Skip

20,000 Pounds Under the Sea.
December 15, 2008 2:51 PM   Subscribe

Captain Nemo helped invent narco submarines as a way of evading drug enforcement agencies.
posted by gman (63 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Man, piloting a sub with 5.3 tons of coke, talk about living the dream.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 3:00 PM on December 15, 2008 [9 favorites]


"A man, a plan, a sub –- Cocaine!"
posted by ...possums at 3:06 PM on December 15, 2008


Two tons is worth about $100M in gross sales, I guess.

A single Capemax dry bulk carrier of 100,000T deadweight could import five trillion dollars of the stuff. That would keep us going for a while.
posted by troy at 3:26 PM on December 15, 2008


The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc.

They were data mining phone company logs to ferret out informants!
posted by jcruelty at 3:27 PM on December 15, 2008 [5 favorites]


There is no head and the operating space is cramped. The craft have ventilation systems though with the engine rumbling just two feet away, naval engineers theorize the heat must be nearly unbearable; however the crew is motivated by profit.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:27 PM on December 15, 2008


A single Capemax dry bulk carrier of 100,000T deadweight could import five trillion dollars of the stuff. That would keep us going for a while.

Are we talking bailouts or supply here?
posted by gman at 3:29 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


The drug war is a great example of how the free (and as it happens, black) market always, always defeats socialized law enforcement. It's the best indictment of socialism I've seen, and it's confusing to see capitalists, who should know better, trumpet about how we're winning the drug war. We're not, and we never will.
posted by mullingitover at 3:51 PM on December 15, 2008


I don't think socialism means what you think it means.
posted by aspo at 3:53 PM on December 15, 2008 [13 favorites]


aspo writes "I don't think socialism means what you think it means."

Well, in the one corner we have independent entrepreneurs who are taking on risk with the opportunity to leverage that risk into a huge reward.

In the other corner we have socialized law enforcement (unless I'm mistaken and the law enforcement in the US is somehow privately funded). If it were to get a report card based on what percentage of drug shipments were intercepted, since the beginning of the war on drugs, it would be a consistent string of Fs.

Sure it's not representative of the system of economics known as socialism, but it does put in stark contrast the difference between people acting in their own self-interests and people acting on behalf of the state. One group is consistently highly successful, and the other group consistently fails. What lessons can we draw from this?
posted by mullingitover at 4:04 PM on December 15, 2008 [4 favorites]


Is there anyone really trumpeting that we're winning the drug war these days? The party line is more that alternatives can't be "seriously" considered, as they would clearly lead to some kind of horrible end.

I'm confounded at the fact that we have created and are maintaining a phenomenal incentive program for the development of technologies to thwart our ability to keep unwanted stuff out of our country.
posted by Bokononist at 4:11 PM on December 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


(unless I'm mistaken and the law enforcement in the US is somehow privately funded).

Colombia: Private Firms Take on U.S. Military Role in Drug War

One group is consistently highly successful, and the other group consistently fails.

U.S. banks?
posted by gman at 4:13 PM on December 15, 2008


I love how DHS is worried about da terrists getting this technology, but nobody can figure out that if the damn drugs were legal there wouldn't be enough money in the smuggling to make developing the technology worthwhile.

On the other hand I'm sure a personal drug-running sub would be a great Make: magazine project. It would give me something to do with the 350 HP diesel engine I got off ebay last year.
posted by localroger at 4:21 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


What lessons can we draw from this?

That socialism doesn't mean what you think it means.
posted by aspo at 4:22 PM on December 15, 2008 [8 favorites]


gman writes "Colombia: Private Firms Take on U.S. Military Role in Drug War"

Thanks for the supporting link. I didn't think to point out that the socialized police might hinder their own cause by hiring people who can only maintain their revenue stream by maintaining the status quo.
posted by mullingitover at 4:23 PM on December 15, 2008


Awesome satire, mullingitover.
posted by Artw at 4:26 PM on December 15, 2008


No, but do you really believe that people acting in their own self-interests are consistently highly successful? And people acting on behalf of the state consistently fail?
posted by gman at 4:27 PM on December 15, 2008


TBH I think after destoying the navies of the world, and then retiring to his island to make giant turkeys, carting cocaine about is shooting a bit low.
posted by Artw at 4:27 PM on December 15, 2008


What lessons can we draw from this?

That capitalists are the same as criminals?
posted by rokusan at 4:38 PM on December 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


Is there anyone really trumpeting that we're winning the drug war these days?

Bush, within the last week, delivered a speech praising the "successes" of the drug war.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 4:41 PM on December 15, 2008


gman writes "No, but do you really believe that people acting in their own self-interests are consistently highly successful? And people acting on behalf of the state consistently fail?"

I choose poorly in my terminology. Let's look at the history of planned economies versus market economies. Which have been the most successful? The law enforcement side of this equation is a planned economy. The government dispenses a given amount of capital, and the law enforcement bureaucracy decides how to use the money. They have little or no financial incentive to decisively win, in fact if they were as successful as possible they'd be unemployed. If they fail, they will be back at it again next budget cycle. There is little to no demand for their services, in fact a large portion of the population has rejected the drug war outright and called for the legalization of drugs.

Then there's the drug runners. They are consummate entrepreneurs guided by the invisible hand. There is extremely high demand for their product. They invest their own money, put their lives and freedom on the line, and if they succeed they realize a large financial reward. Because of the high demand, if they fail then others will be along behind them immediately to roll the dice again.

Free market vs. planned economy. Which of these has a better track record?
posted by mullingitover at 4:43 PM on December 15, 2008


It's the best indictment of socialism I've seen...

Drugs are a problem in America = best indictment of socialism?

Hell, with logic like that, the drug crazed pinko commies clearly have already won.
posted by yeloson at 4:57 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


What lessons can we draw from this?

It depends how hard you want to torture your analogies to support your pet peeve, I guess.

I hear Mexico's cops are plenty entreprenurial.
posted by rodgerd at 5:00 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


They have little or no financial incentive to decisively win, in fact if they were as successful as possible they'd be unemployed.

And Blackwater et al. have too much financial incentive to "win".

Free market vs. planned economy. Which of these has a better track record?

Are you somehow not living through what everybody else is right now?
posted by gman at 5:11 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Still no dice, mullingitover. People will find ways to break the law for a profit, but that doesn't make it a triumph of capitalism over socialism.
posted by snofoam at 5:12 PM on December 15, 2008


yeloson writes "Drugs are a problem in America = best indictment of socialism?"

This has nothing to do with drugs. Replace drugs with any product which is proscribed by the state but for which there is a high, nearly inelastic demand. It creates a huge risk premium for supplying the product. Inevitably there will be entrepreneurs who will assume the risk in exchange for the opportunity to be the residual claimant.

rodgerd writes "I hear Mexico's cops are plenty entreprenurial."

It's everywhere; a team of the world's greatest sociological minds couldn't come up with a better recipe for sowing corruption in law enforcement than what we have with the war on drugs. It's beautiful in its elegance and simplicity.
posted by mullingitover at 5:16 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Replace drugs with any product which is proscribed by the state but for which there is a high, nearly inelastic demand.

Abortion in America = best indictment of socialism?
Pirated Music in America = best indictment of socialism?
Criminally low paid workers in America = best indictment of socialism?

So far, all I'm seeing is an indictment against our education system...
posted by yeloson at 5:22 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mullingitover, people will do just about anything if you pay them enough. However, if I pay you to kill my grandmother, that is not necessarily a triumph of capitalism. It's not the story of a plucky, young entrepreneur who beats the odds to become "successful."

Likewise, the law or government or enforcement agencies do not equal socialism. So when you get put in jail for killing my grandmother, that isn't proof that socialism works.

I hope you saved the receipt on your analogy!
posted by snofoam at 5:25 PM on December 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


Is there anyone really trumpeting that we're winning the drug war these days? The party line is more that alternatives can't be "seriously" considered, as they would clearly lead to some kind of horrible end.

Drug Czar John Walter's Dec. 5th, 2008 editorial piece, which he titled "Our Drug Policy Is A Success." I wonder if he was able to keep a straight face when he handed it in to the WSJ.
posted by Sockpuppet For Naughty Things at 5:30 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


snofoam writes "However, if I pay you to kill my grandmother, that is not necessarily a triumph of capitalism. It's not the story of a plucky, young entrepreneur who beats the odds to become 'successful.' "

Not here, dude. Send PMs about this stuff, ok? And don't expect a discount just because you know me from mefi.
posted by mullingitover at 5:42 PM on December 15, 2008 [7 favorites]


huh?
posted by xorry at 5:44 PM on December 15, 2008


Anyway, thanks for the post. It's cool to imagine this mad sciency (fisherman?) type guy hiding in the jungle making million dollar semi-subs.
posted by xorry at 5:48 PM on December 15, 2008


Why hasn't someone genetically engineered yeast or e. coli to crap out cocaine yet? Too difficult? I can just imagine the news headlines. USDA, FDA, and DEA officials traced back an outbreak of permanently high suburbanites to an e. coli contaminated batch of tomatoes.

I always wanted a gliding mini-sub, but I'm not sure if they are any less detectable than semi-submersibles which have some advantages from hugging that air/water boundary.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:07 PM on December 15, 2008


This sure beats the x-prize challenges.

The last one was 10 million to send a craft capable of carrying 3 people to an altitude of 100km twice within two weeks. The current one is to land a robot on the moon, get it to travel 500 meters, and to transmit data back to earth.

I propose the Cartel del Pacifico challenge, which lays in between those two. For 17.5 million, send 2 tons of cocaine undetected (by law enforcement) from Colombia to California. Just like the space program, technologies resulting from the development of the wining entry will filter down to civilian life. If NASA gave us Velcro, imagine what could come out of this.
posted by dirty lies at 6:07 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]




Hagbard Celine! No, wait, that was hash and flax.
posted by Curry at 6:11 PM on December 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


I wonder if Captain Nemo grew up reading Popular Mechanics or Popular Science?
posted by Tube at 6:14 PM on December 15, 2008


The drug war is a great example of how the free (and as it happens, black) market always, always defeats socialized law enforcement.

O RLY?


I don't think you can draw any useful conclusions by comparing drug lords and anti-drug warriors. On one hand, you have state-controlled military and police forces. On the other hand, you have drug cartels that replace many state welfare functions in their less than functional nations. Then you have entrepreneurial drug runners who are bringing a product to a black market where they may be the only, monopolistic, supplier.


That having been said, those submarines are awesome.
posted by b1tr0t at 6:18 PM on December 15, 2008


Birds fly, grass is green, demand gets its supply. That's all I'm saying: you can't legislate a huge demand away, and pitting a mere state mandate and state-run enforcement efforts against the powerful forces of human nature and the principles of economics isn't even a fair fight. If you honestly believe this is a winnable fight for the state, please post your rationale for my amusement.
posted by mullingitover at 6:35 PM on December 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


BrotherCaine, drop that jawbone, tropane alkaloid biosynthesis (which includes cocaine) is a hard problem.

I am no biologist, but play one when I drink with my biologist friends. The ones who play with biosynthesis tell me that the closest anyone has gotten to producing these kinds of alkaloids with bacteria is to modify the type of bacteria that can trade DNA with plant roots (some kind of Agrobacter, I believe), and get plants that already produce alkaloids to produce either more of them or a different kind. According to them, the process is tedious, complicated, and the results not that good.

Something I could find on cocaine biosynthesis: A paper published on September 11 2001. No idea what has happened in the last 7 years.
posted by dirty lies at 6:40 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]



"What lessons can we draw from this?"
Casual drug users subsidize violent crime gangs?
posted by Iron Rat at 6:42 PM on December 15, 2008


in fact if they were as successful as possible they'd be unemployed

I'm curious how this would not apply to private police.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:25 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Are you people deliberately refusing to see mullingitover's point?

The ban on drugs is at the extreme end of the regulatory/private enterprise spectrum. The government has declared that there will be no economy in drugs like cocaine.

But passing a law does not make it so. The drug war illustrates that private enterprise will always undermine socialism, i.e. state control over aspects of the economy. This doesn't mean that capitalism is bad, because that is placing a moral judgment on something that has no moral dimension. It does mean that socialism is pointless and doomed to failure.

Another example many of you may be more comfortable with: intellectual property. The state declares that only owners of a copyrighted work can control its distribution and sale. Nonetheless, massively complex technologies have emerged to subvert the copyright laws, and protect pirates. So copyright owners are forced to alter their businesses in the face of the reality of piracy, i.e. to seek a market based solution that does not rely on government enforcement.

However, if I pay you to kill my grandmother, that is not necessarily a triumph of capitalism. It's not the story of a plucky, young entrepreneur who beats the odds to become "successful."


Actually, it is a triumph of capitalism. It is the story of how the state seeks to impose its will on an individual, and how the free market grants that individual the freedom the state denies. That you chose a morally heinous example was your own doing.

You will find in every market that is plagued with cost excesses or perpetual inefficiency, it is because the state has mucked up that market. Consider health care. The problem with health care is no the providers of care, it is the insurance companies. But bizarrely, most people who have private health insurance (as opposed to medicaid or some govt sponsored plan) do not get it on the open market the way they get auto or life insurance. They are forced to accept the one provided for them by their employer. That isn't a free market, that's the opposite of free.

What is important to understand is that socialism never exists in isolation. It is always accompanied by a complementary free market (either in the form of a black market or a private pay-as-you-go market). You want to impose stricter standards on the kinds of cars people can drive? Fine, as long as you understand that rich people will pay the premium to drive whatever they want regardless of the rules, and people with less money will pay to circumvent the restrictions if it's in their economic interests.

There is no socialist paradise. There is only greater control over and further limitations of the rights of the middle class, along with an elite rich enough to ignore the rules and an underclass willing to bear the risk of breaking them to eek out some financial gain.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:49 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


On the other hand I'm sure a personal drug-running sub would be a great Make: magazine project.

Subpunk?
posted by lukemeister at 8:16 PM on December 15, 2008


Pastabagel: Socialism and regulation are not synonyms, no matter how much you and mullingitover seem to want them to be.
posted by aspo at 8:19 PM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Fnord?
posted by The Whelk at 8:53 PM on December 15, 2008


I wonder if there's the "Legend of the lost stash" amongst sub mariners.
posted by mattoxic at 9:57 PM on December 15, 2008


The DEA is currently requesting eleventy bazillion dollars to fight this new drug menace.
posted by mrhappy at 10:45 PM on December 15, 2008


The comparison with the Capemax brings up an interesting point. Are most drug shipments actually in containers? Surely with the staggering volume of containers that go around the world every day, 200 million container trips per year you would just ship anything illegal packed sneakily into some container.

As cool as subs are, surely containers are better.
posted by sien at 11:32 PM on December 15, 2008


The problem with trafficking drugs in containers it at the origin, not the destination. For example, after it became hard to ship cocaine out of Colombia, operations moved to Venezuela. Some ports are known as drug trafficking hubs, and it is easy for authorities to inspect containers arriving at the port from suspicious routes.

If you manage to put your container on a ship, you've made it.

Lets perform a little thought experiment.

The US inspects less than 3% of all containers, less than .5% get manual inspections1. 5 out 1000. South America, the Caribbean and Mexico account for 10% of the world population, no idea of what percentage of the world containers. Lets say they account for 5%. That would be 50 containers out of 1000. If inspections are not random, and authorities only inspect shipments likely to contain cocaine, they could use 100% of their resources to inspect 5 out of suspicious 50 containers. That is a 90% chance of your shipment making it through, and if it makes it through, there is no one to arrest at the scene. The typical shipment in a container is between 3,000 and 5,500 kilos. Sounds pretty sweet to me.

The submarine guys are romantics.

1. Smugglers have learned to hide cocaine from dogs, x-ray machine and other imaging devices. For example, a shipment where synthetic fibers had been impregnated with a cocaine solution, resulting in a product more than 60% cocaine by weight. The fibers were used to replace the insulation inside gas heaters, and were indistinguishable from the real thing in x-ray and gamma ray images. Thermal Neutron Analysis can detect the nitrogen and chlorine in drugs, specifically the hydrochloride salt forms. I am sure smugglers can employ smart chemists to figure out how to make compounds using freebase or something better.
posted by dirty lies at 3:07 AM on December 16, 2008 [3 favorites]


Are you people deliberately refusing to see mullingitover's point?

Oh, I do see some merit to his point, but not in the sweeping fashion he presented it in.
posted by gman at 4:18 AM on December 16, 2008


I believe what mullingitover is saying is that to solve the drug problem, the government should start handing out drugs.
posted by dsword at 6:19 AM on December 16, 2008


Where I disagree with mullingitover is when it says this is not a winnable war for the state.

To figure out if something is winnable or not, one must first know the victory condition.

mullingitover assumes that the victory condition is to completely destroy the supply of drugs, while the state, in its infinite emergent wisdom has defined the victory condition as becoming richer, more powerful, more oppressive and better able to control the people every day.

This is a winnable war, and everyone is playing for the state.
posted by dirty lies at 6:59 AM on December 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Two tons is worth about $100M in gross sales, I guess.

What's that in hemp script, Hagbard?

/R.A.W.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:15 AM on December 16, 2008


Drug Czar John Walter's Dec. 5th, 2008 editorial piece, which he titled "Our Drug Policy Is A Success. I wonder if he was able to keep a straight face when he handed it in to the WSJ. "

To be fair, I doubt it. He was riffing on Wesley Willis’ line “the Jam Session Was a Success.”
You should have seen his “Torture: Hell Ride.” Paper. Hi-larious.

Re: socialism.

I dig where mullingitover’s coming from but allow me to inject some reality here:

Y’all know it’s shadow puppetry, right?
I mean the ‘war’ on ‘drugs’ is not a ‘war’ on ‘drugs’ in the sense that we’re looking to achieve anything beyond endless escalation of state power and legitimacy.

I mean, you want a scenario where the war is ‘won’ I can give you two - depending on victory conditions.
On the one hand -legalization. On the other China under Mao.
It’s relatively easy to supress cultivation and eradicate addiction given the political will (and draconian laws - but we’d be well on that path were the objective actually fighting the illegal drugs rather than the laws themselves) without an insurgency to deal with.
If you are fighting an insurgency however, best bet is to take them on first rather than the cultivation.
E.g. Shining Path.
You can beat the folks profiting from the drugs (if they have an agenda) without eliminating their drug income, but you can’t aim to destroy the drug income and hope to destroy the insurgents.

So you’ve got, say - the Turks who licensed it but came down hard on anyone smuggling/dealing/etc. drugs (’Oh, Billy!’)
but they didn’t have much else to deal with at the time.
And you’ve got, say - Thailand, which took a long time strategic look and fostered alternative livelyhoods as well as security in counternarcotics.
In the 60s they went the Mao route, but that failed (folks took to the hills) plus gave the drug trade to insurgents, so they stopped trying to eradicate it and started social and economic programs and fostered development so that there was less incentive to do drugs. They took out the insurgents and after about 15-20 years, they started eradication again and stopped the cultivation of those plants (poppies, in their case I believe).
So a two-fold approach should work in Columbia, since most of those folks aspire to be even dirt-poor.
Once they have other productive (and less dangerous) work, eradication would be pretty easy.

I know this. People know this. It’s not being done. Ergo the objective is something other than eradication (say, the maintainance of the budget to fight the ‘drug war’).
That or people are so blinded by their ideologies they can’t follow simple practical methods that are historically proven.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:21 AM on December 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Are you people deliberately refusing to see mullingitover's point?

Is it something to do with how mental illness often falls through the gaps without socialised healthcare?
posted by Artw at 10:23 AM on December 16, 2008


(I’ll add - no one’s thought of the terrorism implications here? Two tons is enough for a nice yield on a nuke - call it 5 megatons of TNT per metric ton if we’re a little sloppy (9.5 is a top practical yield) so room for the equipment and whatnot - 0.91 metric tons x 2 - nice little undetectable bomb floats into L.A. Harbor. Not that it has to happen. Just the idea is worth noting, as propaganda or howsoever it's coined)
posted by Smedleyman at 10:36 AM on December 16, 2008


Are you people deliberately refusing to see mullingitover's point?

Once you synonymize criminal enterprise with unfettered capitalism, you're off the deep end. Where you swim after that is irrelevant.

I mean who does that? Tony Soprano?
posted by rokusan at 12:45 PM on December 16, 2008


I love how DHS is worried about da terrists getting this technology, but nobody can figure out that if the damn drugs were legal there wouldn't be enough money in the smuggling to make developing the technology worthwhile.

How does legalization of drugs remove the profits from manufacturers and distributors? Their profits aren't in the smuggling, their profits are in the selling of drugs. Smuggling is a liability not an asset to them. Even if they have to reduce profits to remain competitive in a legal marketplace, if you remove the smuggling aspect they make just as much money, if not more. If they legalized cocaine do you think some sort of independent start up is going to suddenly be able to break into the market against massive, well-funded, well-organized, well-armed, multi-national shipping cartels that already exist?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2008


The trend has U.S. security officials concerned because of the craft's potential for ferrying weapons and terrorists.

"If they can't make money transferring drugs, they could always turn to something else to transfer, other illicit cargoes," Nimmich said.


So, in other words, never.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 1:16 PM on December 16, 2008


“How does legalization of drugs remove the profits from manufacturers and distributors?”

Well, in theory, the value is in the scarcity caused by the illegality of it.
So if it became ubiquitous, and if you could, say, grow your own or get it trucked out to you with no problem the way we buy apples, it would lose its profit margin.

I mean, that raises a whole slew of other questions, but that’s the big idea from the economic supply side.
What you’d really be fighting there is the clandestine nature of the organization. Which, yeah, you can pretty easily beat a cartel on that score since they’re organized for clandestine operations.
...this is not to say I’m endorsing the idea per se. I mean, I think your point is that they could make the switch from clandestine operation to legal business and have an edge on the market because they’ve already got all the plants in the ground and such.
But legalization presupposes you’re not fighting the drug per se, but the ancillary aspects of the clandestine operation - such as insurgent activity and so forth.

I myself think legalization can work - if it’s part of a very broad sea change in policy.
Because, yeah, what is it you’re fighting? The drugs themselves? The state of mind caused by the drug? Why, really, are the drugs bad?

Typically it’s because there are all these other social pressures (internal and external) that come with it - corruption, violence, etc. etc. and it’s dealing with those costs that are real problems.
And those costs are typically attached to the clandestine nature of the business, not the business itself.
Legalize it and they become just another foreign lobby like the sugar industry. *cough*
posted by Smedleyman at 2:10 PM on December 16, 2008


Legalization will indeed lower profit margins. Having said that, our product is shipped to the U.S. where it can fetch double the price. And this IS an industry our government is crap at.
posted by gman at 2:33 PM on December 16, 2008


Pollomacho, to put it into perspective, cocaine is easier and cheaper to produce than refined cane sugar.

If cocaine were legal, a kilo would sell for a few dollars. How do they make the same profits as when they can sell it for hundreds of thousands?

Right now, a gram of cocaine in Colombia can be had for less than $2 dollars. It goes for $50 to $100 or more in Europe, after it has been cut. Do you really think the money is NOT in the smuggling?

In the case of marijuana, anyone can home grow it, and if you industrialize it, it is cheaper to produce and transfer than tomatoes, and you can get hemp and hempseed as byproducts. The profit is also in the trafficking.
posted by dirty lies at 2:41 PM on December 16, 2008


Legalization certainly helped change the alcohol business. Maybe the mob still has ties to the big corporate distillerys, maybe not. But no one is getting shot up by botched police raids on ertwhile bathtub gin houses, no one's going blind because the alcohol was cut with methylated spirits, there's no big pay-off system to the cops to get them to look the other way, etceteras.

Legalization is regulation. Regulation is safety and at great deal more control than can otherwise be had. Regulation cuts a whole lot of the disease and destruction out of the business. Legalization is the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:53 PM on December 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


« Older The Triumph of Derrièrism   |   They already used the obvious jokey reference Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post