Flawless.

They wanted to know where the guns went. Now they do.
posted by Xoebe at 12:16 PM on March 7, 2011


If guns don't kill people, why are were they tracking the guns in the first place?

Don't tell me the NRA may have it wrong.
posted by dangerousdan at 12:18 PM on March 7, 2011


the ATF's resources could be better spent trying to take out the criminal networks on the receiving end of these purchases.

How about they spend their resources creating tracking technology to be built into every single gun manufactured here?

(If it's relevant, I haven't read the article.)
posted by Dragonness at 12:24 PM on March 7, 2011


Let's not make this an excuse to try to outlaw guns..... again.

Can we have a conversation where we treat guns at least as seriously as drivers' licenses?
posted by lumpenprole at 12:30 PM on March 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


I used to wonder what possible excuse someone could have for owning an assault rifle beyond "cuz I'm allowed to". Now I know, it's so people can protect themselves from Mexican gangs armed by the ATF.
posted by Hoopo at 1:39 PM on March 7, 2011


Can we have a conversation where we treat guns at least as seriously as drivers' licenses?

DON'T TREAD ON ME
posted by Zozo at 2:43 PM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can we have a conversation where we treat guns at least as seriously as drivers' licenses?

It might be useful to think of them a bit more like cars, in the way there are certain obligations to maintain and transfer vehicle registration data. The NRA and its sympathizers seem to react to any talk of gun registration by invoking the specter of Nazi disarmament of a civilian population, whereas nobody seems to worry that the registration of all motor vehicles is only a prelude to mass government confiscation. Smart regulation would add utility for the majority of law-abiding gun owners - what that would be I don't know, since I've never had a gun; perhaps a small subsidy for homeowners insurance or advanced certification classes? Rather than trying to outlaw guns, such that only outlaws have them, look for solutions that only an outlaw would want to avoid participating in.

Meantime, I think there's a bit more than meets the eye to this story, and that to some extent Chuck Grassley is using it for leverage. Remember all that stuff last year about Arizona being the 'kidnap capital of the USA' and so on? I looked into that 6 months ago or so, and it seemed like it was somewhat puffed up to justify the creation and funding of a special unit within the Arizona PD. This isn't the first time that contraband weapon stings in Phoenix have gone wrong.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:00 PM on March 7, 2011


Nahum Tate writes "The letter JiBB posted fills in a lot of the details absent from the article. The ATF had suspects making straw purchases, and could have busted them, but concluded (somewhat reasonably, I suppose) that the penalties for straw purchasing aren't all that severe (a max ten year term), Mexico has an inexhaustible supply of straw purchasers, and the ATF's resources could be better spent trying to take out the criminal networks on the receiving end of these purchases."

Ten years isn't severe?

anigbrowl writes "It might be useful to think of them a bit more like cars, in the way there are certain obligations to maintain and transfer vehicle registration data. The NRA and its sympathizers seem to react to any talk of gun registration by invoking the specter of Nazi disarmament of a civilian population, whereas nobody seems to worry that the registration of all motor vehicles is only a prelude to mass government confiscation. "

Because invariably registration of fire arms seems to lead to confiscation of at least some of those weapons. Sure worked that way in Canada and I can't think of a counter example.
posted by Mitheral at 3:22 PM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


It might be useful to think of them a bit more like cars, in the way there are certain obligations to maintain and transfer vehicle registration data. The NRA and its sympathizers seem to react to any talk of gun registration by invoking the specter of Nazi disarmament of a civilian population, whereas nobody seems to worry that the registration of all motor vehicles is only a prelude to mass government confiscation.

Well, of course no one worries about that - it would be a silly thing to worry about. Throughout history, governments have often confiscated weapons, while rarely confiscating transportation.

Registration isn't really needed for the government to confiscate cars anyway. They're big and hard to hide, and are only useful on roads which are pretty easy to control.

So, no, I don't think that's a very good comparison either.

I'm not an NRA member, although I am a gun owner and I agree with the NRA's interpretation of the second Amendment. I would like to see an effective check on prospective gun owners, but frankly I'm also leery of a national registry, and you can't just handwave that away. Human institutions tend toward conservation of power, governments are no exception to this, and I believe that the historical data indicates an armed populace acts as a deterrent to this.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:30 PM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


this is actually a very funny story. if you don't believe me just ask mark twain, kurt vonnegut or george carlin next time you get the chance
posted by kitchenrat at 3:38 PM on March 7, 2011


Because invariably registration of fire arms seems to lead to confiscation of at least some of those weapons. Sure worked that way in Canada and I can't think of a counter example.

In 2004 there were approximately 44 million gun owners in the US (25% of adults and 40% of households) who collectively owned 192 million firearms. I think we could stand to have "at least some of those weapons" confiscated, at the very least the ones that are in violation of existing laws.

Alternatively, I like the idea of mandatory gun insurance. If your gun is used in a crime (by anybody), the insurance makes a payout for the victim / the victim's family. As with any other insurance, the premiums would vary according to risk. A handgun kept under a pillow would be expensive to ensure, whereas an antique flintlock kept in a safe would be cheap. Anyone buying a gun would have to take on a pre-paid insurance policy of at least a year. If we required gun owners to internalize the costs of guns, I think that would go a long way towards encouraging a more rational attitude towards gun ownership in the US.
posted by jedicus at 5:11 PM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Alternatively, I like the idea of mandatory gun insurance.

Sounds like a great way to ensure that only criminals and the wealthy are armed. Without a Constitutional amendment gun ownership isn't going to change much in the US. More money spent on social program and poverty prevention would probably do more to prevent gun and other types of violence but that also seems to be a nonstarter these days.

Back to the subject of the post I'm kind of surprised that none of the cartels has started making their own guns.
posted by the_artificer at 6:37 PM on March 7, 2011


Sounds like a great way to ensure that only criminals and the wealthy are armed.

That all depends on the numbers. Let's use the medical costs of gun violence as a starting point: $2.3 billion per year (although those numbers are from a 1999 study). Divided by the 192 million guns in the US, that's just $1 per month per gun on average. A lot of guns shoot ammunition that costs more than that per round. I don't think it would make or break the practicality of gun ownership for the poor.

I agree that an amendment is necessary in the long run, but gun insurance would at least help contain some of the costs in the meanwhile.

Back to the subject of the post I'm kind of surprised that none of the cartels has started making their own guns.

Factories make great targets and require a significant capital investment. It's a lot harder to build a new factory than it is to plant a new coca or marijuana farm.
posted by jedicus at 6:55 PM on March 7, 2011


A handgun kept under a pillow would be expensive to ensure, whereas an antique flintlock kept in a safe would be cheap.
But how would you know how a gun is stored?
Sounds like a great way to ensure that only criminals and the wealthy are armed.
What this country needs is guns for the poor! No welfare or food stamps or home heating oil, but all the guns you could want!

Sorry, I just thought that was funny.
posted by delmoi at 6:59 PM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ok, to be clear I was talking about licensing dealers not individual owners.

Actually dealers are licensed. It is called a Federal Firearms License, it is hard o get, risky to have and the ATF tends to like swinging its dick around and going after dealers who do such horrible things as abbreviate a state or county on the 4473 form. Seriously, look into it.

I try (sometimes I fail, and I try to learn from my mistakes) to not post on stuff I don't know anything about in reality but may have some heartfelt knee jerk reaction to. So PLEASE if you are going to spout off about the laws this country has about guns at least read the Wikipedia entries on US Gun Laws. Seriously they are complicated, hard to understand and people who just made some honest mistakes about the type of part on their gun are doing serious jail time.

The ATF has a well deserved reputation as a bunch of testosterone fucktards (really that was awesome) in the gun community. It really doesn't help when they CHOOSE to not enforce gun laws on shady dealers. I think even the people here who are in favor of stricter gun control would say that we should enforce the laws we have.

I have been involved with shooting and guns since I could hold and fire one (which strict adult supervision). The vast, vast majority of gun owners are quiet types who aren't real comfortable with the government having a monopoly on the use of force and own guns as tools. This is the real meaning of the second amendment. They are law abiding, believe in individual rights and responsibility and are very restrained. Seriously, concealed carry license holders commit crimes at a rate well below cops. They also tend to be much better shots than cops.

The problem is not gun owners or lax gun laws, the problem is criminals. And criminals are gonna be criminals. Of course it would help considerably if fairly mild recreational drugs weren't arbitrarily deemed illegal based on racism, fear and a need to justify federal law enforcement payrolls. To fix this whole Mexico drug problem try fixing the actual problem. Not disarming law abiding citizens.
posted by bartonlong at 7:24 PM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


But how would you know how a gun is stored?

Well, you could use whether the owner had a gun safe or trigger locks as a proxy. I'm sure there are any number of important factors, though: the type of gun, the owner's age and background, whether the owner has taken gun safety classes, whether there are kids in the house, etc. But given the apparent low cost of gun insurance it may not be important to fine tune the actuarial tables all that precisely.
posted by jedicus at 7:44 PM on March 7, 2011


Factories make great targets and require a significant capital investment. It's a lot harder to build a new factory than it is to plant a new coca or marijuana farm.

You don't need a factory to make guns. I've visited several illegal backyard gunsmiths in the Philippines. You could easily setup a small production facility in a tractor-trailer or cargo container. I suppose that guns are just plentiful enough that there hasn't been the need.
posted by the_artificer at 7:58 PM on March 7, 2011


Guns can be made fairly easily "under the table" in another type of factory as well. I.e. the WWII Sten gun, or for a more modern take, the CNC gunsmithing page.
posted by Harald74 at 12:44 AM on March 8, 2011


We'll eventually see reasonably priced metal powder based 3d printers too, reducing the need for metalworking experience. I doubt this rapid prototyping tech will significantly impact the gun trade though, well aside from rapid prototyping by smaller manufacturers.

There simply won't be any shortage of ordinary corporate produced guns so long as that remains a major export industry. And I doubt that China has any designs on that particular market.

Also, there are whole mountain ranges in Pakistan where all the rural villages produce guns, meaning the drug cartels could easily import from Africa or Asia, or roll their own.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:19 AM on March 9, 2011


« Older Elizabeth David   |   When Words are Pictures Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post