Pet Peeves

   As I was crossing the street on my way home this morning, I saw a dog take a piss on one of the scupltures that has been placed in front of the new home of the Denver Art Museum. To be honest, I thought this more amusing than horrifying.

  For those of you who live in Denver, and have seen the new 'sculptures' around the Denver Art Museum and the downtown branch of the public library, you will understand why I thought this 'doggie critique' funny. These sculptures suck, to put it mildly. For those of you who haven't been to the Denver Art Museum, let me paint you a picture:

  Imagine, if you will, a giant blue broom, soaring twenty some feet into the air, bristles bent to one side, sweeping up two giant balls (artist's rendering of gigantic dust bunnies, I kid you not). Next to this broom, place a giant dust pan, painted the same retina searing blue color. Have that pathetic and laughable picture in mind? Good. You have just pictured the largest of the new sculptures that has been placed in and around the Denver Art Museum. The greens housing this 'art' extend about forty feet in all directions from the museum. There are gravel paths to walk, a playground area, and, of course, the sculptures.

  Back to the doggie critic. The woman walking her dog through the art museum green was about 40, talking on the phone, and dragging her poor dog like they were running a race. The dog also was wearing a muzzle, which I am not very fond of, to say the least. Seems to me, if your dog is on a leash, a muzzle is unneccessary. With a leash, you can not only control your dog's behavior, but also control who comes into contact with it. 

   Back to the story: so the dog lifts his leg on the giant broom, and I have to stifle a laugh. Now that I have told you about this so-called 'art', I'm sure you can imagine why. But next, the dog shits right on the green, not ten feet away from the entrance to the museum. And the woman, who's still talking on the phone, and has stopped to let her dog do his business, then just walks away, leaving the poop where it lies.

  I step in.

  "Excuse me," I say to the woman, who is by this time a few feet from the poop in question, "Did you notice that your dog just took a shit on the art museum lawn?"

  She tells her friend on the phone to 'hold for a minute'.

  "Yes," she says. She has already returned to her obviously important phone conversation, when I interrupt once more.

  "You were going to clean up your dog's mess, weren't you?" I ask, incredulously.

  She finally looks me in the eye, then turns her attention to the poop. She sniffs, looks back to me, and says,

  "I don't have a bag."

  "Didn't you think of that before you left the house?" I ask, mystified.

  "No, Ross is usually a very good doggie. He doesn't usually go poopie on walks."

  I find this statement to be about as believable as her face lift. And why would 'such a good doggie' need a muzzle?  I have to bite my lip to keep from asking.

  "Still, you should clean it up. Your dog made it, after all," I tell her.

  "I told you, I don't have anything to use! Like its any of your business, anyway," she remarks rudely to me, and again turns to her phone.

  "Use the Starbucks cup in your hand," I tell her. I think this not only would work just fine (and be completely apropos), but is also very humorous of me. As you can guess, the woman doesn't find this nearly as amusing as I do.

  She whirls around, so she isn't facing me anymore. She is talking on the phone once more.

  "God, what a bitch," I hear her mutter, as she scurries away.

   I probably don't have to tell you, but people who don't pick up after their dogs is one of my biggest pet peeves.  I have never, NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME, left dog shit somewhere. I think its disgusting to go for a walk, or to the park, or (now) go to the art museum and have to watch your every step so that you don't step in poo. My dog even stepped in poo once, and I had to take her home and clean it out from between her toes.

  I thought that part of the responsibility of caring for any animanl, especially a dog, was cleaning up after it. So why am I constantly seeing these middle aged assfucks around town let their dogs shit all over and never clean it up?! Come on people, take a little responsibility.

Contrary to popular belief, NO ONE likes picking up dog shit. But its one of those things you do because you love your dog, and you respect the fact that other people should NOT have to clean up your messes.

10:28 AM - 2 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Free The West Memphis Three! Part I (read this post first)
Current mood: I’m in a fightion’ mood...

  Although its hard to believe after 13 years, its looking more and more likely that the WM3 are soon going to be headed home! From the tireless efforts of family and friends, the dedication of attorneys, the convictions held by many celebrities, and the donations from people like you and I, the WM3 have kept their hope in a fair future alive. And its seeming more and more likely that the three boys (now grown men) might soon enjoy another day in court.

  To recap the events of the previous years (and the new evidence and testimonies found):

  In October of 2003, Vicki Hutcheson, who played a large part in the arrests of  Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley, gave an exclusive interview to the Arkansas Times where she stated every word of her testimony against the three was a fabrication. Hutcheson also stated that the police had coerced her into doing so, telling her that if she didn't cooperate she would lose custody of her child.

  Hutcheson also said that when she visited the police station in West Memphis, Arkansas, police had tacked pictures of the three suspects to the wall, and were using them for darts practice. (Fair and impartial, remember....). She also claims that a so-called 'intelligible' tape police made of Echols incriminating himself was perfectly clear, and that there was not a single piece of incriminating testimony on it. Police later 'lost' this tape before trial, but put officers on the stand who testified as to its contents. Hutcheson did not testify at the Echols/Baldwin trial.

  After many years of fund raising and litigation, defense attorneys for the WM3 were finally permitted to do DNA testing, comparing the boys' DNA to that of samples taken at the crime scene in 1993. This year, the testing was completed, and the labs concluded that NO DNA at the crime scene matched Echols, Baldwin, Misskelley or John Mark Byers (adoptive father to one of the murder victims, he has long been held by many to be the 'real' murderer).

  In July '07, defense attorneys stated they were doing more in-depth testing to "lead us to the REAL perptrator(s) of this crime". At this time, the state, while acknowledging the validity of the testing, said that it still "stands by its judgements (of conviction)".

   Then, on October 29 of this year, Damien's defense attorneys filed papers in a federal court seeking either a retrial or his release from prison. The filing shows DNA evidence that links Terry Hobbs to the crime scene, and new statements from Hobbs' now ex-wife (Pam Hobbs).

The Hobbs hair found at the crime scene was found under the bindings of victim Michael Moore. Terry Hobbs' ex-wife, Pam Hobbs (mother of Stevie Branch) has now come out in favor of a re-trial. When the WM3 were first on trial, she was one of their most vocal opponents. Pam has also said she believes her husband may have commited the crime. Several years ago, in fact, Pam Hobbs contacted police stating that she thought her ex-husband might have committed the murders (and perhaps had evidence to show them, as well), but for some reason, this lead wasn't properly followed up (fair and impartial...). The Hobbs' have always had an extremely rocky marriage. Many claim Pam Hobbs was abused by her ex-husband for years. The marriage ended late in 1994, shorty after Terry Hobbs shot Pam's brother (who was trying to stop the beating Terry was giving to Pam). 

  Also presented for the courts is new expert testimony that the 'knife' marks on the victims were in fact from post-mortem predation. These knife marks (used as evidence of satanic ritual) were one of the key pieces of evidence presented against the boys at trial. A knife had been found in a pond behind Jason Baldwin's house. In closing arguments, the prosecution showed on an orange how the knife found could have been used to emasculate one of the murdered boys. Many consider this to be one of the major factors in the boys' conviction.

  Of all the people associated with this West Memphis, Arkansas case, John Mark Byers had been the most outspoken about the case. He stated many times unequivocably that he 'knew' the boys (Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley) were guilty. Byers himself had also been speculated about (research the bloody knife he gave to the director of 'Paradise Lost', later turned into police).

   Just earlier this year, though, after the DNA evidence became public, Byers announced to the press that he had changed his opinion, and that he now believes that the WM3 are innocent, and should be set free.

  "I believe I would be the last person on the face of the earth that people would expect or dream to see say free the West Memphis Three," Byers said. "From looking at the evidence and the facts that were presented to me, I have no doubt the West Memphis 3 are innocent." Byers has been featured on many national newscasts (perhaps most notably Good Morning America) wearing a "Free The West Memphis Three" T-shirt bought from their fund-raising web site. Byers is writing a book about his son and the slayings, as well as a film, possibly starring Brad Pitt as Byers.

Continue on to Part II of this blog, if you'd like to know more about the 1993 slayings, and the facts of this case.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, remember now more than ever, to donate any money you can spare to the WM3. While this case certainly has come a long way, these boys still have a long road to travel before they can even start thinking about returning home. They need our help. I have donated many times over the last years, as much as I could, when I could, and I will keep doing so until the end.

  The thought that continually rings through my head when I think of this case is 'It could have been me'. Or you. Or any of us. Especially those of us who grew up poor, or on the outskirts, or who were the 'town freak'. It could've been any (or all) of us. We, the people, are what keeps our judicial system in check. It is up to us to fight for what's right, and to fight even harder for those who cannot fight for themselves. Please remember this when you visit:

 www.WM3.org

Currently listening : Rise Above: 24 Black Flag Songs to Benefit the West Memphis Three By Various Artists Release date: 08 October, 2002

11:49 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The West Memphis Three, part II (read Part I first)

Facts about the West Memphis Three and the West Memphis, Arkansas murder that sent them to prison for life (in Echol's case, death):

  The Case began over ten years ago in rural Arkansas, when three 8 year old boys were found brutally murdered in a woodsy, secluded area of West Memphis called Robin Hood  Hills.

  The three boys (Stevie Branch, Christopher Meyers, and Michael Moore), were reported missing on the night of May 5, 1993. The boys were last seen by a neighbor entering the Robin Hood Hills area. The night the boys were reported missing, a cursory search was conducted over much of West Memphis, including an exam of the area of Robin Hood Hills in which the boys were found the next day. Searchers turned up nothing.

   A police search for the children began the morning of May 6, and also focused on Robin Hood Hills, which was a frequent play area for many neighboring children. Despite a very thorough search involving a shoulder-to-shoulder chain of officers, the boys weren't found until about 1:45 that same afternoon. The boys were found in an area on Robin Hood Hills that had previously been searched. A juvenile parole officer helping police search the area, Steve Jones, reported seeing a boy's shoe floating in the creek that ran through the woods. Police then searched the creek bed, and found the boys' bodies.

  All of the boys had been severely beaten about the face and head, were stripped naked, and their own shoelaces had been used to tie their wrists and ankles together. Their clothing was later found entangled with debris in the creek as well. One of the boys, Chris Byers, had what appeared to the police to be knife wounds around his scrotal area, and he had been emasculated. (A forensic expert in 2007 later found that Byers' injuries weren't the result of knife wounds, but rather post mortem predation by animals).

  The orignial autopsies left many questions unanswered, but stated that Byers died as the result of blood loss, and Moore and Meyers had drowned. A later review by a forensic expert hired by the defense team found that the boy's time of death to be between 1am and 5am the morning of May 6, 1993.

  The police initally thought the boys were raped (due to anal dilation), but subsequent examination proved that not to be the case. There was no tearing or bruising of the anus, as there would be had any sexual assualt occured immediately before death (this does not rule out the possibility that one or more of the boys was being molested while still alive, however).

  Police believed the boys were killed at the scene; critics later would tear this theory apart, stating that if in fact the boys had died there, they all would have had mosquito bites (and a more pronounced insect infestation). Also, experts discarded this theory because none of Byers' blood was found at the scene. All forensic experts agree that there would have been copious amounts of his blood at the scene (remember, Byer's cause of death was due to blood loss).

  On the evening of May 5, 1993 (at 8:42 pm), employees at Mr. Bojangles, a West Memphis resturant located about a mile from the crime scene, reported seeing an African American man bleeding profusely, dazed, and covered in mud, enter the resturant. The man went directly into the women's restroom. The police were called, but the man left before they arrived. When police responded (an officer went to the drive thru window in her car), the man had been gone for 45 minutes. The police did not enter the resturant, nor collect any blood or mud evidence that was left in one of the stalls in the women's restroom occupied by the unidentified man.

  The following day, after the boy's bodies were found, the manager of Bojangles called police twice, again to report the suspicious man, thinking he was possibly tied to the Robin Hood Hills murders. After the second call, police finally came and gathered evidence from the restroom. Not only did officers wear the same clothing (and shoes) that they had worn at the crime scene, but the blood and mud evidence was later 'lost' before it ever made it to a lab. A hair identified as 'negroid' was later found on one of the sheets that had been used to cover one of the victims.

  There has also been much controversy on how police handled the Robin Hood Hills crime scene. Attorneys for the defense cite multiple police procedural errors, including a 'trampled' scene (even the creek bed evidence was ruined), a 'substandard' autopsy, and a fumbling coroner.

  The coroner took hours and hours to reach the scene (where searchers and police had themselves moved the bodies from the creek bed to further up the shore), in which time the boys' bodies had had time to further decay on the bank. The coroner was so late that he was not able to determine a time of death by rigor mortis. Police themselves did not even call the coroner until two hours AFTER finding the bodies.

  The creek wasn't drained in a timely manner, evidence was lost, no one tested the small amount of blood left at the scene, and police failed to keep the investigation proceedings confidential. Throughout the investigation, what paltry evidence the police did have was perpetually leaked to the media, and, more importantly, so was the police's unfounded suspicions and so-called 'leads'.

  It has been documented that shortly after police discovered the bodies, when speculating about the assailant, the juvenile parole officer (Jones, who found the shoe), stated "Echols certainly has the capacity" and then, "Well, it looks like Echols finally killed someone." This is believed by many to be the statements that intially planted the kernel of suspicion about Echols into police minds. Before these comments, police did not consider Echols involved in the murders.

  Police interviewed Damien Echols two days after the bodies were found. During a polygraph test, Echols denied any involvement, but the examiner indicated that was a deception. (This has been documented as a police procedural for getting suspects to confess--by telling them the lie detector caught them in a lie, whether or not that is so). No tapes were made of the session, the tape from the polygraph machine was not kept, and in fact, the only evidence of this so-called deception is the word of one policeman present at the questioning.

  A month had passed since the murders, and police still did not have any solid leads. Police had already focused on Damien Echols as the prime suspect, interviewing him more times than any other person (three times in a week, for example), though there was no evidence at all found to link him to these slayings.

  On June 3, police first interrogated Jesse Misskelley. Misskelley, who has an IQ marking him as 'borderline or retarded', was a juvenile, but questioned alone, without either parental or counsel involvement. Misskelley's father had given him permission to go with police, but did not tacitly give permission for his minor son to be questioned or interrogated. There has been speculation regarding the senior Misskelleys IQ as well.

  Though Misskelley was interrogated and harrassed for over twelve hours, a tape was made of only 46 minutes of the interview. The tape contains two seperate conversations, taped approximately an hour and a half apart.

  The first tape, where Misskelley first 'confesses' comes across as what it is: false. In the first tape police made with Misskelley, he states that he, Damien Echols, and Jason Baldwin took the boys to Robin Hood Hills (for a satanic ritual involving sex and mutilation) at 9am. This cannot possibly be so, as all three victims were in school until after 3pm (in fact, their whereabouts were known until 6pm that evening). Also, the whereabouts of all three suspects are also known for the entire day preceeding the murders. This is only one of  dozens of errors in Misskelley's confession.

  The tape is turned off, and when it is turned back on during a latter part of the interview, already Misskelley's story has changed. It is obvious that the missing time between tapes was used so that the police could 'coach' Jesse. This new taped confession adds details different from the first confession, and more in line with what was actually found and witnessed the day and night of the crime. Still, even during this tape, police can be heard giving Misskelley 'suggestions' or 'coaching' when he starts to embellish his story, or when his 'confession' strays too far from the truth.

  Even this second confession, many police experts have testified, in the due course of any normal investigation, would have been thrown out immediately. There are still many, many discrepencies between Misskelleys version of events and the actual crime.

  Directly after his confession, Misskelley recanted it, stating that the police had scared and coerced him. Misskelley said  that police had told him he would never see his father again, and also showed him the graphic pictures taken at the crime scene of the mutilated boys' bodies. One expert has cited Misskelley's interrogation as 'a classic example of police ccoersion' and his statement as 'the stupidest fucking confession I've ever seen'.  

  With this confession, and one or two other pieces of 'evidence' (mostly hearsay) under their belts, police arrested Jesse Misskelley, Jason Baldwin, and Damien Echols for the murders of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, and Stevie Branch . Damien and Jason were the two boys Misskelley had implicated (along with himself) in his confession.

  At the time of their arrests, Misskelley was 17, Baldwin was 16, and Echols was 18.

There have been many great books and documentaries made about the West Memphis Three case. Consider reading, listening, or watching:

Devil's Knot--book by Mara Leveritt

Rise Above--a cd tribute to the west memphis three

Paradise Lost--documentary, 1996

Revelations: Paradise Lost Revisited--documentary, 2000

Visit www.wm3.org for more information about the injustices carried out during Misskelley's, Echols', and Baldwin's trials, their sentences,

and what you can do to help.

Currently listening : Rise Above: 24 Black Flag Songs to Benefit the West Memphis Three By Various Artists Release date: 08 October, 2002

9:51 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Girl, you'll be a woman soon

A few days ago, I decided to restrict people under the age of eighteen from being able to see my profile. As I said yesterday to Audrey2, at least I'm acknowledging I'm a delinquent, and therefore a corrupting influence. The funny thing is, ever since I restricted my page, I am getting more requests than ever before from youngsters (mostly females) who want to be my friends. Now, it's fairly easy to bypass myspace security when it comes to your age; all you have to do is list your age as something other than what it actually is (when adding your info to your profile). Thanks to this little fact, I am now the recipient of an enitre slew of messages from 100 year old (according to their profiles) 8th graders! I have nothing against young'uns in theory, but in practice, well, that can be another story.... I DO NOT want to be contacted by an irate mother accusing me of doing something indecent with the one and only product of her loins; I don't want to be drawn into any middle school dramas or romance; I don't want to have to censor myself (or my friends) on my own damn page for fear of sensitive ears; and lastly, what exactly do I have in common with 13-year olds in the first place?  I'm all for exposing young people to different ways of thinking, different cultures, bands, etc, but I don't think I want to do that at the one place where I'm free to rant and bitch and interact with people who share my own interests.

So here's the problem: I feel absurdly guilty denying these friendship requests, and yet I don't want to say 'yes' either. So these girls' requests have been languishing in my inbox for a while now, and will most likely stay there indefinitely. I don't want to be respoonsible for crushing that eggshell fragile ego, or for driving someone over the edge (my, my, my, what an inflated sense of self-importance I'm developing...).

So please, dear young things, if you're reading this, let me state for the record: I'm sure you're all cool, and smart, wickedly talented and funny, but don't take offense if you do not hear back from me regarding your friendship request. FInd some other cool, smart, wickedly talented and funny people your own age with which to strike up a friendship, work on your social nicieties, and try not to exclude anyone your own age from your party. You never know who's going to turn out to be the totally interesting friend-in-disguise, or who will have your back on a rainy day.

And in ten or fifteen years, when you're all a little older and wiser (myself included), write me, and we can reminisce about how funny it was that I never wrote you back.

I love you all, my darlings, my little children. But mommy's busy right now. Come back when you're older.

12:39 AM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Chippy is the cutest dog ever

It was Chippy's  (insert super cute imaginary weenie dog picture here) fifth birthday today! We went to PetSmart and bought special dog food, a yummy dog bone treat, and a new toy!

The treat actually took Chippy a few hours to eat. She was hilarious with it! She kept thinking either Charlie or I were going to try to steal it from her, so she was trying to 'bury' the bone in the house.

First, she was hiding it under the blanket in her dog bed, but apparently thought that was too obvious, and moved it. I looked over at Chippy this afternoon, from where I was sitting on the couch, to see that Chippy had spilled all the papers and files near the desk all over the floor. She had hidden her bone in the corner of the living room, and was pulling the papers over the bone to hide it. I told you my dog was the cutest! That has got to be one of the craftiest stunts I've ever seen Chippy pull.

Charlie and I went out for a few hours, and when we came home, she had gotten her bone out of hiding, and was eating it again. She was so paranoid that either Charlie or I was going to try to steal it that whenever one of us got close, she picked up the bone and ran away.

After a few hours, Chippy had finally finished eating her bone (it was one of those bones that lasts FOREVER). Directly after, the first thing she did was to go find her new toy and run around the house squeaking it (yes, Charlie and I made the mistake of getting a dog toy with a squeaker).

Speaking of which, she was so excited about her new toy today, that directly after we had gone through the check-out counter and bought it, Chippy HAD to have it.  I took off the tags, gave it to her, and she carried it all by herself to the car. When we got home, and opened the car door, Chippy again picked up her toy and carried it to the house. Since she was running, she got to the front door before we did, and so she set her new toy down at the door and waited for us. As soon as Charlie unlocked and opened the front door, Chippy picked up her toy again, brought it into the house, and went to town.

I think it was one of the cutest things Ive ever seen, seeing a ten pound red weenie dog prancing around with a little yellow squeeky monkey toy in her mouth.

Chippy always makes me smile.

Currently listening : I Was a Teenage 7 Shot Screamer By 7 Shot Screamers Release date: 12 June, 2001

7:55 PM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

This man can give you lessons in creepy...

  Very odd experience just now--I was roaming around my favorite little hip district (downtown on Broadway-tattoo parlors, retro/vintage clothing shops, shoe stores, art galleries, many cool people...) and I decided to stop for a few moments. I sat on a bench, drank my iced coffee, and was enjoying the sun. Then this man, in a beat up maroon Datsun (or something similiar) pulled up in front of me, which was in a 'No Parking' zone. I studiously avoided looking at him, as he was staring at me. This was all the more wierd, as he obviously wasn't in the process of parking, or making a U-turn. He left his car on, idling, and just sat there staring at me, totally creeping me out. I resolved to just ignore him, and not to let him ruin the good time I'd been having. I felt that if I just decided to get up and leave, it would mean that he had won (I don't know if that will make sense to anyone but me, though). He sat there for aboout ten minutes, during which he gripped the wheel (obviously very tightly--his knuckles were white) and stared at me. He was very odd, and  not someone I'd think would be into my 'type'. He was unshaven, had long, greasy hair tied back into a ponytail, and was wearing those bluish super-reflective mirrored sunglasses that were all the rage in '84.

Then, just as suddenly as he'd pulled up, he drove off into traffic. He squealed his tires, he pulled out so fast, and had to slam on his brakes when he almost hit somebody. Then he swerved off into the sunset, as it were.

Not long afterwards, I had a TERRIBLE thought: the only reason I could think of that this man was sitting in his car staring at me was that he wanted me to approach him (which I obviously wouldn't--didn't do). And the only reason a lone lady sitting on a bench would approach a car was (at least to my mind) prostitution!! The area I was in IS NOT that kind of an area, but still.....

I wasn't (and still am not) sure what to make of all this. Did he think I was a hooker!? What the hell did he want? Was I right to be totally creeped out?

I'd like to say this was an unusual experience (which it was), but I do seem to have all sorts of odd things happen to me when I am out and about. I think I must be some kind of wierdo magnet.

One good thing, I will say, though, is that with all these odd experiences (yes, there's even been some wierder than this by FAR) when I get old I will never run out of quasi-interesting (and probably pathetic) stories to regale people with. Yes, I'm going to be THAT old lady. He he, the thought of this brings a smile to my face.

Currently listening : Big Beat from Badsville By The Cramps Release date: 23 September, 1997

1:59 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Working harder for the man....
Current mood: Is that all there is?

   "A man can stand anything but a succession of ordinary days"-Goethe

    I feel like I know exactly what Goethe meant when he said this--lately I have felt that I am being pulled under by the weight of my 'normal' obligations. Bills to pay, rooms to clean, work to make me miserable, gee, I feel like I've got it all. Everyone wants to be more than just a succession of endless needs, don't they? When did life stop being about passion, love and excitement, and start being about what you do for a living, how much you earn, where you live, who you wear? Am I being naive to think that there should be more to life than this? The sad part is that up until recently, I always felt confident in my ability to divorce the mundane minutia of my life from the real, neccessary (at least neccessary to my mental health), passionate interests in my life. Lately, I've been feeling burdened by my obligations to the 'real' world, drowning in my hatred of my job, my chores, my society (at least as a whole).
    I need to find a way to take back what is important, to reclaim my life from the oceans of inane and useless people and things floating out past my bedroom window. I think that if I don't I'm going to become one of those people who never leaves their house, stuck in their own little world, so much the better for them having created it. And sometimes, I don't see why this is a bad idea.
    I understand now why Matthew moved to the desert--a need to purify oneself, shed the unimportant, rise out of your old life's ashes and become someone new...also to isolate yourself, reject the supposed 'importance' of mainstream society....have a landscape that reflects the desolation of your soul...






 

Currently listening : The Peel Sessions 1991-2004 By PJ Harvey Release date: 07 November, 2006

3:39 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment