Page 2 of 264

UFOs and the Hyperreal

On Saturday, the New York Times ran an investigative story that revealed a few significant facts about the US’s programs to study UFOs. There were some interesting findings in the article (and citations/paraphrases below are from the article, which can be found here):

  • A 22 million dollar program called “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification” was operated at DoD from 2007 to 2012—and, in fact, the program continues today without an official budget.
  • The program produced documentary evidence of spacecraft hovering with no sign of propulsion.
  • A contracted company, Bigelow Aerospace, was given large sums of money to help operate this program, which included the maintenance of a storage facility in Las Vegas for unidentified metal alloys related to UFO events.
  • A Pentagon briefing summary from 2009 stated that “what was once considered science fiction is now scientific fact,” and argued that the US government would have great difficulty in securing itself against some of the technology the program had discovered.

Continue reading

Us Too


We knew it was coming and here it is. An open source spreadsheet designed by The Professor Is In blog’s Karen L. Kelsky for the purpose of collecting up stories of sexual harassment, abuse,  and plain old taking advantage from within the Academy in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

“I am not surprised at the number. I am surprised at the severity of many of the stories. I expected more quid pro quo or handsy passes made after drinking at an open bar at a conference. I didn’t expect as many stories of rape and stalking and abuse.” (Kelsky)

Unlimited to the discipline of International Relations (IR), we know that stories shared here – and countless like them – derive from inside our Departments, Schools, and conferences. As an extremely male dominated and masculinised discipline, feminist and queer IR have been telling us for years about the profound effects such a gender imbalance has. On not only how women and femininity are treated and so often marginalised but on how such patriarchy has detrimentally produced IR’s traditional and  primary units of analysis  – man, the state, and war – in the very image of their very particular (male, white, cis etc) authors.

Speaking to the extent of the ‘scourge‘ (as Kelsky puts it), as a recently graduated, female, IR PhD working (happily) in the discipline, I count myself lucky for making it this far without having accumulated much to add to the spreadsheet’s 1,600 (and counting) entries. However, if I’m honest there are probably things that I could/should say. The women coming forward to share their stories – even anonymously – are braver than I.

Of course, in Higher Education, the lines between work/personal life and teacher/student become blurred (and these blurrings are some of what make academia and University life good). Of course, there is a difference between rape and mis-judged flirting or an extra-marital affair. However, consent is complicated and the extreme power imbalance between parties involved make the stakes high and skew the consequences in favour of the most often older, most often senior, most often male participant in even seemingly ‘harmless’ interactions.  Just read the spreadsheet to see for yourself. After doing so I’m thinking now is surely the time for us to re-draw the lines and bring to account the ones so far un-named who went too far (we/you know who you are).

President Trump, You’re No George Carlin

The Trump Administration has decided it’s finally time for it to whip out its best George Carlin impression. It’s announced its own list of seven words you can never say—at least not if you are working for the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention.

In 1972, “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” was the last track on his stand-up album, Class Clown. In an interview with Terry Gross in 2004, Carlin explained that the routine was all about calling out hypocrisy and double-standards. There is nothing inherently bad about these words, and keeping them off of the airwaves ignores the context in which they may be used. A later version of this routine even led to a1978 Supreme Court case, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation.

Fast forward 45 years, and the Department of Health and Human Services has apparently announced its own Seven Words You Can Not Include in Documents Prepared for Next Year’s Budget. It doesn’t quite roll of the tongue, and it feels a bit Peppy Bismilk, but its potential effects on science and health policy could be dramatic.

First things first, let’s get the words themselves out in the open. According to Trump’s HHS, the following words are now verboten in CDC budget documents:

  • Vulnerable
  • Entitlement
  • Diversity
  • Transgender
  • Fetus
  • Evidence-based
  • Science-based

Yeah. For real.

According to attendees at the meeting where this policy was announced, the presenter said she was merely relaying information and could not speak to why these words were banned. This appears, though, to be in line with other efforts by the administration to remove certain words and phrases from official documents, such as efforts to scrub information about global warming from the EPA’s website.

Why would the Trump Administration want to keep these words out of official budget documents? From scientific and research perspectives, there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Instead, we have to think about the various purposes that budgets serve. At the most concrete level, budgets tell us how we are going to spend money. The administration is expected to release its budget in February. While no president’s budget is automatically adopted, it can serve as a blueprint for guiding Congress’ efforts to craft a spending plan.

Go a bit deeper, though, and we can start to get a sense of what is driving the Trump Administration. More than just a spending plan, budgets are reflections of our values. This applies if we are talking about households or about national governments. By keeping these words out of budget documents, the administration is not only signalling its research priorities, but also who and what it values.

What does this decision say about the Trump Administration’s health and research values? First, it says that this administration has little interest in understanding or addressing the social determinants of health. When we take the social determinants of health seriously, we recognize that social, economic, and political systems don’t treat everyone equally—and that that inequality has very real consequences for whether a person can lead a healthy life. If you look at the CDC’s current website (quick, hurry before it’s taken down!), there is a section devoted to looking at how and why transgender people have higher rates of HIV infection. It’s not about a trans person’s biology; it’s about issues of stigma, discrimination, and lack of access to care. It’s about social vulnerabilities—oops, there’s a word we can no longer use.

Second, it suggests the administration may be pulling back from the US’ historical global health commitments. The US government supplies roughly one-third of all development assistance for health. It has been a leader in shaping the norms around the importance of supporting global health as a sign of good international citizenship (and if you’re looking for more on that, have I got a book for you! Makes a great Valentine’s Day present!). Part of what that funding has done, though, is support the scientific research to produce the evidence necessary for us to know how to address thorny and difficult global health issues. If we don’t base our policies on evidence and science, we end up with polices that reflect individual biases—things like wasting $1.4 billion on abstinence education programs in Africa even though there is no evidence that they reduce the risk of contracting HIV (and may actually increase it). This is already a problem for US-supported global health programs. Banning science-based and evidence-based will only make the problem that much worse.

Third, it could be another arena in which conservative domestic (and international) politics are taking precedence over improving people’s health. The CDC and other agencies within the United States government have mobilized in an effort to understand the connection between the Zika outbreak in South America and the increase in rates of microcephaly. Scientists don’t understand how or why this connection exists, especially since it hasn’t appeared in other areas where Zika has spread. To understand that, we need to do research on the effects of the Zika virus on pregnant women and their fetuses. The CDC found a definitive link between Zika and microcephaly in 2016, but it will apparently no longer be able to conduct that research. We don’t know why, but it’s possible that it could have something to do with issues surrounding access to birth control and abortion services in Latin America. In many of the countries where microcephaly rates have skyrocketed due to Zika, birth control and abortion are incredibly difficult to obtain. Perhaps this is an effort to appease conservative values—if there’s no research on Zika’s effects on fetuses, there will be fewer calls for changing reproductive laws in the region.

George Carlin used his seven words as part of an effort to encourage free expression and think about the problems arbitrarily limiting speech. The Trump Administration’s seven words will do the opposite. If these are the choices, I’ll take a few curse words any day.

 

Nothing Compares to You

For Russia watchers Christmas always comes early (or Hanukkah comes right on time!) when Putin gives his annual presser in mid-December to the journalists from Russia and around the world. This year was no exception, and Putin provided an almost 4-hour spectacle of economic indicator juggling, question evading and what looked like battling the flu. Even devoted supporters noticed that Putin was not on top of his game that day. He had to constantly clear the throat and looked like he had fever.

There was something for everyone. Putin came out against abortion ban and spun a conspiracy theory about the Olympic doping scandal. Accused the US of North Korean missile program development and encouraged rotation of governmental cadres. Explained the rationale behind a possible retirement age increase and advised the head of Rosneft Sechin to show up to court when he is subpoenaed. Many bloggers and mass media outlets have devised several versions of Putin Presser bingo, because every year there seems to be the same number of shticks that come up. These include drinking from a cup with a lid, making a joke – this year a particularly crass one, – providing reassuring mumbo-jumbo about Russian economic growth and an expected tough question from a Ukrainian journalist.

Let’s start with the last one. Questions from UNIAN journalist Tsymbayuk are a rare aberration from the mainstream discourse on the Ukraine crisis in Russia (this time they were met with boos and “provocation” outcries). He asked whether Putin was planning to exchange prisoners of war and reminded that Russia and Ukraine were not one country. Putin had a long comeback arguing that the accent-free Russian of the journalist was already a sign that the countries occupied the same mental space. After that followed quite a long history lesson riddled some historical inaccuracies and an emphasis on the same Christian foundation of the two countries that make up one nation. Later, Putin also quipped about the scandal provoked by the former Georgian President and ex Odessa governor Saakashvili, who is allegedly “spitting in the faces of Ukrainians and Georgians”. Putin even wondered whether there were “real Ukrainians” available in the country. Oh, snap. A lot of Russians don’t believe Ukraine deserves to be a state in the first place…

Continue reading

Challenges to the Contemporary World Order

A guest post by Thomas Pepinsky, is Associate Professor of Government at Cornell University and Stefanie Walter,  Full Professor for International Relations and Political Economy at the Department of Political Science at the University of Zurich.

Many observers of contemporary global politics conclude that the present moment represents one of the most unsettled times in global politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Shock events such as the Brexit vote, the continued success of radical right populists in continental Europe, the continuing Eurozone crisis, and the unprecedented foreign relations of the Trump presidency all point to a global liberal order under stress. Scholars of comparative and international politics and political economy are now asking questions that would have seemed far-fetched only years ago: how durable is liberal internationalism and the North Atlantic alliance? Will mercantilism replace neoliberalism? Can central bank and supranational economic institutions perform the functions required of them?  Continue reading

ICAN’s Road to the Nobel Peace Prize

This is a guest post from Rebecca Gibbons, a Visiting Assistant Professor at Bowdoin College. 

On Sunday, December 10, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will accept the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for calling attention to the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” of nuclear use and for promoting the recently adopted Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

This movement grew out of great frustration with a lack of progress on nuclear disarmament through traditional channels such as the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament. After nuclear weapons possessors in the NPT failed in 2005 to re-commit to disarmament promises they had agreed to previously, a leader from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War—itself a Nobel Peace Prize winner—sought to found a new umbrella organization devoted to developing a convention against nuclear weapons. He envisioned an international campaign that would operate similar to the one that had banned landmines and suggested calling this new organization the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons with the acronym ICAN. ICAN began in Australia in 2006 and was launched internationally in 2007. In a decade’s time, this group succeeded in pushing forward a multilateral treaty banning nuclear weapons and winning a Nobel Peace Prize. In my research on ICAN, I have identified five reasons for this movement’s success in achieving a nuclear prohibition treaty earlier this year. Continue reading

Look What You Made Me Do

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the sovereignest of them all? Asked no head of state — ever. And yet, the Russian Parliament is in the process of devising a document, which assesses levels of sovereignty among the G20, and devises punishments for countries or individuals who infringe on state sovereignty. I have to admit, it fits well with the ISQ’s new online symposium on International Systems in World History. Hierarchy, international system, definition of state, coercion – it’s all there! Russian Parliament does not reflect on the Eurocentrism of their concepts though…

The Interim Commission of the Federation Council for the Protection of State Sovereignty has prepared a plan for an annual report on interference in Russia’s internal affairs (securitization alert!). Apparently, the West is stimulating interethnic and interreligious protests in Russia by way of turning the Russian youth “into an instrument of loosening up of national political systems, implementing scenarios of  “color revolutions”, coups d’état, and social destabilisation.” So, if we track the empirical application of Butcher and Griffiths’ article,  there is in fact a clear delineation between domestic and foreign politics. The foreign part comes in with the “monitoring of the interference of foreign states and international organizations in the political, economic, cultural and humanitarian spheres of activity in Russia”. Especially worrisome for Russian lawmakers is the expected interference with Russia’s presidential election in spring 2018. See, Russia does care about election meddling! Just not the American one.

Continue reading

Mugabe: The Musical!

Picture the scene: throngs of people gathering as the night descends. They are looking up at the building across the way—patiently, expectantly. There is a low-hum of voices. Gradually, the voices converge and they begin singing the same song…

“Mu-ga-be! Mu-ga-be!”

Continue reading

Philosophy of Law and the Decline of War

This is a guest post from Simon Cotton, Australian National University, where he is a Visitor in Philosophy, and the University of New South Wales, Canberra, where he teaches in Humanities and Social Sciences.

Much of the commentary on Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro’s recent book, The Internationalists, including at Duck of Minerva, has focused on the empirical basis for their controversial thesis. Hathaway and Shapiro do not just claim that much of the decline in major interstate war that we have seen since the Second World War is down to mere reformulation of black-letter law, but that the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which appeared an embarrassment in its immediate aftermath, was pivotal to this transformation.

It is unsurprising, then, that political scientists have taken issue with their claim. In contrast, The Internationalists’ philosophical presuppositions have attracted less attention. This is a pity, because this work represents an invaluable opportunity to demonstrate the practical relevance of philosophy of law, an area that hard-headed social scientists are apt to dismiss. Continue reading

Trump and Nuclear Deterrence: Dancing on the Edge of a Cliff

Quick takes on the recent escalation of the North Korea nuclear crisis have highlighted how administration strategy has the potential for a negative effect on the outcomes of the conflict (see: here for example). However, I’d like to work through the role that social media—as a primary mechanism the administration has used to signal intentions—plays in the escalation/de-escalation of a nuclear crisis like this one.

I argue that Trump’s tweets are not only bad optics and potentially inflammatory, but that if we return to thinking about classic deterrence theory, it has the potential of failing to deter war. A scary possibility, especially considering that some have argued North Korea may have rational incentives to use nuclear weapons first.

Continue reading

The Politics of Research on Trauma – A Gendered Perspective

The following is a guest post by Ayelet Harel-Shalev and Shir Daphna-Tekoah.  

Ayelet Harel-Shalev is a Senior Lecturer at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her academic interests include Feminist IR; Women Combatants; Ethnic Conflicts and Democracy; Minority Rights; and Women and Politics. @harelayelet  ayeleths@bgu.ac.il

Shir Daphna-Tekoah is a Senior Lecturer at Ashkelon Academic College, and Kaplan Medical Center.  Her academic interests include Gender, Health and Violence; Women Combatants; Child Abuse and Neglect; Dissociation and Trauma. shir.dt@gmail.com

In the era of the #MeToo campaign, we call for critical thinking about trauma and suggest engagement with a variety of women’s narratives of trauma. We take our cue from Cynthia Enloe’s advice to scholars to seek questions that are thus far unidentified in International Relations and Political Science. In these spaces of query and in these silences,  she notes, one will often find politics.

When one evaluates the history of Trauma Studies, it becomes evident that this field of study was triggered by wars, combat, and their attendant political developments. The study of trauma started by examining the exposure of men to combat experiences. The resulting body of work was subsequently complemented by studies of the trauma of women and children as abused victims. Current knowledge about trauma, therefore, stems from studies on combat men and victim women.

Continue reading

2018 Duckies

This is a guest post from Laura Seay, among other things chair of the Online Media Caucus for ISA.

It’s Duckies time! ISA 2018 is right around the corner.

The Online Achievement in International Studies Reception and Awarding of the Duckies will take place on Friday, April 6 at 7:30pm.  We’ll feature three speakers in the ever-popular Ignite series and enjoy honoring our winners together.  The ISA Online Media Caucus (OMC) appreciates the generous support of SAGE Publishing in sponsoring the awards.

Now is the time to submit your nominations for the 2018 Duckies.  Send your nominations to onlinemediacaucus@gmail.com by December 15, 2017.  We award Duckies in the following categories:

Best Blog (Group) in International Studies

Best Blog (Individual) in International Studies

Best Blog Post in International Studies

Best Twitter Account

Special Achievement in International Studies Online Media

As is our custom, these awards go to English-language international studies blogs and bloggers whose online output has significant scholarly content.  Award nominees or their designated representatives MUST be present at the Duckies.

Once the nominations deadline has passed, the Online Media Caucus will judge the nominations and determine finalists for public voting.  Self-nominations are encouraged. If you have any questions, please contact 2017-18 Online Media Caucus Chair Laura Seay.

Charli’s Village: A Call to Arms

This is a tough post to write. In October, Charli was hospitalized for severe abdominal pain. Surgery revealed a large mass, and Charli was diagnosed with Burkitt’s Lymphoma—a systemic cancer of the immune system. This is a rare cancer, but fortunately it is highly treatable (doctors say the cancer is responding well) and Charli has access to some of the best doctors in the world in Boston. But, the treatment is brutal: an intensive, six month course of chemotherapy. Charli is soldiering on, dealing with the anticipated (the hair!) and unanticipated challenges of cancer diagnosis and treatment with the indomitable spirit we all know.

Like me, I’m sure your response to this news is, how can I help? Charli has an amazing community supporting her on a day-to-day basis, but she needs our help to deal with the financial elephant in the room. Cancer treatment is expensive, and Charli’s insurance doesn’t cover the whole bill. Her family has set up a fundraising site to help defray these substantial medical costs.  I hope the Duck community will join all of here at the blog in supporting Charli as she beats down this cancer. Together, we can help to ensure her story is one in which she lives happily ever after.

We Shall Overspread

While there is a big debate in the US about the old monuments, Russia is erecting new ones. Starting with the eye sore of a Kalashnikov statue in Moscow that had a bit of a glitch of sporting a German rifle instead of the famous Russian export and finishing with a “monument to manspreading” aka Russian Emperor Alexander the Third in Crimea’s Yalta. While manspreading is a great metaphor for the “Crimea reunification”, let’s put aside the Ukrainian side of the issue and take a closer look at the schmock du jour.

Alexander the Third statue is seated somewhat uncomfortably on what looks like a pile of manure, with his hands on a sword and the words “Russia’s only allies are its army and fleet” engraved on the base of the monument. During the unveiling ceremony that was attended by President Putin, the emperor was lauded as the “Peacemaker” who

Continue reading

The emperor has no clothes moment for realism

Earlier this month the Washington Post ran a piece detailing increased efforts by Charles Koch’s eponymous foundation (hereafter CKF) to fund foreign policy programs in the United States (h/t to Josh for posting to Twitter). Notwithstanding one’s perspective on the Koch brothers’ politics, increased money for academia is a good thing, right? And all the CKF wants is to “ask questions about America’s proper role in the world and how we move forward”…to ‘broaden the debate’ about US foreign policy. All noble aims, and so I am sure the CKF is distributing money to institutions large and small to give faculty opportunities to take students on study abroad programs, bring in policymakers and thinkers to foster discussion, and other mechanisms to provoke reflection and debate.

Except, by all appearances, the CKF is not doing these things. Continue reading

Pondering Planet Politics: A Response to Peltonen

I was fascinated by a brilliantly written, and well-thought out, guest post here on Duck, by Hannes Peltonen, posted over the weekend. If you haven’t had a chance to check it out, you won’t be disappointed. Peltonen presents an argument that digs into recent debates about the seemingly ubiquitous “anthropocene” and its relationship to world politics—and particularly the ways that IR theory should approach issues relating to humankind’s interconnectedness with natural/planetary processes.

I’d like to take the opportunity to engage with Peltonen’s argument, with an eye toward extending the discussion into a few new directions. Specifically, I think the issue of the anthropocene paints an even grimmer picture for the future of IR.

Continue reading

Are Potential Peer Reviewers Overwhelmed Altruists or Free-Riders? New data reveal great inequality in peer reviewing in the social sciences.

This is a guest post submitted by Paul A. Djupe, Denison University Political Science, who is an affiliated scholar with PRRI ; Amy Erica Smith, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University; and Anand Edward Sokhey, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder, as well as the associate director of the American Politics Research Lab and the incoming director of the LeRoy Keller Center for the Study of the First Amendment.

Google “peer review crisis,” and you will find dozens of pieces — some dating back to the 1990s —lamenting the state of peer reviewing. While these pieces focus in part on research replicability and quality, one major concern has been shortages in academic labor. In one representative article, Fox and Petchey (2010) argue that peer reviewing is characterized by a “tragedy of the commons” that is “increasingly dominated by ‘cheats’ (individuals who submit papers without doing proportionate reviewing).” Other commentators describe the burden faced by “generous peer reviewers” who feel “overwhelmed.”

Continue reading

Can the EU regain its international climate policy leadership lost in Copenhagen?

This is a guest post from Axel Michaelowa  from the University of Zurich. He is also the lead author of the chapter on international agreements in the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is the second in the series from our Bonn panel on leadership in the climate regime. 

For over a decade, the EU was the undisputed leader of the international climate policy process. It had a grand vision for a universal international climate policy agreement modelled on the Kyoto Protocol. This was to be “crowned” during COP 15 in Copenhagen 2009. So the shock was the greater when the EU was ignominously sidelined by an alliance of Barack Obama and the leaders of the large emerging economies. They did not like grand designs and instead embarked on a road towards a “bottom up” climate policy system.

Almost a decade later, the US has abandoned international climate policy leadership after it played a crucial role in helping France in the runup to the Paris Agreement. Can the EU now again lead? The answer unfortunately is “No”. Continue reading

Leadership in the Climate Regime without the US Federal Government

I am just back from the climate negotiations in Bonn where I organized a side event at the German Development Institute (DIE). The event was co-sponsored  by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW).

These are my opening and closing  remarks from the session. In subsequent days, I’ll post additional interventions from some of the other panelists.  Panelists included Aimee Barnes, Senior Adviser to Governor Brown of California; Sander Chan of DIE; Arunabha Ghosh, CEO of CEEW, one of India’s leading think tanks on energy and climate; Angel Hsu, of Yale-NUS campus; and Axel Michaelowa of the University of Zurich.

Opening Remarks
I want to thank you all for coming today to this side event. I’m Josh Busby and an Associate Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. When Donald Trump was elected to be the 45th president of the United States, I knew that the climate regime was in for a difficult period after the heady optimism coming out of Paris in 2015.

I started a new research project, “Leadership in the Climate Regime without the US Federal Government.” When I heard about the DIE Interconnections side events, I thought this would be a tremendous opportunity to assemble some of the smartest professionals who work on this every day.

I thought it was important to get different perspectives on the role of different actors, not just folks knowledgeable about the actions of the world’s most important polities but also those of sub-national and non-state actors. Continue reading

Planet Politics and International Relations

This is a guest post from Hannes Peltonen, Senior Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Tampere

The State of the Discipline

International Politics/Relations (IR) has allegedly failed, a claim publicized periodically. Barry Buzan and Richard Little began this millennium by highlighting the discipline’s intellectual failure in the journal Millennium. More recently, an influential 2013 forum in EJIR on IR theory, edited by Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight, concludes something similar.

IR theorists seem to consider that IR has failed, because it has a one-way relationship with other disciplines and fields. IR research borrows from other disciplines, but other disciplines seem uninterested in what IR has to offer.

One explanation for this one-way relationship could be that IR remains in the shadow of Political Science. According to Justin Rosenberg, IR has failed to develop its own disciplinary “big idea.” Such ideas are based on some characteristic of the social world through which a discipline might define and delineate itself. In Geography, it is space; in History it is time; in Sociology it is the structures of social relations.

Rosenberg’s claim seems to be that without such a big idea, other disciplines are not really interested in IR as independent from Political Science and Political Thought. Much of IR discussions may be of interest to IR scholars, but not to scholars in other disciplines. Other disciplines, however, are of interest to IR scholars exactly because they have their own big ideas which communicate across disciplines, thus being also of interest to IR.

Rosenberg’s own suggestion (“uneven and combined development”) for IR’s disciplinary big idea is promising, but it has also encountered criticism, whether justified or not.

In addition to criticisms presented by others, Rosenberg’s suggestion suffers from its implication, namely that it strengthens disciplinary division at a time, when there is a clear call for innovative interdisciplinarity. Moreover, Rosenberg’s suggestion seems to look back in time while neglecting the future and partially also the contemporary world. Thus, it ignores a rather large detail: the Anthropocene/Capitalocene. Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2018 Duck of Minerva

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑