L.S.,
Here's a few things I posted on various blogs recently:
L.S.,
@Robin: By "sides", I meant the UK and the rest of the EU.
@Mungo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Independence_and_Partition
As for the voting system, and other Westminster traditions, I must say I rather like them. Presumably, things could be arranged more efficiently, but if we always did things in the most efficient manner possible, life would be very boring...
Speaking of efficiency: it is hardly for reasons of efficiency that I described the continuing involvement of the UK in the EU as inevitable. In politics, many things happen on a daily basis that are inefficient, no matter which version of efficiency you apply. I think that for the UK, when push comes to shove, EU membership is still less unattractive than any alternative. And, given that they can't very well leave, they will from time to time be stuck negotiating about Treaty reform.
As for the Euro, as an economist I have to say that Gordon Brown's four tests make more economic sense than the provisions of the Treaty on this point. However, like much of my glorious "science" they are so vague that they can be used to argue towards any outcome that seems desireable. My personal prediction is that the UK will keep the pound for the foreseeable future, until, by some unpredictable mishap, it starts to lag significantly behind the world's three biggest currencies. (Dollar, Euro and Yen) At the moment, it is already number four, but it is still sufficiently important that the City doesn't need to work in Euros. But if the pound's position should decay, a transition to Euro would be in the advantage of the London financial market, not to mention that there would be less prestige involved in such circumstances.
Posted by martinned on juni 19, 2007 at 05:00 PM CEST
At 12:13 PM on 22 Jun 2007, martinned wrote:
L.S.,
I am getting increasingly annoyed with the recent fad of having referendums about everything and anything. Referendums have long been a part of the constitutional system of Switzerland, but they don't fit in parliamentary systems like the Netherlands (my country) or the UK. There is nothing elitist about this position. The point is succinctly summed up by the quote from Burke that I posted somewhere on this blog last week, but also by several of the Federalist papers:
The government of a country is an extremely complex problem. Even something relatively simple as a Constitution for Europe is still so complex that the most heard complaint in the Dutch referendum was that they voted no because the thing was too complicated, and the government didn't explain it properly. Because the government of a country is so difficult, we elect some of the brightest from our midst to work on it full time; government is no sport for amateurs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but parliament should not delegate its responsibilities to the (rationally ignorant) population.
L.S.,
I'd like to note, for the record, that I am generally against referendums, even if I approve of the likely outcome. My being a Europhile has nothing to do with it. In fact, in my latter capacity I am quite pleased with the kind of public discussion the last referendums stirred up.
Posted by martinned on juni 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM CEST
L.S.,
@Marcel: If one could truthfully say that European citizens really "want" anything with regards to the EU, then there would be no excuse for not having a referendum. That is what the idea of direct democracy is based on: the idea that everyone is as smart as the speaker, or at least smart enough to form something resembling a rational opinion on the issue at hand. (Leaving aside such nuggets as rational ignorance for now.)
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people don't have any such opinion. What they have is prejudice, bigotry, and stock phrases they heard on TV. In such circumstance, the challenge is to design a democratic system that does justice to people's right of self-determination, which requires a clear mandate for government action, and the need of protecting people against the consequences of their (rational) ignorance. That is why we have delegated decision making, where the people elect representatives, who carefully study the problems the country is faced with, and take their decision. That system is the result of a careful weighing of factors, and should not be thrown aside simply because an (increasing number of) populist politicians are using referendums as a cheap way to win support and get rid of some proposals they don't like at the same time.
Just like UKIP in the UK, looking at the parties over here (NL) that have been demanding a referendum, it's parties cynicism. The parties have been asking for a referendum are the creepy populists on the left and the right, as well as the party (the SP) that wants to get rid of the treaty alltogether. Just today, all that pressure has forced the center-left PvdA party, who have been under pressure from the more populist left-wing SP, to declare in favour of a referendum as well. It's all cynicism.
Posted by martinned on juni 26, 2007 at 06:24 PM CEST
L.S.,
@Anon. I emphatically deny that I have cast all Eurosceptics as "bigot, predjudiced, and you attempt to paint anyone who does not share your view as, others do of a like mind to you, as many things. Nationalists, fascist right wingers, little Englanders, whatever.." If I gave you that impression, I apologise.
Rather, I meant to use such terms to describe how the majority of people, generally, get their opinions other than by rational decision making. This is not me calling everyone else dumb, but rather the consequence of rational ignorance; most issues the government are faced with are fantastically complicated, so non-politicians, including myself, simply do not have the time to carefully consider them. (Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that politicians do carefully consider the issues.)
There are reasonable argument in favour and against this treaty, but that does not mean that we should hold a referendum about it.
@Marcel: Don't we usually assume that bureaucrats and politicans try to accumulate as much power as possible? So why would they be so eagre to give competences away?
Finally, I would like to not that in my country there is no legal basis for holding a referendum. Our constitution does not mention such an instrument, and there is no legal procedure for deciding whether one should be held, other than the possibility that the States-General, ie. parliament, can pass a one-time law to that effect. But even then, they can go no further than to "consult" the public, because the constitution allows for no other method of ratification than a parliament vote, and parliament votes are required to be "free of outside pressure".
Posted by martinned on juni 27, 2007 at 03:22 PM CEST
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Gideon Rachman
Column by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times
Europe ditches clarity and embraces obfuscation
By Gideon Rachman
Published: June 25 2007 17:32 | Last updated: June 25 2007 17:32
At two o’clock on Saturday morning I got chatting to an official in the bar at European Union headquarters in Brussels. Several floors above us, the leaders of the 27 EU countries were still arguing about how to change the text of the Union’s ill-fated constitution. “If you want to understand what they are doing,” mused my friend, “you should look at Nabokov’s book Pale Fire”.
It struck me that I was unlikely to find a copy of the great Russian émigré’s 15th novel lying around at that late hour, so I settled for the next best thing – an internet search. A short critical essay that I came across immediately brought to mind some striking similarities between Pale Fire and the draft agenda for revising the constitution.
“Pale Fire”, I read, was a “prime example of the literature of the exhaustion”. That certainly seemed right – given that it was now four in the morning. Vladimir Nabokov’s novel was a “labyrinth of dazzling complexity”. This too rang a bell. But the real clincher was the fact that in Pale Fire, the footnotes are longer and more important than the text itself. The book starts with a poem, which is “gradually co-opted by the commentary”.
That is, more or less, what happened in Brussels over the weekend. EU leaders began their meeting with a constitutional text. Then, over many hours, they added endless footnotes, protocols and “clarifications”, which became more important than the original text itself.
The result is almost impossible to read or understand. And that is entirely intentional. Many things happened at the summit. But perhaps the most important was that the EU finally abandoned the idea that it wants ordinary Europeans to understand what it is doing.
The abandonment of “transparency” brings the EU full circle to where it began when the idea of writing a constitution was dreamt up six years ago. Back then it was conventional wisdom that one of the Union’s biggest problems was that European citizens found it so hard to understand. Why not simplify the complex mess of interlocking treaties and incomprehensible language into a single, readable document?
Big mistake. It turned out that once Europeans were told what the EU was really doing, they were often horrified. The new, admirably transparent constitution was rejected by large majorities in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
It was as if a manufacturer of tinned meat had suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to put a large notice on the front of the tin, stating: “This product contains reconstituted cows’ udders.” How surprising and hurtful that sales should fall as a result.
What the EU decided to do at the summit was to put all the stuff about the repulsive ingredients that make up the Union back into tiny print on the side of the tin – or, in this case, into footnotes to the constitution.
A commitment to “undistorted competition”, which sounded alarmingly liberal to the French, was cut out of the main text – but then restored in a protocol attached to the main document. The charter of fundamental rights – which upset the British – was similarly removed from the treaty and put into a protocol, and then further qualified by a massive footnote.
Perhaps the best illustration of the process is the question of the “primacy of EU law”. It has been the case for many years that European law overrides national law. Back when the constitution was being written, it was decided that it would be admirably transparent if the document included the first explicit statement of EU legal primacy.
The problem was that while lawyers and EU officials regard legal primacy as merely a statement of the obvious, many ordinary Europeans still find the idea that foreigners should be able to overrule their national parliaments unpleasant. One opinion poll in Britain found only 10 per cent support for the idea.
So European leaders have decided to work round this problem, by removing the statement of European legal primacy from the main constitutional text – and burying it in a footnote. Footnote one of the document agreed over the weekend reads: “Whilst the article on primacy of Union law will not be reproduced in the TEU, the IGC will agree on the following declaration: ‘The conference recalls that in accordance with the settled case law of the EU Court of Justice, the Treaties and law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the member states.’ ” Is that clear? I do hope not.
This is part of a pattern. European leaders have gone through the constitution painstakingly replacing anything that is too clear with something more obscure. The word “constitution” itself has been ditched in favour of “reform treaty”. The word “law” is being dropped in favour of “regulation, directive and decision”. The mooted EU foreign minister is now to be called a “high representative”.
It is not just clear language that has been abandoned. Any procedures or decisions that were easy to understand – and therefore potentially distressing to the public – have been deliberately complicated.
Take the voting system for deciding EU laws (or rather, directives and decisions). This was the point that almost caused the summit to collapse, because the redistribution of power from Poland to Germany was too clear. So the leaders have come up with a series of baffling obfuscations. The new voting system will not come into force until 2014 – and then will run alongside an alternative voting system for a further three years. At any point, the Poles will also be able to invoke the Ioannina compromise. (Don’t ask.)
In producing a document that is stuffed with nonsense like this, the EU is reverting to its true nature. Like most of the novels of Nabokov, EU treaties have never been widely read; but they have nonetheless attracted a reputation for obscurity and immorality, alongside a faint whiff of perversion. EU officials found this upsetting – and the constitution was a brief, disastrous effort to put things to rights.
This weekend marked the end of the EU’s experiment with transparency and popularity. Like Nabokov, the Union will once again inspire interest only among a small band of specialists, devotees and deviants.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Post and read comments at www.ft.com/rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Europe ditches clarity and embraces obfuscation
By Gideon Rachman
Published: June 25 2007 17:32 | Last updated: June 25 2007 17:32
At two o’clock on Saturday morning I got chatting to an official in the bar at European Union headquarters in Brussels. Several floors above us, the leaders of the 27 EU countries were still arguing about how to change the text of the Union’s ill-fated constitution. “If you want to understand what they are doing,” mused my friend, “you should look at Nabokov’s book Pale Fire”.
It struck me that I was unlikely to find a copy of the great Russian émigré’s 15th novel lying around at that late hour, so I settled for the next best thing – an internet search. A short critical essay that I came across immediately brought to mind some striking similarities between Pale Fire and the draft agenda for revising the constitution.
“Pale Fire”, I read, was a “prime example of the literature of the exhaustion”. That certainly seemed right – given that it was now four in the morning. Vladimir Nabokov’s novel was a “labyrinth of dazzling complexity”. This too rang a bell. But the real clincher was the fact that in Pale Fire, the footnotes are longer and more important than the text itself. The book starts with a poem, which is “gradually co-opted by the commentary”.
That is, more or less, what happened in Brussels over the weekend. EU leaders began their meeting with a constitutional text. Then, over many hours, they added endless footnotes, protocols and “clarifications”, which became more important than the original text itself.
The result is almost impossible to read or understand. And that is entirely intentional. Many things happened at the summit. But perhaps the most important was that the EU finally abandoned the idea that it wants ordinary Europeans to understand what it is doing.
The abandonment of “transparency” brings the EU full circle to where it began when the idea of writing a constitution was dreamt up six years ago. Back then it was conventional wisdom that one of the Union’s biggest problems was that European citizens found it so hard to understand. Why not simplify the complex mess of interlocking treaties and incomprehensible language into a single, readable document?
Big mistake. It turned out that once Europeans were told what the EU was really doing, they were often horrified. The new, admirably transparent constitution was rejected by large majorities in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
It was as if a manufacturer of tinned meat had suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to put a large notice on the front of the tin, stating: “This product contains reconstituted cows’ udders.” How surprising and hurtful that sales should fall as a result.
What the EU decided to do at the summit was to put all the stuff about the repulsive ingredients that make up the Union back into tiny print on the side of the tin – or, in this case, into footnotes to the constitution.
A commitment to “undistorted competition”, which sounded alarmingly liberal to the French, was cut out of the main text – but then restored in a protocol attached to the main document. The charter of fundamental rights – which upset the British – was similarly removed from the treaty and put into a protocol, and then further qualified by a massive footnote.
Perhaps the best illustration of the process is the question of the “primacy of EU law”. It has been the case for many years that European law overrides national law. Back when the constitution was being written, it was decided that it would be admirably transparent if the document included the first explicit statement of EU legal primacy.
The problem was that while lawyers and EU officials regard legal primacy as merely a statement of the obvious, many ordinary Europeans still find the idea that foreigners should be able to overrule their national parliaments unpleasant. One opinion poll in Britain found only 10 per cent support for the idea.
So European leaders have decided to work round this problem, by removing the statement of European legal primacy from the main constitutional text – and burying it in a footnote. Footnote one of the document agreed over the weekend reads: “Whilst the article on primacy of Union law will not be reproduced in the TEU, the IGC will agree on the following declaration: ‘The conference recalls that in accordance with the settled case law of the EU Court of Justice, the Treaties and law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the member states.’ ” Is that clear? I do hope not.
This is part of a pattern. European leaders have gone through the constitution painstakingly replacing anything that is too clear with something more obscure. The word “constitution” itself has been ditched in favour of “reform treaty”. The word “law” is being dropped in favour of “regulation, directive and decision”. The mooted EU foreign minister is now to be called a “high representative”.
It is not just clear language that has been abandoned. Any procedures or decisions that were easy to understand – and therefore potentially distressing to the public – have been deliberately complicated.
Take the voting system for deciding EU laws (or rather, directives and decisions). This was the point that almost caused the summit to collapse, because the redistribution of power from Poland to Germany was too clear. So the leaders have come up with a series of baffling obfuscations. The new voting system will not come into force until 2014 – and then will run alongside an alternative voting system for a further three years. At any point, the Poles will also be able to invoke the Ioannina compromise. (Don’t ask.)
In producing a document that is stuffed with nonsense like this, the EU is reverting to its true nature. Like most of the novels of Nabokov, EU treaties have never been widely read; but they have nonetheless attracted a reputation for obscurity and immorality, alongside a faint whiff of perversion. EU officials found this upsetting – and the constitution was a brief, disastrous effort to put things to rights.
This weekend marked the end of the EU’s experiment with transparency and popularity. Like Nabokov, the Union will once again inspire interest only among a small band of specialists, devotees and deviants.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Post and read comments at www.ft.com/rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Protocol on Services of General Interest
Presidency Conclusions, page 22
The High Contracting Parties,
Wishing to emphasise the importance of services of general interest
Have agreed upon the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union:
Article 1
The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 16 EC Treaty include in particular:
- the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organizing services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
- the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations;
- a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights;
Article 2
The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise noneconomic services of general interest.
The High Contracting Parties,
Wishing to emphasise the importance of services of general interest
Have agreed upon the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union:
Article 1
The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 16 EC Treaty include in particular:
- the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organizing services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
- the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations;
- a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights;
Article 2
The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise noneconomic services of general interest.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Most Awesome Economics Research Ever
"Attack Assignments in Terror Organizations and the Productivity of Suicide Bombers"
NBER Working Paper No. W12910
Contact: EFRAIM BENMELECH, Harvard University - Department of Economics, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Email: effi_benmelech@harvard.edu
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=439564
Co-Author: CLAUDE BERREBI, The RAND Corporation - Labor and Population Studies, Princeton University - Department of Economics, RAND Corporation
Email: berrebi@rand.org
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=362324
Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=963743
ABSTRACT: This paper studies the relation between human capitalof suicide bombers and outcomes of their suicide attacks. Weargue that human capital is an important factor in the productionof terrorism, and that if terrorists behave rationally we shouldobserve that more able suicide bombers are assigned to moreimportant targets. We use a unique data set detailing thebiographies of Palestinian suicide bombers, the targets theyattack, and the number of people that they kill and injure tovalidate the theoretical predictions and estimate the returns tohuman capital in suicide bombing. Our empirical analysis suggeststhat older and more educated suicide bombers are being assignedby their terror organization to more important targets. We findthat more educated and older suicide bombers are less likely tofail in their mission, and are more likely to cause increasedcasualties when they attack.
NBER Working Paper No. W12910
Contact: EFRAIM BENMELECH, Harvard University - Department of Economics, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Email: effi_benmelech@harvard.edu
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=439564
Co-Author: CLAUDE BERREBI, The RAND Corporation - Labor and Population Studies, Princeton University - Department of Economics, RAND Corporation
Email: berrebi@rand.org
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=362324
Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=963743
ABSTRACT: This paper studies the relation between human capitalof suicide bombers and outcomes of their suicide attacks. Weargue that human capital is an important factor in the productionof terrorism, and that if terrorists behave rationally we shouldobserve that more able suicide bombers are assigned to moreimportant targets. We use a unique data set detailing thebiographies of Palestinian suicide bombers, the targets theyattack, and the number of people that they kill and injure tovalidate the theoretical predictions and estimate the returns tohuman capital in suicide bombing. Our empirical analysis suggeststhat older and more educated suicide bombers are being assignedby their terror organization to more important targets. We findthat more educated and older suicide bombers are less likely tofail in their mission, and are more likely to cause increasedcasualties when they attack.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Coolest thing ever
L.S.,As it turns out, the US State department has a special site devoted to debunking anti-US Conspiracy theories. This has to be the coolest thing ever!!!
P.S. For everyone out there watching the new TV series Jericho, even a cursory application of the kind of thinking my dear colleague Marija Bockarjova will soon receive her Ph.D. for will easily show that things would be much worse still. (The show is about the aftermath of a gigantic nuclear attack on about a dozen US cities, leaving much of the country glowing in the dark.) Without capital goods, there's no way to pay for any imports, so no cars, generally nothing that runs on oil, no primary inputs except what you can dig out of the ground with your own hands, etc.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Rolling Stone's 25 best Rock Rumours Ever
Source
1. Paul McCartney is or has ever been dead.
2. Stevie Nicks’ assistant had to blow coke up Stevie’s ass due to Nicks’ destroyed nasal passages.
3. Mama Cass died after choking on a ham sandwich.
4. Angie Bowie caught her husband in bed with Mick Jagger.
5. Mark David Chapman was an assassin programmed by the CIA.
6. Members of Led Zeppelin pleased a teenage groupie using a red snapper/shark as their sex toy of choice.
7. Jim Morrison was killed by members of the Nixon administration/faked his own death/died from a heart attack brought on by masturbating in a Parisian bathtub.
8. Deborah Harry was once abducted by serial killer Ted Bundy.
9. Keith Moon drove a car into a Holiday Inn pool on his 21st birthday, knocked out a couple of teeth and got the Who banned for life from all Holiday Inns.
10. Gene Simmons had a cow tongue grafted onto his own tongue after a car accident.
11. Rod Stewart/Lil’ Kim/Jordan Knight had to get their respective stomachs pumped after ingesting a gallon of semen.
12. During a drug bust on Mick’s place Marianne Faithfull was once found with a Mars bar between her legs.
13. Marilyn Manson had his lowest set of ribs removed so he could blow himself.
14. Alice Cooper and Frank Zappa attempted to gross each other out by shitting onstage, then eating it.
15. Bob Marley was assassinated/given cancer in his toe by the CIA.
16. Phil Collins’ tune “In the Air Tonight” was written after Collins witnessed a gruesome incident in which one man let another man drown.
17. Keith Richards routinely has in the past/continues today to get full-body blood transfusions.
18. Jack and Meg White are brother and sister.
19. “Hotel California” is about a Christian church that was abandoned then taken over by Satan worshipers, the Eagles are Satan worshipers and Satan him (or her) self appears in the window on the album jacket.
20. Bob Ezrin, who produced Lou Reed’s Berlin, got the anguished children’s cries you hear on “The Kids” by telling his own children their mother was dead and recording the sounds they made.
21. Pearl Jam was named after a peyote-infused jam Eddie Vedder’s grandmother used to make.
22. Charles Manson auditioned for the Monkees.
23. Marilyn Manson played Kevin Arnold’s friend Paul Pfeiffer on the Wonder Years.
24. Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his guitar-playing gifts.
25. Roy Orbison was an albino and wore dark glasses because he was blind.
1. Paul McCartney is or has ever been dead.
2. Stevie Nicks’ assistant had to blow coke up Stevie’s ass due to Nicks’ destroyed nasal passages.
3. Mama Cass died after choking on a ham sandwich.
4. Angie Bowie caught her husband in bed with Mick Jagger.
5. Mark David Chapman was an assassin programmed by the CIA.
6. Members of Led Zeppelin pleased a teenage groupie using a red snapper/shark as their sex toy of choice.
7. Jim Morrison was killed by members of the Nixon administration/faked his own death/died from a heart attack brought on by masturbating in a Parisian bathtub.
8. Deborah Harry was once abducted by serial killer Ted Bundy.
9. Keith Moon drove a car into a Holiday Inn pool on his 21st birthday, knocked out a couple of teeth and got the Who banned for life from all Holiday Inns.
10. Gene Simmons had a cow tongue grafted onto his own tongue after a car accident.
11. Rod Stewart/Lil’ Kim/Jordan Knight had to get their respective stomachs pumped after ingesting a gallon of semen.
12. During a drug bust on Mick’s place Marianne Faithfull was once found with a Mars bar between her legs.
13. Marilyn Manson had his lowest set of ribs removed so he could blow himself.
14. Alice Cooper and Frank Zappa attempted to gross each other out by shitting onstage, then eating it.
15. Bob Marley was assassinated/given cancer in his toe by the CIA.
16. Phil Collins’ tune “In the Air Tonight” was written after Collins witnessed a gruesome incident in which one man let another man drown.
17. Keith Richards routinely has in the past/continues today to get full-body blood transfusions.
18. Jack and Meg White are brother and sister.
19. “Hotel California” is about a Christian church that was abandoned then taken over by Satan worshipers, the Eagles are Satan worshipers and Satan him (or her) self appears in the window on the album jacket.
20. Bob Ezrin, who produced Lou Reed’s Berlin, got the anguished children’s cries you hear on “The Kids” by telling his own children their mother was dead and recording the sounds they made.
21. Pearl Jam was named after a peyote-infused jam Eddie Vedder’s grandmother used to make.
22. Charles Manson auditioned for the Monkees.
23. Marilyn Manson played Kevin Arnold’s friend Paul Pfeiffer on the Wonder Years.
24. Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his guitar-playing gifts.
25. Roy Orbison was an albino and wore dark glasses because he was blind.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Me Skiing
The first three pictures were taken on the Glacier on the Zugspitze, this one was down in Ehrwald. (Taking it easy with the snow board...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)