Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Lonely Planet photographer shares his work.
March 9, 2013 11:37 AM   Subscribe

Iran as the West rarely sees it. reddit user mossikan shares lovely photos of modern-day Iran, with thoughtful captions revealing a vibrant culture generally at odds with its current "mainstream" portrayals in Western media.

"It's hard for western media to get in there, and the govt. actually WANTS the country to look like a pit of chanting loons. What this adds up to the official Iranian news stations syndicating their footage to the west, who are happy to run it. Iranians are hands-down the loveliest people I've ever been around, and they are absolutely fucked right now." -- mossikan, on his time there while shooting.
posted by lonefrontranger (46 comments total) 58 users marked this as a favorite

 
The popular PBS travel show by Rick Steves did a show in Iran a few years ago, back when Bush was still in charge. It's free for streaming on Hulu and was a nice look at how much more modern and nice that country is when you're not talking about politics or war.
posted by mathowie at 11:41 AM on March 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


hi mathowie! I think actually the third comment down in the reddit comment link maybe links to just that documentary? I watched part of it this morning on Youtube, thanks for adding the Hulu link!
posted by lonefrontranger at 11:43 AM on March 9, 2013


These pictures actually provide a much darker picture of Iran than the one I had in my Western head.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:55 AM on March 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


It seems like such an interesting place. We have close family friends who live there, so it's pretty much at the top of my list of places to visit (although all of our travel money is spent getting to and from Japan at the moment).
posted by KokuRyu at 11:59 AM on March 9, 2013


Fascinating. Thanks for posting.
posted by ORthey at 12:11 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


See also: No-One Knows About Persian Cats, a documentary from a few years ago about an underground indie-pop band (!) in Tehran, playing illegal gigs in basements and hiding from the capricious, highly arbitrary but no less draconian attention of the law enforcement agencies, along with underground hip-hop and heavy metal bands.

From what I understand, were it not labouring under the yoke of a religious dictatorship, Iran would be one of the most cosmopolitan societies in the region.
posted by acb at 12:19 PM on March 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


It still boggles my mind that, in a great multitude of ways, Iran would be the most obvious ally to the West in the Middle-East, and by a fairly wide margin at that.

And yet, we somehow managed to botch that relationship so badly that they're now our greatest enemy....
posted by schmod at 12:21 PM on March 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


I have friends who used to work in Iran in the 80's. They said it was the friendliest place they had ever lived in and would go back in a heartbeat. I'd love to visit and live there for a while, so much culture to be experienced. I hope the Iranian people get some more freedom to choose their own destiny.
posted by arcticseal at 12:25 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


acb: "From what I understand, were it not labouring under the yoke of a religious dictatorship, Iran would be one of the most cosmopolitan societies in the region."

Honest question: If Iran is not the most cosmopolitan society in the region, who is?
posted by schmod at 12:26 PM on March 9, 2013


Turkey, I'd guess. Or perhaps Israel, depending on how one defines the region.
posted by acb at 12:38 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Honest question: If Iran is not the most cosmopolitan society in the region, who is?

Israel, Turkey, Emirates, India...
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:40 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure if the Emirates counts as a cosmopolitan society; isn't the cosmopolitan part mostly a thin layer of expatriates, mercenaries and purchased cultural imports atop a very rigid feudal society?
posted by acb at 12:47 PM on March 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Under Ahmadinejad Iran is ruled by an aggressive simpleton who acts as if he was chosen by god to rule his country and helps stay in his position by exploiting an urban/rural divide. He also works to increase world conflict so the people will unite behind him because they feel under attack. Where have I seen that before?
posted by benito.strauss at 12:48 PM on March 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Under Ahmadinejad Iran is ruled by an aggressive simpleton who acts as if he was chosen by god to rule his country and helps stay in his position by exploiting an urban/rural divide. He also works to increase world conflict so the people will unite behind him because they feel under attack.

Isn't Ahmadinejad also, in relative terms, one of the more moderate/progressive faction in Iran, the others being hardline theocrats seeking to a return to the purity and absolutism of the immediate post-revolutionary order?
posted by acb at 12:51 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


From what I understand, were it not labouring under the yoke of a religious dictatorship, Iran would be one of the most cosmopolitan societies in the region.

Maybe. Thing is, even by today's standards pre-revolution Iran looked surprisingly modern and western. My parents' family albums are filled with photos from the 40s and 50s of absolutely gorgeous Iranians who looked like they were living very urban lives in a western cosmopolis. Ten years later the same people seem to have moved to a completely different country marked by impoverishment and blandness. I sometimes think of those photos and imagine an Iran where Mosaddegh wasn't removed from power, where the country continued its progressive policies and became a modern democracy.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:57 PM on March 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


I'm not sure if the Emirates counts as a cosmopolitan society; isn't the cosmopolitan part mostly a thin layer of expatriates, mercenaries and purchased cultural imports atop a very rigid feudal society?

The latter might be true but I don't see that necessarily conflicting with Emirates - actually I'm mostly thinking of Dubai - being a cosmopolitan society.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:00 PM on March 9, 2013


Under Ahmadinejad Iran is ruled by an aggressive simpleton who acts as if he was chosen by god to rule his country and helps stay in his position by exploiting an urban/rural divide.

Exactly like the Republican party in the US.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:01 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Humans of New York recently took a trip to Iran and took a ton of great portraits of Iranians. Definitely worth the click.
posted by wemayfreeze at 1:03 PM on March 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


isn't the cosmopolitan part mostly a thin layer of expatriates, mercenaries and purchased cultural imports atop a very rigid feudal society?

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about New York City?
posted by clearly at 1:07 PM on March 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


Iran, even in its current economic catastrophe, has always been a modern industrial state -- not Germany, certainly, but not Libya or Sudan either. This is yet another reason why the kooks in the Republican Party, which is to say everyone in the Republican Party, who are itching to go to war with Iran -- seriously, Romney PROMISED this -- are making an even more serious mistake than they made in Iraq and Afghanistan, and one with even worse consequences for the US, though I imagine Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) and the other private contractors who took most of the trillion dollars we poured into Iraq would probably come out pretty good. If they don't get nuked.

Under Ahmadinejad Iran is ruled by an aggressive simpleton

I don't think Ahmadinejad even gets to decide what suit he puts on in the morning. He's a figurehead; he controls some gangs of thugs running around the streets and makes his lunatic speeches on TV, but the country is ruled by the ayatollahs, of whom there are several factions.
posted by Fnarf at 1:08 PM on March 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


The latter might be true but I don't see that necessarily conflicting with Emirates - actually I'm mostly thinking of Dubai - being a cosmopolitan society.

Depends on what the essential criteria for something being a society is. From what I understand, there is little connection between any organic local culture (much of which has been bulldozed) and the shopping malls and barbecues of the expats, who could (and probably will at some point) depart to their real homes.
posted by acb at 1:13 PM on March 9, 2013


I don't think Ahmadinejad even gets to decide what suit he puts on in the morning.

So he's not The Decider?
posted by benito.strauss at 1:37 PM on March 9, 2013


I just found this Pinterest thing that shows how Iran used to look.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:42 PM on March 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Please recall what America's sanctions did to the Iraqis and kindly consider what you see in these photos in the context of the crushing economic sanctions being imposed on Iran by the same people who brought you war in Iraq.

I am neither for nor against, but these are lovely photos and I hope to visit Iran someday and see it for myself.
posted by three blind mice at 1:51 PM on March 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Couldn't you say the exact same thing about New York City?

Not even close. New York has an organic culture from which new phenomena arise, phenomena which are not imports or resellings of things made elsewhere. Let me know when Dubai produces a phenomenon on the scale of, say, hip-hop or No Wave, or something like Andy Warhol's Factory.
posted by acb at 1:51 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Which of those pictures/captions was supposed to be surprising? It all seemed pretty spot-on to me. Maybe I just need to watch more Fox News or something.
posted by DarkForest at 2:02 PM on March 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I hope the Iranian people get some more freedom to choose their own destiny. Except in regards to nationalising their own natural resources. That's considered a no no.
posted by mattoxic at 2:09 PM on March 9, 2013


DarkForest, I'm not sure it's so much "surprising" so much as "frustrating". There is a wonderful unspoken narrative contained mainly in the links the photographer has posted to illustrate the point that this is a view of Iran that is largely surpressed and has been made deliberately inaccessible to a large component of the first-world Western populace.

The fact that mainstream U.S. society is largely hostile/indifferent to the plight of these people is largely due to their portrayal as "The Enemy" by media shills and is perpetuated by political entanglements to...well, Israel, for starters. So sure you, on your intellectual / educated high horse can dismiss it as "not news", but I think to a vast majority of your less-socially-enlightened peers being steeped in the anti-brown-people messaging of mainstream media, such a revelatory message would be fairly shocking...assuming you could get them to listen to such a challenging worldview.

Anyway, being dismissive of the problem is part of the problem, so that is in part why I posted this. That plus the photographer's own request that it be shared widely.
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:25 PM on March 9, 2013


I just found this Pinterest thing that shows how Iran used to look.

But that's not how Iran looked to many Iranians, right? Wasn't there a tremendous and growing income disparity, with most people poor and living in rural areas while a smaller elite lived comfortable lives in the city? I seem to remember they continue to be the base of support for the current government -- the rural poor who are actually doing much better now.
posted by Houstonian at 2:48 PM on March 9, 2013


Anyway, being dismissive of the problem is part of the problem, so that is in part why I posted this. That plus the photographer's own request that it be shared widely.

Yes, but what is the problem exactly? That most of us know very little about Iran? Sanctions? The Iranian government? I have no idea what you think the 'correct' reaction to these photographs is.
posted by hoyland at 2:51 PM on March 9, 2013


This link is pretty good, but the Humans of New York portraits are even better.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:05 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I hope the Iranian people get some more freedom to choose their own destiny. Except in regards to nationalising their own natural resources. That's considered a no no.

It has nothing to do with Iran's own oil, at least now. The story with Iran is the same story as Iraq. If either country manages to emerge as a strong, unified state independent of the U.S., it will be able to dominate Saudi Arabia, which is an extremely weak state which maintains itself by floating on a sea of petrodollars. A country which has little industry and small population and for whom the US can, will and has gone to war over because it effectively controls the price of oil.

It's easy to blame the neocons for what we did in Iraq, but it was driven by a bipartisan consensus that Saddam's Iraq couldn't be kept in a box forever and that the inability to control what happened in a post-Saddam Iraq would leave us vulnerable in an existential way. Again, the US depends upon Saudi Arabia controlling the price of oil. Double the price of oil or even signal that the price will increase to a much higher plateau and the US economy collapses somewhat catastrophically.

What has happened in Iraq is a slow-moving catastrophe for U.S. foreign policy. But, as long as the Iraqi government is weak and the country effectively divided and economically/socially destroyed we get a reprieve. The US has a very weak hand in the middle east, all Iran has to do is wait. This makes it likely that US policy towards Iran will be driven by desperation, much like Iraq.

Either way, the bottom line is that the US can't actually tolerate a strong, independent government in Iran. The commentary on these photos tends to suggests that there is a "immoral majority" in Iran waiting to be led to freedom but consider:
Life is becoming drastically difficult for ordinary Iranians but many feel powerless to change the situation. Said one Tehrani "we're not naive like the Arabs to think a violent uprising will magically fix everything. We've had our revolution.. and things only got worse."
Read another way, it suggests that Iranians are well aware of the position they are all in wrt the US: they are not naive.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


this is a view of Iran that is largely surpressed and has been made deliberately inaccessible to a large component of the first-world Western populace.

Really? Look at this thread--I take it most of the commentators on Metafilter are members of the "Western populace." What ultra-secret samizdat publications are we all reading that we read these captions and almost all say "yeah, this is pretty much what we've always heard"? Read pretty much anything on Iran outside of Fox News and this is basically the portrait you get.
posted by yoink at 3:23 PM on March 9, 2013


Under Ahmadinejad

Not really. Khamenei remains the Supreme Leader of Iran and appoints most important people in the country. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei authorized his presidency on 3 August 2005.[12][13] Ahmedinejad kissed Khamenei's hand during the ceremony to show his loyalty.[43][44]

>Isn't Ahmadinejad also, in relative terms, one of the more moderate/progressive faction in Iran, the others being hardline theocrats seeking to a return to the purity and absolutism of the immediate post-revolutionary order?

Ahmadinejad is a hardliner. Iran had a reformist president in Khatami who exhausted both of the two terms he was allowed (1997-2005), but my understanding is that the religious authorities that hold power had him on a short leash and his supporters got disheartened. In the 2005 election the runoff was between Ahmadinejad and former president Rafsanjani who was supported by conservatives and reformists, but apparently doesn't belong to either. Mousavi was the last reformist candidate for president, but he has declined to run this year. Candidates register in May.
posted by ersatz at 3:24 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Again, the US depends upon Saudi Arabia controlling the price of oil.

This is an oversimplification. The US is set to become the top oil-producing nation in the world in a few years. If that gives you the power to "set the price of oil" then the US will have that power without bothering one way or the other in the Middle East.

Saudi Oil is obviously crucially important to the global economy and a big part of the reason for the US's involvement in the Middle East. But framing this as Saudi Arabia "controlling the price of oil" at the behest of the US is kinda silly.
posted by yoink at 3:31 PM on March 9, 2013


Read pretty much anything on Iran outside of Fox News and this is basically the portrait you get.

Just to add a thought to my comment above: much of what is said in the captions to the linked photos would, if it appeared in an article in the NYT (and, in fact, this is the kind of portrait that does appear all the time in the NYT) attract immediate denunciation as being part of the supposed "propaganda war" that the Western media are waging to urge us all into a state of belligerence against the Iranian regime. The Iranian people love us, they hate the Iranian regime, they regard the revolution as a miserable failure, they feel oppressed, they're constantly harassed by the Morality Police, women are particular subjects of oppression, given half a chance they yearn for a more Western, more cosmopolitan lifestyle etc. etc etc. I find it a little amusing that when this message (which, I'm sure, is broadly true--or, at least, has large elements of truth in it) comes to us from mainstream media outlets it's insidious propaganda; but when it comes to us from independent sources it's a truth we dare not breathe.
posted by yoink at 3:39 PM on March 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


A slight derail, but just wanted to note:

though I imagine Academi (formerly known as Blackwater)

Good grief. "Xe" wasn't good enough for them? What I see is them trying to insist desperately that their name isn't Mud.
posted by JHarris at 8:13 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The popular PBS travel show by Rick Steves did a show in Iran a few years ago, back when Bush was still in charge. It's free for streaming on Hulu and was a nice look at how much more modern and nice that country is when you're not talking about politics or war.

Steves was one on of his frequent appearances on KQED last year, the local PBS station in the Bay Area, as they played a marathon of his programs. He said Iran was the most surprising, memorable place he has visited during the course of his travels. Probably because Westerners have this idea that they'll be received by hostile, angry crowds and they invariably experience the opposite of that. Henry Rollins basically said the same thing during a book tour last year. He's visited many supposed "unsafe" places, but said he was most nervous about his Iranian trip which turned out to be a wonderful, positive experience and he plans to go back again. Also, being an ice cream aficionado and having worked at a Haagen Dazs shop during his youth, Rollins was blown away by the exoticness of Persian ice cream, which is flavored with saffron, pistachios and rose water and usually served in ice cream sandwich form between two wafers.

Oh, and about Americans' ignorance of the goings on in Iran (as someone mentioned above), I was amazed when Steves asked his Iranian gov't minder/guide about the Iran/Iraq war. He asked something along the lines of, "But the Iran/Iraq war...we Westerners don't understand it. So many people killed just because of a difference of religion [I assume he meant between Sunni's and Shiites]" His guide rightly replied that the war had nothing to do with religion (after all the majority of Iraqis are Shiite just like the vast majority of Iranians) and was a territorial dispute when Iraq invaded Iran and planned to incorporate some of Iran's southwestern oil fields into Iraq. It just showed the fog which exists between Iran and the US, where the host of a program "introducing" Iran to many Americans for the first time didn't know the first thing about such a major part of its recent history, and undoubtedly knew even less about his own country's role in prolonging it.
posted by Devils Slide at 8:30 PM on March 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


schmod: "It still boggles my mind that, in a great multitude of ways, Iran would be the most obvious ally to the West in the Middle-East, and by a fairly wide margin at that.

And yet, we somehow managed to botch that relationship so badly that they're now our greatest enemy....
"

Imperialism, eh. Can't live happily under it, can't live happily without imposing it over others.
posted by stratastar at 10:05 PM on March 9, 2013


Devils Slide: " was a territorial dispute when Iraq invaded Iran and planned to incorporate some of Iran's southwestern oil fields into Iraq."

Well. Not only that but the war was *encouraged* externally (by Arab autocracies and the west) to slowdown (or end) the spread of religious revolution outside of Iran's borders INTO Iraq, which as we learned over the past 10 years, has a large Shiite population. Arab autocrats feared losing control of their "secular" leaderships as revolutionary fervor spread across the ME. The west bruised from getting egg in its face (losing a pro-western proxy state/leader and that little Hostage Crisis, natch) by a bunch of bearded-crazies wanted to punish the country itself (sound familiar), and sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to Iraq/Saddam.

Of course, this just cemented, and centralized the Islamist power base which to this day goes into existential terror mode every-time liberalism rears its head.

Jesus Rick Steves, put down the fucking bong and read a book.
posted by stratastar at 10:18 PM on March 9, 2013


though I imagine Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) and the other private contractors who took most of the trillion dollars we poured into Iraq would probably come out pretty good. If they don't get nuked.

A relatively tiny slice of the money spent on the Iraq war went to mercenaries.
posted by atrazine at 8:49 AM on March 10, 2013


Well. Not only that but the war was *encouraged* externally (by Arab autocracies and the west) to slowdown (or end) the spread of religious revolution outside of Iran's borders INTO Iraq, which as we learned over the past 10 years, has a large Shiite population. Arab autocrats feared losing control of their "secular" leaderships as revolutionary fervor spread across the ME. The west bruised from getting egg in its face (losing a pro-western proxy state/leader and that little Hostage Crisis, natch) by a bunch of bearded-crazies wanted to punish the country itself (sound familiar), and sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to Iraq/Saddam.

Oh, you're absolutely right. There were many guilty parties complicit in making that war the eight year horror that it turned out to be, and I didn't mean to just single out Iraq and the US. As you said, many Arab nations supported Iraq for the reasons you mentioned, but the Mullah regime was guiltiest of all imo. At the beginning of the war, Iran was in a state of turmoil and Iranians were just beginning to discover the grave mistake they'd made by allowing the Mullahs to usurp the revolution and seize power. As ruling dictatorships have done for centuries, the regime made a boogeyman of a foreign enemy to mobilize everyone against a common foe and to distract and preoccupy the nation in order to maintain their own foothold on the country. The regime sacrificed tens of thousands of young men in any single large scale attack by making completely useless (strategically speaking) forays deep inside Iraq just for propaganda purposes, and three days later the Iraqi military would push the Iranians back to their original position. They rejected many offers by the weary Iraqis to end the war. Some say (and there's some evidence to support this) that the Mullahs were actively trying to kill off Iran's military-aged young men in order to eliminate the preeminent threat to their power.
posted by Devils Slide at 1:40 PM on March 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Iran cuts off 'illegal' VPN workaround to Internet filters: Government blocks use of popular tool used by many Iranians to circumvent Internet restrictions and mask their activities.
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on March 11, 2013


Devils Slide: "Iran was in a state of turmoil and Iranians were just beginning to discover the grave mistake they'd made by allowing the Mullahs to usurp the revolution and seize power."

This is often a class-centric mis-reading of the revolution: of course the educated middle-classes thought that after aligning with the religious revolutionaries, they would recede and the elites would go ahead and rule a new non-monarched secular country... But the fact is that those religious revolutionaries had the backing of the religious lower classes and the country-side whose values and beliefs had been regularly impugned by the Shah. The educated minority in Tehran were along for the ride, not vice-versa.

Which makes me doubt the veracity of your second point about maliciously sending kids to die. Remember that during the revolution the military establishment was *gutted* because they fled to the west. I mean, maybe... but they were also sending *little kids* to die as well. Not to weed out the ranks, but because holy shit they didn't know what they were doing, and didn't know who to trust.
posted by stratastar at 12:34 PM on March 12, 2013


Update: The Atlantic In Focus photo blog has picked this up.
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:19 PM on March 12, 2013



This is often a class-centric mis-reading of the revolution: of course the educated middle-classes thought that after aligning with the religious revolutionaries, they would recede and the elites would go ahead and rule a new non-monarched secular country... But the fact is that those religious revolutionaries had the backing of the religious lower classes and the country-side whose values and beliefs had been regularly impugned by the Shah. The educated minority in Tehran were along for the ride, not vice-versa.

Which makes me doubt the veracity of your second point about maliciously sending kids to die. Remember that during the revolution the military establishment was *gutted* because they fled to the west. I mean, maybe... but they were also sending *little kids* to die as well. Not to weed out the ranks, but because holy shit they didn't know what they were doing, and didn't know who to trust.


Yes, the religious lower classes were more supportive of the Islamic regime and that continues to this day which is probably why the mullahs are still in power, but I think you're underestimating the role played by the middle class both during the revolution and in the following years. Remember that the unrest in '78/'79 and ultimately the revolution began in Tehran, spearheaded by those ultimately ineffectual, impotent (in your opinion) middle classes. The unrest in 2009 was also mainly an educated, middle class phenomenon. You could argue that that is why it failed to bring about any changes and was summarily brutally crushed, because it didn't really have the backing of most of the masses outside of the large urban centers (and not limited to Tehran), however the opposition to the regime is not insignificant. Obviously when I said "Iranians were beginning to realize the grave mistake they'd made by allowing the mullahs to seize power, " of course I didn't mean ALL Iranians but a significant percentage nevertheless.

And I do believe that the large scale slaughter of young Iranian men was an intentional tactic by the Islamic regime itself. It's difficult to imagine any legitimate military objective for the "strategy" of some of the disastrous offensives by the Iranian army, and this happened over and over again during the course of the war. The leadership knew full well that the ground gained by those assaults would be lost in short order, and many of those offensives did little more than to secure a headline in the Keyhan newspaper boasting how the Iranian army had driven deep inside enemy territory.

Yes, the poor uneducated boys from rural families who supported the regime and volunteered to be "pishmargeh" were thrown into the meat grinder along with the draftees from the middle classes but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I honestly don't see any other reason for young men and boys (many of them unarmed!) being ordered to charge through minefields at heavily fortified Iraqi positions and being mowed down by the thousands and tens of thousands in the process. You could argue that those ill-conceived (to put it mildly) offensives were the result of stupidity, incompetence and poor leadership rather than a willful desire to thin the herd and reduce the threat to the regime from its own citizenry, however the same scenario played out over and over and over again with the same results during almost the entire war. Even the most obtuse, incompetent leaders would eventually realize their folly yet the regime repeated those catastrophic assaults time and time again. And all of this was taking place as the country was reeling under sanctions, in desperate need of arms and replacement parts for its military hardware, the economy was in disarray, and oil production had trickled down to a fraction of its former output. Meanwhile the Iraqis were desperate for a cease fire/truce yet their pleas were continuously rejected by the Islamic Republic which could ill afford to continue/prolong the war itself. Say what you will about the mullahs, but they aren't as stupid as some believe. Self preservation has always been their primary goal and they're very good at it.
posted by Devils Slide at 6:24 AM on March 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older Jon Brion gets around. As a composer, he scored so...  |  NASA's guide to observing a co... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments