Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Amsterdam pays alcoholics in beer to clean streets
November 22, 2013 8:23 AM   Subscribe

The day begins at around 9:00 am, with the workers drinking two beers and some coffee, if desired, before going to clean the streets.
posted by hereticfig (51 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
I've seen this discussed elsewhere with the main objection raised being that the addicts are having their addiction facilitated and legitimized.

This also, as the article states, gives them some structure for their days if they want it, allows them to work and earn their source of addition as opposed to begging for change to afford it, and keeps those that choose to work busy and out of the park where they were causing trouble before.

The workers get some self-worth back and the knowledge that their government hasn't forgotten about them and isn't turning its head aside like the people who pass them by during the day (in North American cities, though I can't imagine that even the most progressive cities in Europe have citizens that different with respect to the underclass).

The issue of the payment to the workers is where this sticks for me: they work six and a half hours for ten euro, five beer, half a packet of tobacco, some food, and some coffee. That doesn't seem to add up in terms of minimum wage. Hopefully, there's something else waiting for them (like a chance at a rehabilitation/therapy/treatment course) eventually.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:38 AM on November 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


Don't they have a minimum wage in the netherlands?
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 8:38 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


I've seen this discussed elsewhere with the main objection raised being that the addicts are having their addiction facilitated and legitimized.

That's a frequent objection to harm-reduction models, despite copious evidence of their benefits.
posted by entropone at 8:43 AM on November 22, 2013 [14 favorites]


I don't really care that alcoholics' addiction is being facilitated, but I do care that their addiction is being taken advantage of as a way to get cheap labor out of a marginalized part of society. I guess I do find this "pragmatic" approach appalling, but not really for the reasons the article seems to assume I do.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:45 AM on November 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


""I think I can speak for the group and say that if they didn't give us beers then we wouldn't come," said Frank"...

I know this is a serious issue but that quote fills me with happiness.

Said Frank? Said everyone!
posted by J0 at 8:48 AM on November 22, 2013 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I'm all for harm reduction, but that's not really what this feels like.
posted by dry white toast at 8:50 AM on November 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


These people are being given structure and support and interaction with people who can ultimately help them.. Having that, they are more, not less, likely to overcome or manage their addictions.

Left to their own devices they'll just drink anyway. Nobody's addiction is being facilitated in a way that makes it more likely they will drink, or drink more.

I also doubt that employing alcoholics really is done for cost reasons. As a rule, chronic alcoholics do not make more dependable, productive employees than non-alcoholics. I don't think the total cost of running this program is cheaper than just employing non-alcoholic on minimum wage. It's a make-work scheme to help get chronic alcoholics to re-engage with society.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:54 AM on November 22, 2013 [26 favorites]


Don't they have a minimum wage in the netherlands?

Perhaps this is more like giving donuts to volunteers, only instead of donuts you're giving out beer, smokes, and a small amount of cash.

I also wonder how the work is managed. I suspect there may be a floor below which you'd get kicked out, but that floor might be very, very low--much lower than at any real job.

Or at least I hope that's the case, because it would be a real shame if they were simply taking advantage of a vulnerable population.
posted by jsturgill at 8:54 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


A lot of people base their concept of morality on their ability to be right within it, and to be seen as such. I think it's a natural outcome of the strategy of constructing morality by first enumerating examples of right and wrong, then finding what they have in common.

Objecting to a social program using one's own individual code of morality is common. I think it speaks to a failure of perspective. Merely conceptualizing society as a set of interconnected systems is a pretty onerous task for professional sociologists--otherwise it wouldn't be much of a profession, right?--so I think it's natural to interpret objections like, "This is bad because it facilitates and legitimizes alcoholism" as just not being thought through all the way. I believe this despite the protestors' rejection of the benefits of harm-reduction programs, despite their recognizing all the good they are throwing away--because that approach to morality has tradition on its side, at least as much as racism or sexism, for instance.
posted by LogicalDash at 8:54 AM on November 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


Glass half full? Glass half empty? I'm an alcoholic, so it's panic stations either way.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 8:56 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Minimum wage in the Netherlands is 68.21 euros per day. I doubt they're getting 58.21 worth of beer, tobacco and food.
posted by Etrigan at 8:58 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I had an idea for american parks, the ones that are not safe. Have these folks refurbish them with rubber fixtures and porta-potties, get a community liason person and keep them working and steadily improve there lives.
posted by clavdivs at 9:09 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Having been to Amsterdam, I have to ask, why not pay them in their choice of beer or heroin?
posted by MeanwhileBackAtTheRanch at 9:13 AM on November 22, 2013


This seems like something that would be tricky (but possible) to implement in a non-exploitative way. The wages thing obviously isn't the entire picture – wages are just one way of convincing people to do something that they wouldn't otherwise be bothered to do, and they're not the only fair way to do that. Making the work primarily non-wage-based (the money these people get is probably seen as secondary to the beers, the structure, and the access to services) makes things trickier though, as non-monetary compensation is much more subjective in terms of value.

I don't think we necessarily have the information in this article to be able to make a solid judgment about whether or not these people are being exploited in this particular instance. The only way to really know would be to conduct a systematic survey, and find out whether the workers feel like they're getting a fair deal and whether they feel like they have other options and/or the opportunity to progress to a better situation rather than being trapped in this particular system. Generally speaking, the best way to find out if a worker is being exploited is to ask them.

It does seem that the program organizers are making an effort. As has been mentioned, the workers get controlled access to their problem substance in order to mitigate the harm of their addictions, daily structure and a sense of self worth (cleaning the streets is an important job!) that they may not have had before, and access to social services to help them move toward tackling their addictions and improving their lives, and also a bit of money to make up for what they would've otherwise been able to obtain through begging or other odd jobs.

That seems pretty reasonable to me on the surface, and I could easily see a program like this being implemented in a much less helpful and more exploitative fashion. Making this work for the workers (which ought to be the primary goal here, with clean streets being a secondary priority) sort of relies on the good intentions and good execution of the people running the program, though. That creates a pretty severe power imbalance, especially since the workers presumably have few other good options and therefore have a high tolerance for exploitation. I think that's the most problematic part of this, but it's a problem that's common to most social assistance programs.

The key to dealing with that would be to give the workers meaningful input into the way the program is run, so that they are empowered to shape the program in ways that are helpful to them. It's not clear from the article if this is a meaningful element of this program, but in my opinion it definitely ought to be.

My take on this is that it's a promising idea, the success of which depends on careful implementation. We don't have enough information here to be able to gauge that success, but neither do we have enough information to dismiss it. It's certainly interesting though, thanks to the OP for posting it.
posted by Scientist at 9:24 AM on November 22, 2013 [7 favorites]


My guess is that the people are on benefits, so the beers and 10 euro are a volunteer incentive. I like the program, it gives them a sense of being useful and this can be a route to improve self esteem and maybe a way out of the cycle.
posted by arcticseal at 9:28 AM on November 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


This is cute, misguided, exploitative, and enabling.

It's like a clusterfuck of ineffective good intentions meets misunderstanding meets throwing one's hands up in the air.

But, if it works for these 10 people, then my hat is off to 'em.

I'd deign to say, however, that there is no way to roll out a program like this on a large scale. Alcoholics are notoriously dishonest, unreliable, and I would bet my left nut that for the majority of the chronic alcoholics in this program, with every beer "logged" there's likely a half pint of liquor consumed.

This though:

"We need alcohol to function, that's the disadvantage of chronic alcoholism," said the 45-year-old, somewhat fatalistically.

This is sad. Not really true. But sad.
posted by Debaser626 at 9:33 AM on November 22, 2013


I'm not sure how much public pushback there is against this kind of program in the Netherlands, but I would guess that keeping costs to a bare minimum reduces the amount of complaints about the costs.

Participants presumably aren't subject to minimum-wage laws because they're volunteering. If the program can provide a small cash payment, food, and beer for, say, half the amount they'd have to spend to pay participants minimum wage, that could be a savings of nearly 90,000 euros a year (assuming 10 participants working 260 days each). I know I'd get a lot less pushback for a program that costs taxpayers $100,000 instead of $200,0000, and I'd have a much better chance of convincing a city council or a board of directors to toss $100,000 at an experimental harm reduction program.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be preferable to pay these folks minimum wage in a perfect world, but I am suggesting that sometimes it's better to do what you can than do nothing at all. If this program can't get the funding to pay minimum wage to all the participants, is it better to scrap the whole thing? Or help 5 guys instead of 10? Or to help as many as you can as much as you can? Providing structure, food, and a sense of self-worth is pretty valuable, and it sounds like this program is doing some good and demonstrating the value and public benefits of treating addicts and the homeless humanely.
posted by Kpele at 9:36 AM on November 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


That's a frequent objection to harm-reduction models, despite copious evidence of their benefits.

As far as I know, harm reduction is about giving clean material (needles, and whatever else) and information booklets about drugs to drug addicts. Also in the sex workers field, to give them condoms and informations about stds.

What kind of harm is reduced by giving alcohol to alcoholics? It would be the same as giving heroin to addicts.
posted by yann at 9:40 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Why does Amsterdam hate our Protestant work ethics?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:41 AM on November 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


So much sneer. The alcoholics are happy with the program. The neighbourhood are happy with the program. Presumably, the local government are happy with the program. How many more of the people involved need to be happy with it until it passes ideological muster from people a world away? If opinions and studies both find that a program is beneficial, shouldn't a moral framework adapt to take this into account, not the opposite way? Isn't it otherwise a case of caring more about being Right than about doing good?
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:46 AM on November 22, 2013 [9 favorites]


yann: Well, one of the alcoholics mentions that they are given light beer rather than the strong beer they would ordinarily drink, and another one claims that he drinks less in the evening if he's been working in this programme during the day.

---

I agree that this sounds more like a make-work/volunteer programme set up to give the alcoholics something to do and the benefits that can come from that, and on those terms it sounds just fine to me. I've no idea how scaleable such a thing would be, though.
posted by daisyk at 9:48 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is sad. Not really true. But sad.

It is sad, and it is also true for many alcoholics–those whose disease includes a profound physical dependence.
posted by Mister_A at 9:58 AM on November 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


"We need alcohol to function, that's the disadvantage of chronic alcoholism," said the 45-year-old, somewhat fatalistically.

This is sad. Not really true. But sad.


Actually, for serious alcoholics, more true than not. Abruptly quitting for an alcoholic, unlike a junkie, can be fatal.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:11 AM on November 22, 2013 [10 favorites]


Well, one of the alcoholics mentions that they are given light beer rather than the strong beer they would ordinarily drink, and another one claims that he drinks less in the evening if he's been working in this programme during the day.

Mmmkay, but I think it's more a way for the foundation to save face rather than reduce harm.

However the head of the foundation speaks very clearly about their objectives: "The aim is to keep them occupied, to get them doing something so they no longer cause trouble at the park," and that's what they are actually doing.

---

I don't know, from a human perspective I think that we should do whatever is in our means to help people who are destroying their lifes, from a practical point this is a really good solution to reduce the harm that they are causing to everybody else. Maybe we should do both?
posted by yann at 10:29 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


What kind of harm is reduced by giving alcohol to alcoholics? It would be the same as giving heroin to addicts.

Actually, that is harm reduction. If a dose of heroin costs the government say one dollar to produce and distribute (think of how cheaply the drug could be produced without the burdens of criminal supply chains), versus the cost to society of that addict committing crimes to obtain funds for street-priced heroin, then that is the very definition of harm reduction. Harm is reduced.

Here in "socialist Canada" we already have programs to deliver portion-controlled alcohol to addicts, and there are lawsuits underway to extend this method of treatment to heroin addicts.

Managed-alcohol program helps battle addiction

Prescription heroin users gear up for court battle with Ottawa

posted by kaspen at 10:36 AM on November 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


What kind of harm is reduced by giving alcohol to alcoholics? It would be the same as giving heroin to addicts.

I have a feeling that you know very little about what harm reduction is and how it works.
posted by item at 10:39 AM on November 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


I have a feeling that you know very little about what harm reduction is and how it works.
I have worked for two years in a big association who was working only for recovering drug addicts, so I have a few ideas about what harm reduction is. But I think that the confusion comes from who we think is the subject of the "reduced harm".

I speak about the harm that addicts are doing to themselves by using whatever substance, you are speaking about the harm those people are doing to society.
posted by yann at 10:43 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


... or what kaspen said. Weird weather here = spotty mobile page refreshing.
posted by item at 10:43 AM on November 22, 2013


A clean, safe supply of a drug greatly reduces the harm addicts inflict upon themselves.
posted by item at 10:45 AM on November 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


I can't agree completely, we are speaking about substances that severely numb you and make you live in some kind of eternal nothingness, heroin for example takes away from you _every_ problem (at least so I have been told by people who was in it for years).

While I can agree that not living on the streets and using clean substances can make you live longer, still we have people who are profoundly suffering from the simple fact of living, and they just want to forget everything forever.

I still am of the opinion that by enabling we are harming them. But as I said a few posts ago, probably we should do both. Addiction is mainly a psychological thing (physical addiction can be removed in few days), people use drugs because they are suffering, not the other way around. Edit: this is to say that recovery is only for those who want to recover, so maybe it's ok to reduce the harm that those unwilling to recover are doing to society.
posted by yann at 10:55 AM on November 22, 2013


I speak about the harm that addicts are doing to themselves by using whatever substance, you are speaking about the harm those people are doing to society.

I really want to be sympathetic to this perspective but I just don't see how even with the harshest judgments of the morality of drug use, one could still calculate on one's little 'harm and benefit -ometer' that prohibition results in the greater good. Because if they are addicted, then they have already established a line of supply and will continue to be supplied with their substance of choice, only dirtier and with the proceeds going to crime.

To be 'enabling', there would need to be a prior 'disability' to be addicted. There is not, no one kids themselves that someone who wants a contraband narcotic will fail to get it.
posted by kaspen at 10:59 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


I don't think anyone is suggesting that addiction is a great idea. Certainly, not being an addict is better than being an addict. But managed addiction--including timed consumption of lower-alcohol beverages-- is less harmful than unmanaged addition. From a human perspective, are you really suggesting that it's better to let people sleep outdoors, have no structure or sense of self-worth, develop chronic malnutrition, and continue to deepen thier addiction and other mental health problems if we can't get them 100% clean?

Yes, this program reduces the harm that these folks are doing to society/the public, but that doesn't mean it's not reducing the harm that participants are doing to themselves as well. These guys are eating real food at least once a day. They're not spending all day every day either actively seeking booze or getting as drunk as they possibly can. They're not drinking the cheapest, most high-octane booze they can find. They're doing useful work. In what ways are these things not reducing the harm they're doing to themselves?

Again, I'm not saying this is better than getting these folks 100% clean and sober and into stable housing with health care and supports. But that's not the other option in this case. In this case, these guys are either unmanaged or managed addicts-- adding a perfect-world third option is not what this program is about, and being part of this program doesn't prevent participants from seeking additional assistance if they decide they want it.

Clean and sober housing with supports is expensive-- between $500,000-$1M per household per year in my experience-- and some addicts just won't go clean and sober. It's totally unrealistic to pretend that the choice between a) do nothing ($0 per year with lots of harm) b) this program (maybe $10,000 per year per person, some reduction in harm) and c) clean and sober housing with supports (at least $500,000 per year per person, most reduction in harm) are equivalent choices. They're not. Letting perfect be the enemy of the good for chronic addicts is going to mean saving a few folks and letting thousands more suffer and die in the streets.
posted by Kpele at 11:01 AM on November 22, 2013 [11 favorites]


Participants presumably aren't subject to minimum-wage laws because they're volunteering. If the program can provide a small cash payment...
Last night I watched the Family Guy episode where an extremist Tea Party takes over the town and fixes the ensuing anarchy by reinventing taxes and representative democracy, "and we did it all without government".

I feel like I've fallen into the bizarro-world version of that script: we can help out people who can't yet become productive enough to get a "job" by giving them a "volunteer position with a small cash payment", and we did it all without violating minimum-wage laws!
posted by roystgnr at 11:15 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Again, I'm not saying this is better than getting these folks 100% clean and sober and into stable housing with health care and supports. But that's not the other option in this case. In this case, these guys are either unmanaged or managed addicts-- adding a perfect-world third option is not what this program is about, and being part of this program doesn't prevent participants from seeking additional assistance if they decide they want it.

I am not advocating absolute support for them, but I'd wish that this program had also the aim of supporting those who want to recover, as it is now it's just to move the dirt away from the park.

ps: this thread is making me rethink a few ideas I have always had about addiction, drugs and recovery, so thanks and please consider whatever I write just me wanting to discuss those issues =)
posted by yann at 11:31 AM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


It took me a long time to understand the decisions made in the USA after moving here. Finally I had a discussion with a Republican acquaintance about needle exchange programs, harm reduction models, social benefits, etc., which ended in me asking:
"So, even though you admit everyone benefits, you're opposed to it because it's wrong to give bad people free stuff."
"Yes."
posted by benzenedream at 11:39 AM on November 22, 2013 [13 favorites]


"So, even though you admit everyone benefits, you're opposed to it because it's wrong to give bad people free stuff."

Unless they work for oil, coal, natural gas, or financial service companies. Then the sky's the limit.
posted by RakDaddy at 11:46 AM on November 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


There isn't necessarily any legal issue with the minimum wage, maybe this program specifically allow them to keep other unemployment benefits, maybe it's considered treatment not wages, etc., all depends how their laws work. There isn't necessarily any ethical problem with sidestepping the minimum wage laws either, maybe they're pushing these guys to clean up, quit drinking, and take a real job.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:57 AM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


What kind of harm is reduced by giving alcohol to alcoholics? It would be the same as giving heroin to addicts

They're being given cans of 5% lager instead of bombers of 9% stout that they would usually buy. They can still buy the bombers with the 10 euro but they might not. Depends on how they react to the cheaper, less powerful lager.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:57 AM on November 22, 2013


What kind of harm is reduced by giving alcohol to alcoholics? It would be the same as giving heroin to addicts.

Actually, we do that in the Netherlands. Not to everybody mind, but the largest hard drugs problem in Holland is the group of aging, 40-50 plus heroin addicts who are way past the point of kicking the habit and who used to do a lot of damage to get the money to pay for their addiction. Instead the state now provides them with heroin, clean needles and a safe place to consume it in and it pays back for itself in petty thefts not undertaken.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:20 PM on November 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


I feel like I've fallen into the bizarro-world version of that script: we can help out people who can't yet become productive enough to get a "job" by giving them a "volunteer position with a small cash payment", and we did it all without violating minimum-wage laws!

I have few problems with this particular programme, but it is true that our current unholy coalition of "the people's flag is brightest pink" social democrats and authoritarian liberals government is very keen on getting people to work to "earn" their benefits, with that patronising cow of a social security minister explaining that these people need to learn how to work or participate in the society again with a tone of voice as if she's talking to particularly slow children in Sesame Street, when the reality is that our government values lower taxes for bankers and paying for shitty American jet planes we don't need so doesn't want to spend any money on proper unemployment reduction.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:25 PM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think that the other thing that this does is makes the guys who would otherwise be drinking, fighting and trashing the park a sense of investment in keeping the park clean and safe as well as motivation to have positive relationship with the neighbors. They're no longer the guys sitting there drinking all day being pain-in-the-ass fuck-ups; they're the guys who make the park a nice place to visit AND they still get to drink.
The less annoying and more helpful they are regarded as by the neighbors, the more friendly & concerned the community becomes about their well-being. They become stakeholders in the overall well-being of the community.
It's a win-win.
posted by echolalia67 at 12:36 PM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


So much sneer.

Metafilter: So much sneer.

Metafilter: So much sneer. (Though an order of magnitude less than the Internet outside the blue wall.)
posted by fairmettle at 12:53 PM on November 22, 2013


The issue of the payment to the workers is where this sticks for me: they work six and a half hours for ten euro, five beer, half a packet of tobacco, some food, and some coffee. That doesn't seem to add up in terms of minimum wage. Hopefully, there's something else waiting for them (like a chance at a rehabilitation/therapy/treatment course) eventually.

This thread has put me in the troubling position of agreeing that the government is not giving enough alcohol to these alcoholics.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:14 PM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Five cans a day? This is a rehab, just not an abstinence based one. Seen in a disease model of addiction these people have chronic illnesses. This is better than lifelong institutionalisation or making them work for less than minimum wage in a prison.
posted by yoHighness at 2:18 PM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


What I'm curious about is were there people who were originally doing this job that now are out of work because of it?
posted by Carillon at 3:23 PM on November 22, 2013


If you hired me to pick up trash and paid me the minimum wage at the end of the day (€68.21!), I would go out and purchase the most luxurious, fully-manufactured cigarettes and the strongest of beers. Concentrating on the latter and expending all of my loot.

Before the week was up, you, my employer, would have no choice but to fire me and I would be back in the park with a few choice new stories. Begging, stealing, fighting, making disagreeable comments to all manner of passerby, and, of course, still drinking.

Which is why it's not a job. A cursory look at De Regenboog Groep's site makes me think they are interested in doing something more than just moving the dirt away from the park.
posted by shoesfullofdust at 4:51 PM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I am not advocating absolute support for them, but I'd wish that this program had also the aim of supporting those who want to recover, as it is now it's just to move the dirt away from the park.

As I understand it, the issue is that placing an emphasis on recovery puts people off. There's a pocket guide to being homeless here that has the words "You do NOT need to be sober to access services."* on the front--there's often so much emphasis on being sober that people who aren't there (yet or ever) will just not turn up. They can help people who want to get sober (either directly or by helping them get involved with an other group) without making that part of the mission statement.

Take two of the guys in the article. There's the one guy who's saying he's drinking beer with a lower alcohol content and that sometimes he doesn't feel like drinking when he gets home. Maybe he'll eventually reduce his drinking further, maybe not, but either way he's probably getting a physical health boost, as well as a mental health boost. There's the guy who says he takes his €10 and buys beer. He's probably not any worse off physically for it, but having something to do other than sit in the park all the time is a big deal.

*Of course, the lottery for shelter beds for men here that requires you be sober at the time of the lottery, which is potentially a tall order. It's 'at the time of the lottery' because you get a bed for four weeks.
posted by hoyland at 5:50 PM on November 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


The minimum wage or rather fair-market wages is not applicable here. These guys are not being employed in the sense of providing a service/labor in return for wages or in-kind payment. They are participating in a highly supervised and structured activity program with incentives. I would bet that the cost of running the program in total is higher than the cost of hiring road sweepers who are not chronic severe alcoholics and can be managed as regular staff.
posted by viggorlijah at 7:24 PM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


My mom works in a local detox facility (mostly homeless guys and other people picked up by the cops). When I was in high school/college, I worked with a guy who was famous at her facility because he had been such a frequent flier there.

He told me that when he first quit drinking, he got two full-time jobs and a part-time gig, too. He had been drinking and focused only on drinking for so long that he literally had no idea what to do with his time when he quit.

I know these guys haven't quit, but having something else to do is really important.
posted by MsDaniB at 10:13 PM on November 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yup. I wonder if treatment outcomes are improved by doing something clearly useful, like picking up trash, as opposed to obvious busywork.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:08 AM on November 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's two kinds of people I hate: those who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch.
posted by karst at 5:40 AM on November 23, 2013


« Older Sylvia Browne, famous for her claims of psychic ab...  |  "People are denied access to r... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments