Citizen of the world

My favorite extension is Google Calendar

2010-06-17T10:48:00.001-04:00

It shows how much time to my next appointment.

in reference to: Switching to Chrome? Download these Extensions | Nettuts+ (view on Google Sidewiki)

Example web server does not compile

2010-05-05T16:31:00.001-04:00

The UrlHtmlFormatter func does not compile, it cannot cast the URLEscape'd string to []byte.

Go has two different types of casts typeA(typeB) which casts typeB as typeA.

And interfaceA.(interfaceB) which promotes interfaceA as interfaceB.

It would be nice if the sample code would have compiled.

in reference to:

"os"
- Effective Go (view on Google Sidewiki)

IAR Facility Reservation Policy

2009-04-28T16:17:00.001-04:00

IAR FACILITIES RESERVATIONS

Rules and Regulations

Usage Guidelines

E.C. Approved Version

Dated: April 26, 2009

Owners:

IAR Director

Chairperson Management Committee

Chairperson Safety and Security Committee

Chairperson Sports Committee

Rules and Regulations

Individuals and agencies may not rent, sublet, transfer, or assign their interest in the use of IAR facilities, nor may they act as an umbrella agency in the use of IAR facilities for other individuals, groups, or agencies.
Approved non-IAR groups may use IAR property for other than IAR purposes as long as such use is consistent with the proper preservation and care of the property.
All reservation requests must be sponsored by one of the IAR Committees. Prior approval of committee chair is required.
All reservations are offered on first-come and first-serve basis.
IAR reserves the right for cancellation prior to, or during the event.
Special events (i.e. funeral services, weddings, prayers, guest lecturers etc.) will take precedence over re-occurring or specific group events.
The sponsoring individual, family or group is responsible for seeing that cars and other vehicles use only prescribed parking areas. The sponsoring individual, family or group is responsible for all damage to buildings, furniture or equipment. The sponsoring individual, family or group will be held liable and billed for any repairs, replacement of damaged property, or both.
Hallways are only to be used for entering and leaving.
Firearms and objects resembling firearms are prohibited on IAR property as mandated by state and federal law.
Open fires, flames, cooking are not permitted on IAR premises. Smoking, or the use of any tobacco product, is prohibited on all IAR properties at all times.
Islamic behavior regarding language, dress, gender intermixing, and general Islamic etiquette are strictly enforced.
Any misrepresentation by an organization or individual, or abuse of any IAR system employee or property, may result in immediate termination of the contract, including being asked to immediately vacate the premises and denial or revocation of that Applicant's request for future use.
Any Applicant who abuses the privilege shall have the privilege revoked.
Regular classes will generally be scheduled in the red brick school building. Conferences will be scheduled in the Conference Room and meetings of up to ten people will be scheduled in the Meeting Room.
Applicant may not advertise events on IAR property until obtaining their approved facility reservation, which constitutes a binding contract between the Applicant and the IAR system.
All publicity must include the name of the individual or group sponsoring the event. The IAR name shall not be listed as a sponsoring agency on any materials.
Signage may be placed on IAR property only during the organization's approved time of use. Signage displayed must be temporary in nature and must be in compliance with all local sign and display regulations.

Facility Application Process & Usage Guidelines

Visit www.islam1.org and verify that the required facility is available. Complete online reservation form.
A non-refundable $100 processing fee is required with each MPH Facility Use Reservation Request for catering.
A refundable $100 security deposit fee is required with each MPH Facility Use Reservation Request for catering purposes. The fee is refunded within two weeks after the facility usage and compliance with IAR rules.
The reservation fee and the security fee should be paid in advance to the IAR Office after you have received an email confirmation.
It is a requesting committee’s/individual’s responsibility to check the online calendar and verify that the requested reservation has been made.
The Reservation System will generate emails for confirmed reservations within one week of the request. If a requested space is not available or not appropriate for the requested use, IAR will try to make alternative space available.
Prior to facility usage, applicant shall check-in at the IAR Security Desk.
The IAR security person will provide the Applicant access to the furniture room for the use of MPH catering reservations. Applicant is responsible for the setup and breakdown. All furniture must be placed in furniture storage room at the end of the program.
If there is a problem with the facility, personnel, or equipment during your use, please notify IAR security on the day of the event.
Food and drinks can only be served in the MPH and in the Conference room (#240). Under no circumstances will food or drinks be allowed in any other room.
Any facility that is reserved but not in use can be used by authorized committee representatives 30 minutes after the start time of reservation.
Users are responsible for removing garbage/trash, sweeping floor, and arranging all furniture, fixture, toys etc. after each use. Garbage and trash should be disposed of properly in the dumpster behind the Al-Maidah Kitchen.
Decorative items may not be placed anywhere in the facility. Only table decorations are permissible. All reservation decorations must be removed by applicant(s) at the conclusion of the event. IAR will not be responsible for any equipment or supplies that are left on the premises.

Applicant's Liability

The Islamic Association of Raleigh (IAR) & Islamic Center of Raleigh (ICR) will not be responsible for any injury to anyone using the premises of the Islamic Center of Raleigh. Liability for injuries occurring on these premises will be the sole responsibility of individual(s) actually causing these injuries. Children MUST be supervised at all times by their parents or some other adults designated by the parents. Parents will be held responsible for any damages caused by their children.
By submitting reservation request, I certify that I have read and accept the aforementioned reservation rules and regulations, guidelines and the IAR liability statement.

For your concerns, suggestions, or complaints please send email to reserve@islam1.org or call the IAR Director at (919) 834-9572 ext. 6.

xEnd of document

Sample flowchart

2009-03-26T11:03:00.001-04:00

Using Windows Live Writer

2008-09-18T12:32:00.001-04:00

DeWitt Clinton was raving about Windows Live Writer on his blog. In fact he wants Microsoft to open source it, so that it can ported on OS X and Linux.

So I decided to try it and see if it is any good. I don’t know why anyone would want to use a desktop application for creating blogs?

I am intrigued, maybe there is something there that is lacking in a web application?

It might be useful for the www.islam1.org website which is bunch of MovableType blogs. I have frequently heard complains that the contributors do not remember the url to add the content. A desktop application might be the cure.

So far the editor for Windows Live Writer looks slick.

It's the Policy, Stupid

2006-09-04T21:53:00.000-04:00

It's the Policy, Stupid

Political Islam and US Foreign Policy

John L. Esposito is University Professor of Religion & International Affairs and Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He is the author of Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam and co-author with Dalia Mogahed of Can You Hear Me Now? Listening to the Voices of 1 Billion Muslims (forthcoming).

US foreign policy and political Islam today are deeply intertwined. Every US president since Jimmy Carter has had to deal with political Islam; none has been so challenged as George W. Bush. Policymakers, particularly since 9/11, have demonstrated an inability and/or unwillingness to distinguish between radical and moderate Islamists. They have largely treated political Islam as a global threat similar to the way that Communism was perceived. However, even in the case of Communism, foreign policymakers eventually moved from an ill-informed, broad-brush, and paranoid approach personified by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s to more nuanced, pragmatic, and reasonable policies that led to the establishment of relations with China in the 1970s, even as tensions remained between the United States and the Soviet Union.

As Islamist parties continue to rise in prominence across the globe, it is necessary that policymakers learn to make distinctions and adopt differentiated policy approaches. This requires a deeper understanding of what motivates and informs Islamist parties and the support they receive, including the ways in which some US policies feed the more radical and extreme Islamist movements while weakening the appeal of the moderate organizations to Muslim populations. It also requires the political will to adopt approaches of engagement and dialogue. This is especially important where the roots of political Islam go deeper than simple anti-Americanism and where political Islam is manifested in non-violent and democratic ways. The stunning electoral victories of HAMAS in Palestine and the Shi’a in Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood’s emergence as the leading parliamentary opposition in Egypt, and Israel’s war against HAMAS and Hizbollah go to the heart of issues of democracy, terrorism, and peace in the Middle East.

Global terrorism has also become the excuse for many Muslim autocratic rulers and Western policymakers to backslide or retreat from democratization. They warn that the promotion of a democratic process runs the risk of furthering Islamist inroads into centers of power and is counterproductive to Western interests, encouraging a more virulent anti-Westernism and increased instability. Thus, for example, despite HAMAS’ victory in free and democratic elections, the United States and Europe failed to give the party full recognition and support.

In relations between the West and the Muslim world, phrases like a clash of civilizations or a clash of cultures recur as does the charge that Islam is incompatible with democracy or that it is a particularly militant religion. But is the primary issue religion and culture or is it politics? Is the primary cause of radicalism and anti-Westernism, especially anti-Americanism, extremist theology or simply the policies of many Muslim and Western governments?

A new Gallup World Study overwhelmingly suggests the latter. The poll, whose results are released for the first time in this article, now enables us to get beyond conflicting analyses of experts and selective voices from the “Arab street.” It lets us listen to one billion Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. And they tell us that US policies, not values, are behind the ire of the Arab/Muslim world.

Political Islam: Ballots or Bullets?

History demonstrates that political Islam is both extremist and mainstream. On the one hand, Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, the Taliban’s Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda as well as terrorists from Morocco to Indonesia have espoused a revolutionary Islam that relies on violence and terror. On the other, many Islamist social and political movements across the Muslim world have worked within the political system.

Since the late 20th century Islamically-oriented candidates and political parties in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia have opted for ballots, not bullets. They have successfully contested and won municipal and parliamentary seats, held cabinet positions, and served in senior positions such as prime minister of Turkey and Iraq and president of Indonesia.

Elections since late 2001 in Pakistan, Turkey, Bahrain, and Morocco as well as in Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have reinforced the continued saliency of Islam in Muslim politics in the 21st century. The more contentious aspect of political Islam has been the extent to which militant groups like Hizbollah and HAMAS have turned to the ballot box. Hizbollah transformed itself into a Lebanese political party that has proven effective in parliamentary elections. At the same time, it remained a militia, fighting and eventually forcing Israeli withdrawal in 2000 from its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon. HAMAS defeated the PLO in democratic elections.

In responding to mainstream and extremist political Islam, US foreign policymakers require a better understanding of how global Muslim majorities see the world and, in particular, how they regard the United States. The new Gallup World Poll now enables us to move towards that understanding, finally answering the oft-asked questions: What do Muslims polled across the world have to say? How many Muslims hold extremist views? What are their priorities? What do they admire and what do they resent about the United States and the West?

According to the Gallup Poll, 7 percent think the 9/11 attacks were “completely” justified and are very critical of the United States. Among those who believe that 9/11 was not justified, whom we’ll call the moderates, 40 percent are pro-US and 60 percent view the United States unfavorably.

It is important to look more closely at the 7 percent of whom we can call “anti-US extremists,” not because all or even a significant number of them commit acts of violence, but because those with extremist views are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups. This group of potential extremists is also more likely to view other civilian attacks as justifiable. In contrast to 95 percent of moderates who said that “Other attacks in which civilians are the target were ‘mostly’ or ‘completely’ unjustified,” only 70 percent of the potential radicals agreed with this statement.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Is there a blind hatred of the United States? The question “Why do they hate us?” raised in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 looms large following continued terrorist attacks and the dramatic growth of anti-Americanism. A common answer provided by some politicians and experts has been, “They hate our way of life, our freedom, democracy, and success.” Considering the broad based anti-Americanism, not only among extremists but also among a significant mainstream majority in the Muslim world (and indeed in many other parts of the world), this answer is not satisfactory. Although the Muslim world expresses many common grievances, do extremists and moderates differ in attitudes about the West?

Focusing on the attitudes of those with radical views and comparing them with the moderate majority results in surprising findings. When asked what they admired most about the West, both extremists and moderates had the identical top three spontaneous responses: (1) technology; (2) the West’s value system, hard work, self-responsibility, rule of law, and cooperation; and (3) its fair political systems, democracy, respect for human rights, freedom of speech, and gender equality. A significantly higher percent of potential extremists than moderates (50 percent versus 35 percent) believe that “moving towards greater governmental democracy” will foster progress in the Arab/Muslim world. Potential extremists believe even more strongly than moderates (58 percent versus 45 percent) that Arab/Muslim nations are eager to have better relations with the West. Finally, no significant difference exists between the percentage of potential extremists and moderates who said “better relations with the West concerns me a lot.”

While many believe anti-Americanism is tied to a basic hatred of the West and deep West-East religious and cultural differences, the data above contradicts these views. In addition, Muslim assessments of individual Western countries demonstrate that Muslim views do not paint all Western countries with the same brush. Unfavorable opinions of the United States or the United Kingdom do not preclude favorable attitudes towards other Western countries like France or Germany. Data shows that while moderates have very unfavorable opinions of the United States (42 percent) and Great Britain (34 percent), unfavorable opinions of France (15 percent) and Germany (13 percent) were far less and in fact comparable to the percent of Muslims who viewed Pakistan or Turkey unfavorably (both at 12 percent).

Democratic Exceptionalism?

What creates unfavorable attitudes towards the United States? Belief that the United States is serious about democracy in Muslim countries has long been undermined by what is perceived as the United States’ “double standard” in promoting democracy. Key factors of this perception include a long track record of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Arab and Muslim world while not promoting democracy there as it did elsewhere after the fall of the Soviet Union. Then, when weapons of mass destruction were not to be found in Iraq, the Bush administration boldly declared that the US-led invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein were intended to bring democracy to Iraq as part of a broader policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. In a major policy address, Ambassador Richard Haass, a senior State Department official in the George W. Bush administration, acknowledged that both Democratic and Republican administrations had practiced what he termed “Democratic Exceptionalism” in the Muslim world: subordinating democracy to other national interests such as accessing oil, containing the Soviet Union, and grappling with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While the spread of democracy has been the stated goal of the United States, majorities in every nation surveyed by Gallup do not believe that the United States was serious about the establishment of democratic systems in the region. For example, only 24 percent in Egypt and Jordan and only 16 percent in Turkey agreed that the United States was serious about establishing democratic systems. The largest groups in agreement are in Lebanon and Indonesia at 38 percent; but even there, 58 percent of Lebanese and 52 percent of Indonesians disagreed with the statement.

How can this be? Responses to another question shed some light. When respondents were asked if they believe the United States will allow people in the region to fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct US influence, only 22 percent of Jordanians agreed, and as low as 16 percent of Pakistanis. Yet, while saying that the United States is not serious about self-determination and democracy in the Muslim world, many respondents say the thing they admire most about the West is political liberty and freedom of speech. Large percentages also associate a fair judicial system and

“citizens enjoying many liberties” with Western societies while critiquing their own societies. Lack of political freedom was what they admired least about the Islamic/Arab world.

The United States After Gaza and Lebanon

Muslim perceptions of the US role and response to the Israeli wars in Gaza and Lebanon must also be seen within the broad context of the Arab and Muslim world. From North Africa to Southeast Asia, the Gallup World Poll indicates an overwhelming majority of people (91-95 percent) do not believe that the United States is trustworthy, friendly, or treats other countries respectfully, nor that it cares about human rights in other countries (80 percent). Outside of Iraq, over 90 percent of Muslims agreed that the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good. The Bush administration recognized that the war on global terrorism has come to be equated in the minds of many Muslims (and others) with a war against Islam and the Muslim world and reemphasized the importance of public diplomacy. The administration appointed a senior Bush confidante, Karen Hughes, as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, and spoke of a war of ideas. However, public diplomacy is more than public relations. It is about acting consistently with the words one speaks – and so a return to foreign policy.

The administration’s responses in Gaza and in Lebanon undercut both the president’s credibility and the war on terrorism. The United States turned a blind eye to Israel’s launching of two wars in which civilians were the primary casualties. The United States failed to support UN mediation in the face of clear violations of international law, refused to heed calls for a ceasefire and UN intervention, and continued to provide military assistance to Israel. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s criticism of the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon as an "excessive use of force" was countered the next day by the New York Times headline United States speeds up bomb delivery for the Israelis.

America’s unconditional support of Israel cast it in the eyes of many as a partner, not simply in military action against HAMAS or Hizbollah militants, but in a war against the democratically elected Palestinian government in Gaza and the government of Lebanon, a long-time US ally. The primary victims in Gaza and Lebanon were hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not terrorists. In Lebanon, more than 500 were killed, 2,000 wounded, and 800,000 displaced. Israeli’s military destroyed the civilian infrastructures of both Gaza and Lebanon. International organizations like the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have criticized Israel for violating international law. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch has specifically cited the use of collective punishment and war crimes. The regional blowback from the approach that the United States has taken will be enormous and enduring.

The Bush administration’s promotion of democracy and the Middle East Peace Process are in critical condition. The United States remains mired in Iraq and Afghanistan with no clear “success” stories in sight. The situation has been compounded by the US failure to respect the democratic choice of Palestinians, whatever its reservations, and then its passive and active compliance with Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. HAMAS and Hizbollah have become symbols of resistance, enjoying a level of support that would have been unimagined in the past throughout much of the Muslim world. At the same time, many US allies in the Arab/Muslim world increasingly use the threat of extreme Islamists and the war against terrorism as excuses for increased authoritarianism and repression, trading their support for United States backing down on its democratic agenda. The unintended consequences of uncritical US support for Israel’s extended war have played right into the hands of the Bin Ladens of the world.

A critical challenge for US policymakers will continue to be the need to distinguish between mainstream and extremists groups and to work with democratically-elected Islamists. US administrations have often said that they distinguish between mainstream and extremist groups. However, more often that not, they have looked the other way when autocratic rulers in Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere have intimidated and suppressed mainstream Islamist groups or attempted to reverse their successes in elections in the past several decades.

In the early 1990s, the Algerian military intervened to deny the Islamic Salvation Front its victory in parliamentary elections. Both the Algerian and Tunisian governments arrested and tried the Islamic party militarily, and were denounced by the international community. More recently, Egyptian elections were marred by attempts to silence opposition candidates, including the Muslim Brotherhood. In the post-election period, the Mubarak government, a long-time US ally, imprisoned the only opposition presidential candidate and cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian press. Despite its commitment to democratization, the Bush administration has been virtually silent.

A more recent and complex challenge is dealing with resistance movements like HAMAS and Hizbollah. Both are elected political parties with a popular base. At the same time they are resistance movements whose militias have fought Israeli occupation and whom Israel, the United States, and Europe have labeled as terrorist organizations. There are established precedents for dealing with such groups, such as the ANC in South Africa and Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA in Ireland, groups with which we've had to come to terms. The United States and others need to deal with the democratically elected officials, while also strongly condemning any acts of terrorism by their militias. Diplomacy, economic incentives, and sanctions should be emphasized, with military action taken as a last resort. However, overuse of economic sanctions by the Clinton and Bush administrations has reduced US negotiating leverage with countries like Iran and Sudan.

Equally difficult, the United States, while affirming its enduring support for Israel’s existence and security, must clearly demonstrate that this support has clear limits. The United States should condemn Israel’s disproportionate use of force, collective punishment, and other violations of international law. Finally, most fundamental and important is the recognition that widespread anti-Americanism among mainstream Muslims and Islamists results from what the United States does—its policies and actions—not its way of life, culture, or religion.

The Gallup Organization, in association with Gallup Senior Scientist John L. Esposito, is producing the “largest, most in-depth study of Muslim opinion ever done.” Its careful and rigorous methodology has taken care to ensure that the data is nationally representative, with questions and interview lengths standardized across nations and over time. The preliminary findings of the Gallup study reflect the voices and opinions of 800 million Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. Samples include at least 1,000 adults surveyed in each of the poll’s 10 targeted preliminary countries. By the end of 2006, the study will reflect the views of more than one billion Muslims in nearly 40 countries, about 90 percent of the world’s Muslim population.

Mortgage free

2006-06-20T22:46:00.000-04:00

Free! Free at last, from the tyranny of my mortgage.

My other blog

2006-06-20T22:44:00.000-04:00

I have been blogging a bit on http://shakeel.wordpress.com and previously at http://jroller.com/page/shakeel

As easy as peanut butter sandwiches

2006-02-14T19:15:00.000-05:00

PBWiki.com hosts your wiki and creating it is as easy as making a Peanut Butter sandwich. My wiki is located at http://shakeel.PBWiki.com

Check out the PBwiki tour!

Scalability Story

2005-10-17T15:18:00.000-04:00

Scalability Story: "Here at SourceGear, I wear several different hats. One of my roles is that I'm 'the guy who talks to the prospective Vault customers with large teams'. If you've got a team of 25 people, you can simply come to our online store and buy the product. But if you want to use Vault for a team of 300 people, I want to have a conversation with you. Don't call me a Sales Guy or any other vulgar names. I don't make cold calls. I don't pester anyone. I just make myself available to talk with larger customers who are trying to make a decision about Vault. I like to understand the customer's situation, make sure Vault is the right choice, and help ensure a smooth transition. #ifdef marketing_digression Sometimes I say 'no'. Earlier this year, I had a conversation with a prospective Vault customer who wanted to put several thousand users on a single Vault server. In this case, saying 'no' was the right decision. That was a perfect example of a customer we don't want. Right now you might be thinking how ridiculous that sounds. Don't we want every customer we can get? Actually, good marketing usually results in a clear understanding of which customers you want and which customers you don't. It's very difficult to be the b"

Words coined by my daughters

2005-09-21T21:02:00.000-04:00

Tutti for Thank you
Jewery for Jewelery

Lip it for Lick it
Pingular as an opposite of singular

Alcohol - Disgrace to our society

2005-09-03T09:36:00.000-04:00

My neighbors are NC State students, infact my whole neighborhood is teeming with them. They all drive new cars and party every weekend. They refused to take a break, when London was bombed. I can understand it, if they were not to be bothered if it happened in Baghdad. The world around them has no impact, they march on to a totally different beat, which I cannot hear. This morning at 6:30 AM, when I was returning from my morning prayers, I saw a silhoutte of a human being lying on the neighbor's drive way. I could see vommit around him. Concerned, I rang the door bell. I could see the flurry of activity from the glass panes surrounding the door, a consultantion between the residents, and then a decision to go back to sleep. After all 6:30 AM is equivalent to a knock on the door at 1:30 AM for the rest of us. I called 911, the thought in my mind was, this person could be asphyxiated or worse, somebody wont notice and drive over him. And then I saw the fire truck drive past my house and so did the ambulance. After their wanderings, the fire trick showed up first, the drunk had disappeared in the house. The concerned resident, scolded me for calling 911. "He was drunk and refused to come inside!!!". Her tone was don't be bothering us. The fire marshall was smiling and didn't bother to ask any more questions. He smiled at the comely resident and drove on. Few minutes later, the ambulance showed up. I told them what happened, and they moved on, without knocking on the neighbor's door. All this before 7:00 AM on a lovely Saturday morning. All's quite in the neighbourhood because there are few hours until dayrise.

San Mateo Masjid

2005-02-10T11:45:00.000-05:00

Islamic Finder does not locate any masjids in San Mateo, however my good friend Rizwan Qazi informed me of one right in downtown San Mateo. The masjid is located on 228 N Ellsworth Ave, San Mateo. From El Camino Real, make left on Third Ave and then make a left on Ellsworth Avenue.

A Dinner in Ukraine Made for Agatha Christie

2004-12-26T07:47:00.000-05:00

By C. J. CHIVERS

KIEV, Ukraine, Dec. 18 - The presidential candidate appeared for a hushed meeting an hour before midnight on Sept. 5, arriving in a black Mercedes-Benz at an exclusive dacha outside the capital here. He was accompanied by a campaign manager. He had left his bodyguards behind.

Waiting for the candidate, Viktor A. Yushchenko, were two leaders of the Security Service of Ukraine, or S.B.U., the country's successor to the K.G.B., including Gen. Ihor P. Smeshko, its chairman. Mr. Yushchenko was leading in the presidential race. He had sought the meeting to discuss, among other things, death threats against him.

The four men drank beer and ate boiled crayfish from a common bowl, as well as a salad made of tomatoes, cucumbers and corn. Later, they selected vodka and meats, and then cognacs for a last drink. When the meeting ended about 2 a.m., Mr. Yushchenko went home to bed and began, his supporters say, to die.

More than three months later, the dinner at the dacha has assumed the character of an Agatha Christie mystery mixed with a cold war spy tale. Mr. Yushchenko, his doctors say, had been poisoned. But how? And by whom?

In interviews with investigators, members of the Yushchenko campaign, toxicologists, a son-in-law of Ukraine's president and three of the four men at the dinner, a picture emerges of confusion and frustration at a criminal investigation laden with complexity.

The day after Mr. Yushchenko's late meal, which a Russian newspaper has called "The Last Supper," he was gravely ill. By the time he had been stabilized and stood in the Ukrainian Parliament on Sept. 21 to accuse the administration of the departing president, Leonid D. Kuchma, of plotting to kill him ("Do not ask who is next," he said. "Every one of us will be the next."), his face was erupting in a grotesque mask of cysts.

He was also racked with pain and weakened by what his doctors in Vienna now call a surreptitious dose of TCDD, the most toxic of the organic compounds known as dioxins, and a contaminant in Agent Orange.

That much is known. But the most popular theory - that Mr. Yushchenko was poisoned at the dacha - contains flaws, strong enough that even his own supporters raise questions about it. And as investigators seek deeper insight into the case, they say a chief obstacle has been Mr. Yushchenko himself, who has used the poisoning almost as a theme in his campaign, but has not fully cooperated with the authorities, even as the trail of his would-be assassin grows cold.

Ukraine is headed for a repeat presidential election on Dec. 26 that is likely to decide the direction of this nation of 48 million as it continues its evolution from a post-Soviet state. But since the political crisis set off by the disputed Nov. 21 election was defused by court and parliamentary decisions to hold a new race, this dinner has overshadowed almost all else.

With a plot that would make Christie proud, much of Ukraine's leadership finds itself in the role of suspect, including General Smeshko, the S.B.U. chairman, who met with a Western reporter for what he described as the first time in a 32-year career.

"The main message is this: Our security service did not do Mr. Yushchenko any harm, and did not try to do him any harm," he said. "This we know for sure. All other versions we will check."

When asked how he reacted to being mentioned publicly as a suspect, General Smeshko, who has two young sons, answered with a question. "How would you like it if your kids asked you, 'Did you do it, Dad?'" he said, locking eyes with a reporter for several long moments.

He added: "It is really painful. We will do everything to know the truth. Basically, this is a case for the dignity of our whole service."

To achieve that, the S.B.U. must navigate the demands of Ukraine's most intense criminal investigation while weathering a popular belief that it may have been involved in the crime. It faces a case in which the principal theories are many, varied and so far impossible to prove wrong. And politics are visible at every turn.

Depending on who is talking, Mr. Yushchenko was poisoned either by his enemies in Mr. Kuchma's government, or by members of his own inner circle. Alternately, he was poisoned by Russia's intelligence services, or by organized crime figures working for any of the above.

Some say the failed assassin was Vladimir N. Satsyuk, General Smeshko's former first deputy and a member of Parliament. He was the host of the dinner, at his private dacha. The food was prepared by his personal cook. He resigned from the S.B.U. last week. (Officially, the cases are unrelated; Mr. Satsyuk resigned after a court ruled he could not hold both an executive position in government and a seat in Parliament.)

Mr. Satsyuk bristles at the subject. "It deals with my honor and the honor of my family," he said. "I am ready to cooperate in order to find the real cause."

Finding the real cause seems unlikely for now. A thorough investigation would require a reconstruction of Mr. Yushchenko's meetings, movements and meals, but Mr. Yushchenko, busy with his campaign, has not been of much help.

Volodymyr Sivkovych, chairman of a parliamentary commission that has reopened its investigation into Mr. Yushchenko's illness, complained that Mr. Yushchenko has declined even to give a proper statement to his commission or to investigators. Nor have Ukrainian investigators received the latest test results from Vienna, which they say are essential evidence.

David V. Zhvaniya, the Yushchenko campaign manager who arranged the dacha meeting and attended it himself, said he and Mr. Yushchenko had refused to appear because they had no faith in the commission.

Mr. Sivkovych, he said, is aligned with Mr. Kuchma or Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich, the rival to Mr. Yushchenko in the presidential race. Mr. Sivkovych called that assertion "lies."

Law enforcement officials also remain frustrated, even after the former general prosecutor, whom Mr. Yushchenko did not trust, was fired this month.

The investigation has been reopened by the new general prosecutor, with support from the S.B.U. But Lt. Gen. Igor V. Drizhchany, who is in charge of the S.B.U.'s legal department, said investigators are still learning of medical assessments through the news media.

"All the political goals have been achieved," he said. "But those who most need the evidence - the people who must catch a murderer - do not have it."

He continued: "I cannot reproach anybody, because I know that the presidential race is taking place. But these are still the facts."

Mr. Yushchenko declined to be interviewed on this subject; through a spokeswoman he said he relied on private medical information because he did not trust the government.

"I wanted the first word to be said by the doctors," he said in a statement. "Only then would come the turn of the investigators."

One senior law enforcement official said that after doctors found dioxin in Mr. Yushchenko's blood, the candidate met informally on Dec. 16 with a newly assigned prosecutor and pledged to cooperate, but only after the election.

Without his cooperation, the case has taken the form of theories, and for the news media the most popular has been the dinner at the dacha. But as details and a greater understanding emerge, that version remains open to question.

First, General Smeshko said, Mr. Yushchenko was ill and in pain before the meeting, and had postponed the dacha visit a day because of exhaustion and a backache. Mr. Zhvaniya confirmed that, but said Mr. Yushchenko has a history of back troubles, and his pain the previous night might not have been related to poison.

A second, more intriguing, complication is that toxicologists say that after a person is contaminated with dioxins, it typically takes three days to two weeks before symptoms appear. Mr. Yushchenko was racked with pain hours after the dacha dinner, which understandably cast initial suspicion on the meal. But the theory was weakened this month when doctors in Vienna announced that the poison was dioxin; his would be the only known case of a dioxin acting that fast.

Dr. Arnold Schecter, a specialist in dioxin contamination at the University of Texas, and co-editor of "Dioxins and Health," a medical reference, said it was possible but highly unlikely that Mr. Yushchenko was poisoned on Sept. 5. "It doesn't make sense, medically," he said. "I would go back 14 days before that."

Mr. Zhvaniya agreed. "It is a stupid theory," he said. "The poisoning could have happened at any moment. He was always touring. He met hundreds of people in hundreds of places. To link it to that evening can be called only paranoia."

Mr. Zhvaniya said that if Mr. Yushchenko had been intentionally poisoned, he believed it probably occurred while he was in the Crimea in late August. He also said the most likely suspect was an organized crime figure, perhaps collaborating with Russia and members of Mr. Kuchma's administration.

Mr. Zhvaniya, a member of Parliament and a commission on organized crime, said he had listened to a taped conversation of a Russian crime figure offering to help a member of the Kuchma administration. "He more than once offered his services in poisoning, or removal," he said.

When pressed for a copy of the audiotape, he declined. "After the election," he said.

Russia's special services scoff at suggestions of their involvement. "I consider it below my dignity to comment on," said Boris N. Labusov, the senior spokesman of the S.V.R., Russia's foreign intelligence service.

Mr. Kuchma's family, which also has said it was not involved, said the dacha theory was foolish. Any government wanting to kill an opponent, the family's line of thinking goes, would not try it at a meeting with government officials. "I think they are not kamikazes," said Viktor M. Pinchuk, Mr. Kuchma's son-in-law and a member of Parliament.

Elements of the popular dacha theory are also inconclusive or wrong.

Among them are suggestions that Mr. Yushchenko was vulnerable because it was the only time his guards did not check his food - a function of questionable value for a poison that is said to be odorless and tasteless, and takes days to manifest itself. The news media have also written, based on a comment by one of Mr. Yushchenko's doctors, that dioxin might have been slipped into his soup. No soup was served at the dacha that night, the three men who dined with Mr. Yushchenko said.

Mr. Zhvaniya also dismissed statements by Mr. Yushchenko's wife, Kateryna Chumechenko, who is an American citizen, that she tasted something medicinal on his lips after he returned from the dacha. "She is a normal woman, and to her with the words K.G.B. and S.B.U. comes an unreasonable reaction, the more so because she was brought up in the United States," he said. (Toxicologists say dioxins are tasteless, although Dr. Schecter pointed out the provenance of this assertion is uncertain; he knew of no one who had ever tried tasting them.)

Still, public attention remains focused on the late-night meal, frustrating investigators who say a larger window of time needs to be examined, and infuriating Mr. Satsyuk, the host, who challenged the opposition leader to accuse him to his face.

"I am ready to meet live on the air with Mr. Yushchenko," he said. "I would like him, looking into my eyes, to say that he was poisoned at my dacha. I can do this at any press conference at any time."

Christman tree is a pagan tradition

2004-12-23T10:37:00.000-05:00

The ban of religious symbols from secular institutions is coming back to haunt the majority religion of France. Some students complained about the christmas tree at a school as a violation of the ban of religious symbols. However the officials allowed the christmas tree because it is a pagan tradition that is thousands of years old and it is simply a celeberation of winter. Hmmm.....

Definition of leadership

2004-12-23T10:33:00.000-05:00

Jurgen Dormann the outgoing CEO of ABB posted a very poignant email in which he defines leadership: 1. Operate with complete integrity. Keep your word, and do the right thing - even if you are the only one who knows you are doing it. 2. Become an expert in your field. "Expert power" provides one of the major sources of authority because people follow those who "know their stuff." 3. Tell people what you expect. Use clear language to describe goals, values and expected behaviors. Develop a plan, and act on it. Listen for feedback that may signal the need for a change in tactics, or even in strategy. 4. Mean it when you commit. You'll inspire people if you show them you accept the risks that commitment brings. You do that by sticking to your path in adversity and solving problems that seem impossible to others. 5. Expect the best. Maintain a self-confident vision of what you want - success - not a negative view of what you don't want - possible failure. Positive thinking has power, but only if you fuel it with enthusiasm. 6. Care for those you lead. Put their needs at the top of your priority list. If things go wrong, "take" two things - charge and responsibility. And when things go right, share two things - the recognition and the rewards. 7. Put others first. Think of those you lead before yourself. Celebrate their success by giving them as much credit as possible. And share their pain even if it is inconvenient, difficult or costly in time, money or other resources. 8. Do what the word "lead" implies - get out in front. If you're not willing to do what you ask your people to do, don't ask them to do it. 9. Play to your own strengths. Learn how to compensate your weaknesses. Let your team members understand how you rely on them, and why. Don’t pretend to know everything, or that you are always right. 10. Keep a sense of perspective. Strive for broad-based solutions. Take the time to resolve differences. No one gains if you leave only wreckage in your path.

The patent controversy: Cost of medicine and the divide between poor and rich

2004-12-21T09:15:00.000-05:00

Rajeev Dhavan from The Hindu writes about the rushing of the Patents Amendment Act in the Indian Parliament.

I find him to be very similar to Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University. Both of them are sharp legal minds and both of them are on the loosing end of the straw. Lessig has been struggling with copyrights and patents in the US, whereas Rajeev has been the champion of the minorities and now I learn his fight against the Patents Amendment Act.

Here is Rajeev's Op-Ed piece

The patent controversy By Rajeev Dhavan By rushing through the Third Patents Amendment without proper parliamentary scrutiny, India is short changing its post-Doha obligations to both its own and the world's poor. PATENTS AND medicine are inextricably inter-linked. Patents are a monopoly. Drug companies possess separate monopolies over many life-saving and other drugs, including those that treat HIV-AIDS. As monopolists, these companies have no compunctions about fixing high prices for essential drugs. High prices create a clear divide between the rich who can afford the medicine and the poor who cannot. India's thriving pharmaceutical industry has shown that the price fixed by the monopolists has nothing to do with the cost of production. Yusuf Hamied of CIPLA has declared that he can supply medicine for HIV to Sub-Saharan Africa, India and the rest of world at affordable prices. The monopolists argue that they need to recoup their research and development (R&D) costs, for which they have already received tax benefits, and foundation funds. Until these supposed costs are recouped, the poor and the ill must literally hold their breath. Medicine will be available, but not for the poor. On May 6, 1981, Indira Gandhi declared India's policy when she said her "idea of a better world is one in which medical discoveries would be free from patent and there will be no profiteering from life and death." What happened to this policy? How did India a champion of the world's poor and a major supplier of cheap medicine miss the wood for the trees? Contrary to its own policy and interests, the capitulation took place between 1987 and 1994 when the World Trade Organisation (WTO) treaty was negotiated. Records in Parliament will show that time and again, this issue was bypassed. In December 1993, a Rajya Sabha Committee headed by I.K. Gujral viewed with concern the "grave impact of the proposed patent ... on the drug prices in the country" and warned that the "primacy of public interests for the right of patent holders should be ensured." Public discussion was thwarted. The confidential report of the Arjun Singh Committee in the early 1990s remained confidential. As members of the National Working Group on Patent Laws, we continually exposed the impending consequences. When the WTO came into effect, India did not seriously contest America's threats. From 1995 to 2004, a large number of foreign companies filed anticipatory claims under the `mail box' procedure, which will flower into full-fledged patents on January 1, 2005. After the Left and the BJP thwarted earlier attempts to do so, the First Patents Amendment Act was passed in 1999, followed by the Second Amendment Act in 2002. A political promise was made that further amendments on social concerns would be incorporated in future. None of the ameliorative amendments was included in the Third Amendment Bill of 2003, which is now being rushed through without change or discussion. The WTO and the U.S. want the law passed before January 1, 2005 under the implicit threat of WTO retaliation for non-compliance. It is obvious that monopolies patent or otherwise have no place in a free trade treaty. But the U.S. is keen on defending the market of its drug companies in ways India was not willing to defend its poor. Economists such as Jagdish Bhagwati, Dani Rodrick and Michael Finger who support the WTO are coming round to question whether the TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) treaty should be in the WTO. By rushing to comply with the TRIPS deadline, India is turning its own international law upside down. India follows the incorporation theory. A treaty does not become law until enacted by Parliament. By giving greater credence to WTO deadlines than democracy, India is prepared to jeopardise its sovereignty. The WTO is not the only treaty that India has to comply with. It is also a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Civil and Political and Economic and Social Rights Covenants (1966) and a host of others. The Supreme Court decisions culminating in and following Vishaka's case (1997) have directly imported many human rights into the life and liberty provisions of Article 21, including the right to health. The WTO cannot over-ride these obligations. The proposed Third Patents amendment should not be rushed through Parliament without making a serious effort to deal with issues of health, food and technology thoroughly. The Doha Declaration in 2001 specifically indicated that the WTO and TRIPS agreement "can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicine for all ... and enable access to existing medicines and research and development into new medicines." The HIV-AIDS phenomenon illustrates the problem which is not limited to it. AIDS has spread to 40 million victims throughout the world. Africa has been hit the hardest. It has spread to all the 31 provinces of China and all over India. It is not just a truckers' disease but has spread to homes. Countries such as Costa Rica and Venezuela have made it the Government's duty to supply medicine for AIDS. In my view, such a duty exists in India too. The proposals that contend for inclusion in the Third Patents Amendment have been lucidly stated in the Fourth Peoples' Commission Report of October 2004. The Commission was headed by Mr. Gujral, of which I was also privileged to be a member. The broad argument rests on the fact that India's Patents Act, 1970 was a model legislation which segregated health, food and agriculture for special treatment by granting a restrictive process patent for such patents. Even if a product patent is now granted for such items, the public interest should not be defeated. So far, no amendment has undermined the principles in Section 83 of the Patents Act 1970 which secure the public interest and abjure purely commercial uses of patents. The rest of the Act must not subvert these purposes especially after Doha. Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS enlarge the possibilities for the public interest, health and the transfer of technology. The Third Patents Amendment is being rushed as an unnecessary fait accompli. Certain minimal proposals need discussion and incorporation. Firstly, India needs to follow China's example whereby if a patent monopolist does not respond to production on reasonable commercial terms within a stipulated period, a compulsory licence to manufacture will be granted in India. Secondly, following the lead of other countries, the royalty should not be more than four per cent. It cannot be overlooked that such a royalty would inure to the monopolist patent holder without investing a rupee. Thirdly, although a manufacturing licence will be `predominantly' for India's domestic market, it is necessary to permit exports to other markets of those least developed and developing nations with insufficient or no capacity to manufacture drugs. The Government's proposal necessitating a compulsory licence for export to such nations plays back into the hands of the patent holders. Helping other nations in this way has to be in addition to any provisions for parallel imports into a country with the permission of the patent holder or authorised licensee. Third world countries can only access cheap medicine from countries such as India short of paying exorbitant monopoly prices. Fourthly, there is a tendency to downplay the importance of inventiveness so that all kinds of medical formulations are given patents. Without an equal emphasis on novelty, inventive step and industrial application, too many spurious patented drug monopolies will be created. Fifthly, the mail box that has been opened since 1995, and recognised in 1999 in our legislation, should not be an invitation to indiscriminate recognition. India must permit pre-grant opposition so that spurious applications with doubtful antecedents can be rigorously scrutinised. Sixthly, where an Indian has commenced substantial production on a mail box patent, he cannot be asked to arbitrarily stop production on January 1, 2005 but must be permitted to continue even if subject to limited conditions. Seventhly, the entire debate on patentable subject matter should not be pre-empted since TRIPS discussions concerning micro-organisms are still incomplete. No less, combination drugs and compounds are neither inventive nor worthy of protection; and are a fraud on the concept of patentability. By rushing through the Third Patents Amendment without proper parliamentary scrutiny, India is short changing its post-Doha obligations to both its own and the world's poor. It is also putting its sovereignty, status, prestige and obligations at risk. Parliament should not rush through the Third Patents Amendment Bill, but deliberate on it through the full committee process not an ordinance. Medicine without social justice is unacceptable. Patents are not a gift for drug companies to exercise power without responsibility.

A Taste of the System

2004-12-17T15:50:00.000-05:00

BarlowFriendz: A Taste of the System At about 7:00 am on September 15, 2003, I boarded Delta Flight 310, scheduled to depart San Francisco International Airport for JFK at 7:20 that morning. I was still feeling slightly singed from Burning Man and the hour was one I prefer to see from the other side. I was almost back to sleep when, roughly two minutes before pull-back, I was approached by a Delta employee who informed me that there was "a problem" of some sort and that it would be necessary to get off the aircraft and bring my carry-on belongings with me. I didn't like the sound of this, but I complied, once more vividly awake. He led me to an office in the baggage claim area that was thicker with cops than some banana republics. They greeted me with same distaste they'd likely have shown an actual terrorist and treated me accordingly for the remainder of that very long day. On the counter lay small quantities of marijuana (for which I have a physician's recommendation), mushrooms, and ketamine that had allegedly been encountered in my suitcase. That the total volume of this prize was significantly more compact than the amount of high explosive necessary to endanger an aircraft, and indeed, insufficient to merit a felony charge on any count, didn't matter to them. They clearly regarded me as a threat to public safety. When I pointed out to the officials that they only had authority to search for threats to the aircraft, one of them, a bug-eyed, crew-cutted troglodyte, declared that, if I had taken any of these substances, then I would have endangered Flight 310. That such an obviously ungifted person was capable of so imaginative a conceptual leap remains a marvel to me. They claimed to have discovered this contraband in the bottom of a bottle of Ibuprofen, still three quarters full of its original contents. This bottle had been discovered in the depths of my bag by an employee of Covenant Security, a subcontractor of the TSA, while she was searching it for explosives. They had opened my bag after detecting wires in one of its external pockets. The wires in question were part of my laser gloves, a bit of Burning Man finery, and were far removed from the Ibufrofen bottle in question. What they found in the bottom of that bottle was not an incidental discovery during the course of a mandated search for something else. They had dug deep and purposefully. This was no joint in the ashtray casually spotted by the officer while writing a speeding ticket. A closer analogy would be the joint discovered on the floorboards of your car after the officer removed its carpeting while writing a speeding ticket. Still, whether legally or not, they had me. For the next hour or two, I was hand-cuffed to a rail in an exceptionally uninteresting little side room while a platoon of public servants meticulously examined every item in my carry-on bags. I could overhear them calling the San Francisco office of the DEA, in the hope of making their meager discovery into a federal case. Eventually, unable to raise the Feds, they turned me over to a detective from the San Mateo County Sheriff's Department, who questioned me for a time before placing me in the custody of a singularly humorless member of the Redwood City Police Department for transport to the county seat. He handcuffed me tightly behind my back and literally threw me backwards into the rear seat of his cruiser. I have a bad shoulder as the result of an old skiing injury, so the 45 minute ride to Redwood City was not one of the happiest experiences of my life. But it was sheer bliss compared to what awaited me on arrival, where I was stripped, cavity-searched, and eventually tossed into a small cell with a marvelously odd collection of California's less fortunate. There I spent most of the remaining day, while I attempted to raise the truly astonishing $25,000 bail upon which my liberty now depended. Finding rescue was tricky. The "phone" in my cell could only make local or collect calls. I didn't know anyone in Redwood City and cell phones won't accept collect calls. Furthermore, they'd taken my address book and my cell phone and calls to directory information were not permitted. I was left with the few land line numbers I still keep in my head. Lunch consisted of a slice of baloney between two unadorned slices of Wonder Bread, but I didn't have much appetite. At some point in the recent past, someone had thrown up in our cell and no one had bothered to clean it up. I was getting what Rudy Giuliani like to call, during his tenure as the Mean Mom of New York, "a taste of the system." It wasn't all bad in there. The company was interesting. There was one guy who was hallucinating up a regular circus, apparently on the natch, since he'd been there long enough for whatever he might have taken to wear off. He asked me for reality checks so often that I started seeing what he saw. There was a kid who managed to steal a ballpoint pen during his booking and came back with an evil grin, flicking it back and forth between hands like a switchblade and announcing, in barely transparent jest, that he "was going to cut somebody" if we didn't watch out. There was a hapless young fellow who'd snatched an old lady's purse and thought it terribly unfair that he'd been arrested since he'd given it back as soon as they caught him. There were a number of unrelated guys who spoke only Spanish, and little enough of that. They sat forlorn and solemn as owls in a downpour. We all got to know one another pretty well that day, given that I've had closets bigger than that cell and there were, on average, eight of us in it. Eventually, I was able to get through to my daughter Leah, who called John Gilmore on my behalf. John is one of the co-founders of EFF and is, in addition, the peskiest and most obdurate defender of the Constitution I know. Accompanied by journalist Ann Harrison, John came down and went my bail in cash, though that transaction very nearly turned south when he would not produce a government-issued ID for the deputy at the desk. As a matter of characteristically flinty principle, he doesn't carry one. In fact, there is no legal requirement that someone posting bail identify himself. Eventually, the deputy grudgingly accepted John's cash while letting him keep his official anonymity, noting in his log that the bail was posted by an unknown person and therefore constituted suspicious activity. Weird is bad.

Concept Cars : Jalopnik

2004-12-08T13:56:00.000-05:00

Concept Cars : Jalopnik Now we can sell our house and move into this!!!

O'Reilly Network: Paying Attention (or Not) to the Flickr Daily Zeitgeist

2004-12-08T13:21:00.000-05:00

O'Reilly Network: Paying Attention (or Not) to the Flickr Daily Zeitgeist: "Vision and Visual Attention Light comes in at the eyes and is processing through the brain, extracting signals we can respond to, and building a picture of the world we can use to decide what to do next. The two things you have to know about this are: 1. Available visual information is highly constrained. For example, our eyes see high resolution only right in the middle, so we can only make out fine detail if we're looking directly at something. Also, our brains have limited processing resources and can only select a small amount of all possible input to examine closely. The scarce resources of the brain and eyes must be directed towards what seems most important at any given time, in order to use them most effectively. 2. Processing takes time--it takes a fifth of a second for the signal to race from your eye through the brain to conscious awareness. But often, we don't have a fifth of a second, so the brain needs to be able to respond to especially important events automatically." Isnt it amazing that our field of vision is so vast, yet to really comprehend or understand something we have to focus on it and be consciously aware of it.

2004-12-03T18:32:00.001-05:00

Impressionist - Met Museum of Art

2004-12-03T18:32:00.000-05:00

Impressionist - Met Museum of Art

2004-12-03T18:31:00.002-05:00

Impressionist - Met Museum of Art

2004-12-03T18:31:00.001-05:00

Impressionist - Met Museum of Art

2004-12-03T18:31:00.000-05:00

Renior - Met Museum of Art