The
Junk Science of George W. Bush (by By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr)
Canadians in opposition to Paul Martin's 2005 Bill
C-27, a bill which integrates our food and agriculture regulations
into those of the USA's, distributed this detailed article as a
forshadowing of what to expect in Canada as we adopt American ways.
For a submission on how Canadian Food Inspection Agency is being
retooled, privatised and Americanised, please see "Deep
Integration via back door of Agriculture through bill C-27 ".
Eduard
***********
http://www.alternet.org/story/17949
February 26, 2004
The Nation
The Junk Science of George W. Bush
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
As Jesuit schoolboys studying world history we learned that
Copernicus and Galileo self-censored for many decades their proofs
that the earth revolved around the sun and that a less restrained
heliocentrist, Giordano Bruno, was burned alive in 1600 for the
crime of sound science. With the encouragement of our professor,
Father Joyce, we marveled at the capacity of human leaders to
corrupt noble institutions. Lust for power had caused the Catholic
hierarchy to subvert the church's most central purpose -- the search
for existential truths.
Today, flat-earthers within the Bush
Administration -- aided by right-wing allies who have produced
assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their
goals -- are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that is
arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition.
Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up
their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring,
and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the
profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges
the ideological underpinnings of their radical
anti-environmental agenda. Indeed, so extreme is this campaign that
more than sixty scientists, including Nobel laureates and medical
experts, released a statement on February 18 that accuses the Bush
Administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact "for
partisan political ends."
I've had my own experiences with Torquemada's
modern successors, both personal and related to my work as an
environmental lawyer and advocate working for the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Waterkeeper Alliance.
At the time of the World Trade Center catastrophe on September 11,
2001, I had just opened an office at 115 Broadway, cater-corner from
the World Trade Center and within the official security zone to
which access was, afterward, restricted for several months. Upon
returning to the office in October my partner, Kevin Madonna,
suffered a burning throat, nausea and a headache that was still
pounding twenty-four hours after he left the building. Despite the
Environmental Protection Agency's claims that air quality was safe,
Kevin refused to return and we closed the office. Many workers did
not have that option; their employers relied on the EPA's nine press
releases between September and December of 2001 reassuring the
public about the wholesome air quality downtown. We have since
learned that the government was lying to us. An Inspector General's
report released last August revealed that the EPA's data did not
support those assurances and that its press releases were being
drafted or doctored by White House officials intent on reopening
Wall Street.
On September 13, just two days after the terror
attack, the EPA announced that asbestos dust in the area was
"very low" or entirely absent. On September 18 the agency
said the air was "safe to breathe." In fact, more than 25
percent of the samples collected by the EPA before September 18
showed presence of asbestos above the 1 percent safety benchmark.
Among outside studies, one performed by scientists at the University
of California, Davis, found particulates at levels never before seen
in more than 7,000 similar tests worldwide. A study being performed
by Mt. Sinai School of Medicine has found that 78 percent of rescue
workers suffered lung ailments and 88 percent had ear, nose and
throat problems in the months following the attack and that about
half still had persistent lung and respiratory illnesses nine months
to a year later.
Dan Tishman, whose company was involved in the
reconstruction at 140 West Street, required his crews to wear
respirators but recalls seeing many rescue and construction workers
laboring unprotected -- no doubt relying on the government's
assurances. "The frustrating thing is that everyone just counts
on the EPA to be the watchdog of public health," he says.
"When that role is compromised, people can get hurt."
I also recall the case of Dr. James Zahn, a
nationally respected microbiologist with the Agriculture
Department's research service, who accepted my invitation to speak
to an April 2002 conference of more than 1,000 family farm advocates
and environmental and civic leaders in Clear Lake, Iowa. In a
rigorous taxpayer-funded study, Zahn had identified bacteria that
can make people sick -- and that are resistant to antibiotics -- in
the air surrounding industrial-style hog farms. His studies proved
that billions of these "superbugs" were traveling across
property lines daily, endangering the health of neighbors and their
herds. I was shocked when Zahn canceled his appearance on the day of
the conference under orders from the Agriculture Department in
Washington. I later uncovered a fax trail proving the order was
prompted by lobbyists from the National Pork Producers Council. Zahn
told me that his supervisor at the USDA, under pressure from the hog
industry, had ordered him not to publish his study and that he had
been forced to cancel more than a dozen public appearances at local
planning boards and county health commissions seeking information
about health impacts of industry mega-farms. Soon after my
conference, Zahn resigned from the government in disgust.
Ignoring Bad News
The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science
has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like.
Probably the best-known case is global warming. Over the past two
years the Administration has done this to a dozen major government
studies on global warming, as well as to a report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its own efforts to
stall action to control industrial emissions. The list also includes
major long-term studies by the federal government's National
Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, and by scientific
teams at the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and NASA, and a 2002 collaborative report by
scientists at all three of those agencies.
The Administration has taken special pains to
shield Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, which
is part of an industry that has contributed $58 million to
Republicans since 2000. Halliburton is the leading practitioner of a
process used in extracting oil and gas known as hydraulic
fracturing, in which benzene is injected into underground
formations. EPA scientists studying the process in 2002 found that
it could contaminate ground-water supplies in excess of federal
drinking water standards.
A week after reporting their findings to
Congressional staff members, however, they revised the data to
indicate that benzene levels would not exceed government standards.
In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, EPA officials said the
change was made based on "industry feedback."
As a favor to utility and coal industries,
America's largest mercury dischargers, the EPA sat for nine months
on a report exposing the catastrophic impact on children's health of
mercury, finally releasing it in February 2003. Among the findings
of the report: The bloodstream of one in twelve US women is
saturated with enough mercury to cause neurological damage,
permanent IQ loss and a grim inventory of other diseases in their
unborn children.
The list goes on. In October 2001 Interior
Secretary Gale Norton, responding to a Senate committee inquiry on
the effects of oil drilling on caribou in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, falsely claimed that the caribou would not be
affected, because they calve outside the area targeted for drilling.
She later explained that she somehow substituted "outside"
for "inside." She also substituted findings from a study
financed by an oil company for some of the ones that the Fish and
Wildlife Service had prepared for her. In another case, according to
the Wall Street Journal, Norton and White House political adviser
Karl Rove pressed for changes that would allow diversion of
substantial amounts of water from the Klamath River to benefit local
supporters and agribusiness contributors. Some 34,000 endangered
salmon were killed after National Marine Fisheries scientists
altered their findings on the amount of water the salmon required.
Environmentalists describe it as the largest fish kill in the
history of the West. Mike Kelly, the fisheries biologist on the
Klamath who drafted the biological opinion, told me that under the
current plan coho salmon are probably headed for extinction.
According to Kelly, "The morale is very low
among scientists here. We are under pressure to get the right
results. This Administration is putting the species at risk for
political gain. And not just in the Klamath."
Roger Kennedy, former director of the National
Park Service, told me that the alteration and deletion of scientific
information is now standard procedure at Interior. "It's hard
to decide what is more demoralizing about the Administration's
politicization of the scientific process," he said, "its
disdain for professional scientists working for our government or
its willingness to deceive the American public."
Getting the Right Answer
But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the
Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange
to get the results it wants. A case in point is the decision in July
by the EPA's regional office overseeing the western Everglades to
accept a study financed predominantly by developers, which concludes
that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb. There was
no peer review or public comment. With its approval, the EPA is
giving developers credit for improving water quality by replacing
natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments.
The study was financed by the Water Enhancement
and Restoration Committee, which was formed primarily by local
developers and chaired by Rick Barber, the consultant for a golf
course development for which the EPA had denied a permit because it
would pollute surrounding waters and destroy wetlands. The study
contradicts everything known about wetlands functioning, including a
determination by more than twenty-five scientists and managers at
the Tampa Bay Estuary Program that, on balance, wetlands do not
generate nitrogen pollution. Bruce Boler, a biologist and
water-quality specialist working for the EPA office, resigned in
protest. Boler says the developers massaged the data to support
their theory by evaluating samples collected near roads and bridges,
where developments discharge pollutants. "It was like the
politics trumped the science," he told us.
In a similar case, last November the EPA cut a
private deal with a pesticide manufacturer to take over federal
studies of a pesticide it manufactures. Atrazine is the most heavily
utilized weedkiller in America. First approved in 1958, by the 1980s
it had been identified as a potential carcinogen associated with
high incidences of prostate cancer among workers at manufacturing
facilities. Testing by the US Geological Survey regularly finds
alarming concentrations of Atrazine in drinking water across the
corn belt. Even worse, last year scientists at the University of
California, Berkeley, found that Atrazine at one-thirtieth the
government's "safe" 3 parts per billion level causes
grotesque deformities in frogs, including multiple sets of organs.
And this year epidemiologists from the University of Missouri found
reproductive consequences in humans associated with Atrazine,
including male semen counts in farm communities that are 50 percent
below normal. Iowa scientists are finding similar results in a
current study.
The Bush Administration reacted to the frightening
findings not by banning this dangerous chemical, as the European
Union has, but by taking the studies away from EPA scientists and,
in an unprecedented move, giving the chemical's manufacturer,
Switzerland-based Syngenta, control over federal research. In an
interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sherry Ford, a spokesperson
for Syngenta, praised without irony the advantages of having the
company monitor its own product.
"This is one way we can ensure it's not
presenting any risk to the environment."
In a dramatic expansion of this disturbing
strategy, the Bush Administration now plans to systematically turn
government science over to private industry by contracting out
thousands of science jobs to compliant consultants already in the
habit of massaging data to support corporate profits. The National
Park Service is preparing a first phase of contracting reviews,
involving about 1,800 positions, including biologists, archeologists
and environmental specialists. Later phases may entail
replacement of 11,000 employees, more than two-thirds of the
service's permanent work force.
At least federal employees enjoy civil service and
whistleblower protection intended to allow them to operate
professionally and independently. Private contractors don't enjoy
the same level of protection. "You can shop for the right
contractor to give you the kind of result you want," says Frank
Buono, a retired Park Service veteran who now serves on the board of
a nonprofit whistleblower protection organization.
As a Last Resort, Fire the Messenger
Most federal employees have gone along with the
Bush Administration's wishes, but a few have tried to stand up for
sound science. The results are predictable. When a team of
government biologists indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers was
violating the Endangered Species Act in managing the flow of the
Missouri River, the group was quickly replaced by an
industry-friendly panel. (In an unexpected --and fortunate --
development, the new panel ultimately declined to adopt the White
House's pro-barge-industry position and upheld the decision to
manage the river to protect imperiled species.) Similarly, last
April the EPA suddenly dismantled an advisory panel that had spent
nearly twenty-one months developing rules for stringent regulation
of industrial emissions of mercury.
Or consider the case of Tony Oppegard and Jack Spadaro, members of a team of federal geodesic engineers selected to
investigate the collapse of barriers that held back a coal slurry
pond in Kentucky containing toxic wastes from mountaintop
strip-mining. The 300-million-gallon spill was the largest in
American history and, according to the EPA, the greatest
environmental catastrophe in the history of the Eastern United
States. Black lava-like toxic sludge containing sixty poisonous
chemicals choked and sterilized up to 100 miles of rivers and creeks
and poisoned the drinking water in seventeen communities. Unlike in
other slurry disasters, no one died, but hundreds of residents were
sickened by contact with contaminated water.
The investigation had broad implications for the
viability of mountaintop mining, which involves literally lopping
off mountaintops to get access to the underlying coal. It is a
process beloved by coal barons because it practically dispenses with
the need for human labor and thus increases industry profits.
Spadaro, the nation's leading expert on slurry spills, recalls,
"We were geotechnical engineers determined to find the truth.
We simply wanted to get to the heart of the matter -- find out what
happened and why, and to prevent it from happening again. But all
that was thwarted at the top of the agency by Bush appointees who
obstructed professionals trying to do their jobs."
The Bush Administration appointees all had coal industry pedigrees.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao (the wife of Kentucky Senator Mitch
McConnell, the Senate's biggest recipient of industry largesse)
appointed Dave Lauriski, a former executive with Energy West Mining,
as the new director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
which oversaw the investigation. His deputy assistant secretary was
John Caylor, an Anamax Mining alumnus. His other deputy assistant,
John Correll, had worked for both Amax and Peabody Coal.
Oppegard, the leader of the federal team, was
fired on the day Bush was inaugurated in 2001. All eight members of
the team except Spadaro signed off on a whitewashed investigation
report. Spadaro, like the others, was harassed but flat-out refused
to sign. In April of 2001 Spadaro resigned from the team and filed a
complaint with the Inspector General of the Labor Department. Last
June 4 he was placed on administrative leave--a prelude to getting
fired.
Bush Administration officials accuse Spadaro of
"abusing his authority" for allowing a handicapped
instructor to have free room and board at a training academy he
oversees, an arrangement approved by his superiors. An internal
report vindicated Spadaro's criticisms of the investigation, but the
Administration is still going after his job. "I've been
regulating mining since 1966," Spadaro told me. "This is
the most lawless administration I've encountered. They have no
regard for protecting miners or the people in mining communities.
They are without scruples."
Science, like theology, reveals transcendent
truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral
individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two
decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions
of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco,
pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming.
In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action
(by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore
any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the
integrity of the scientific process.
Now Congress and this White House have used
federal power for the same purpose. Led by the President, the
Republicans have gutted scientific research budgets and politicized
science within the federal agencies. The very leaders who so often
condemn the trend toward moral relativism are fostering and
encouraging the trend toward scientific relativism. The very
ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have now
institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of
America's federal agencies.
The Bush Administration has so violated and
corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged
with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to
recover their integrity even if Bush is defeated this fall. Says
Princeton University scientist Michael Oppenheimer, "If you
believe in a rational universe, in enlightenment, in knowledge
and in a search for the truth, this White House is an absolute
disaster."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., senior attorney for the
Natural Resources Defense Council and president of the Waterkeeper
Alliance, is working on a book about President Bush's environmental
policies, Crimes Against Nature, to be published this spring by
HarperCollins.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this
story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/17949
Back to top |
Puny
Cuba & Venezuela stand up to Bush
March 22, 2005 -
Fateful Quadrangle
CUBA AND VENEZUELA FACE U.S. AND COLOMBIA
By JAMES PETRAS
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras03222005.html
Cuba's living example of 45 years of successful resistance to US
military aggression and economic boycott is extremely damaging to
Washington's goal of world empire for several reasons. In the first
place Cuba's success refutes the notion put forth by the
"center-left" that "small",
"undeveloped" countries cannot resist imperial powers, or
sustain a revolution in the face of "globalization".
Secondly the survival of the Cuban revolution refutes the idea that
Caribbean or Latin American countries located proximate to the US
must conform to the dictates of Washington. Thirdly, Cuba
demonstrates that the US empire is not invincible -- Cuba has
defeated almost all major aggressive military, political and
diplomatic attacks.
Diplomatically, Cuba is recognized by almost all countries in the
world, and receives the support of over 150 countries (versus 3 for
the US) in opposition to the US embargo in the United Nations.
Economically, Cuba has trade and investment relations with all major
European, Asian, African, Latin American and North American nations
(except the US). Militarily, the Cuban armed forces and intelligence
agencies have defeated every US-sponsored terrorist attack on the
islands for the past half-century in addition to raising the
political cost for any potential invasion. In response to a half
century of failures, the Bush Administration has escalated its
aggression: practically eliminating all US travel to Cuba, blocking
almost all family remittances, and tightening trade restrictions on
food and medicine. While these harsh measures have had some negative
effects on Cuba, they have also provoked opposition among some
conservative sectors of the US public. Many Cuban exiles who would
normally support Bush have been antagonized because they cannot
provide economic assistance to aging family members. Agricultural
interests (from 38 states) which supported Bush are furious at the
new restriction on trade. Liberal and conservative enemies of the
Cuban revolution who hoped to subvert the revolution via cultural
and ideological penetration are upset by the travel and cultural
restrictions.
In other words the harsher and more extreme the measures adopted by
the Bush Administration against Cuba the greater Washington's
isolation. This is true externally as well as internally. Let us
examine several illustrations.
The US exploited the jailing of over 70 US paid propagandists,
labeling them "political dissidents", initially securing
the support of the European Union. A year later, the EU has broken
with Washington and renewed and expanded its cultural and economic
ties with Cuba.
While the US tightens its trade embargo, Cuban trade and investment
ties with China and the rest of Asia, Venezuela and the rest of
Latin America, Canada and Europe have expanded and deepened. The US
restrictions on family remittances has been weakened by family
members sending money via "third countries such as Mexico,
Canada, Dominican Republic etc. Canadian, European, Latin American
and Asian visitors have topped 2 million annually and new influxes
of investment have made up for most of the shortfall from the
restrictions on remittances.
Finally Washington's attempts to limit Cuba's access to energy
sources after the fall of the USSR have been defeated by the
far-reaching trade and investment agreements with the Venezuelan
government of President Chavez. The Chavez regime provides Cuba with
petrol at subsidized prices in exchange for Cuba providing a vast
health and education program for the poor of Venezuela. The
Cuban-Venezuelan political and economic ties have undercut US
efforts to force the Caribbean and Latin American countries to break
with Cuba. As a result of past and present failed policies of
directly attacking Cuba, the Bush administration has turned toward
destroying Cuba's strategic alliance with the Chavez regime.
The Two Stage Strategy
US strategy toward destroying the Cuban revolution is increasingly
following a "two step" approach: first overthrow the
Chavez government in Venezuela, cut off the energy supply and trade
links and then proceed toward economic strangulation and military
attack. The "two step" strategy against Cuba, involves the
elaboration of a calibrated action plan to overthrow the Chavez
government.
Washington's anti-Chavez efforts up till 2005 have resulted in
severe defeats. These efforts have largely been based on an
"insider" approach, utilizing the local ruling class,
sectors of the army and the corrupt trade union bureaucracy. Not
only have Washington's domestic instruments been defeated but they
have been severely weakened for future use. Washington's support for
the failed military coup resulted in the loss of several hundred
counter-revolutionary officers who were forced to resign. Bush's
support for the petroleum elite's lockout led to the expulsion of
thousands of oil officials allied with Washington. The defeat of the
referendum to expel Chavez, mobilized, politicized and radicalized
millions of poor Venezuelans and demoralized Washington's middle
class supporters. The result of these failed policies has been to
turn Washington's attention to an "outsider" strategy: the
key to which is incremental military intervention in association
with the terrorist Uribe regime in Colombia.
The US strategy against Cuba involves a joint US-Colombian attack of
Venezuela backed by internal terrorists and the ruling class. This
indirect attack on Cuba, involves complex, external preparation in
cooperation with Colombia. First of all Washington and Uribe have
greatly strengthened military bases surrounding the Venezuelan
border. Secondly "trial military incursions" involving
both Colombian military and paramilitary forces occur on a regular
basis -- testing Venezuelan defenses. In 2004 six Venezuelan
soldiers were killed, a number of Venezuelan officials were bribed
to kidnap a Colombian resistance leader and numerous cross border
attacks killing and kidnapping Colombian refugees took place in
Venezuela.
Thirdly the US has provided nearly $3 billion
dollars in military aid to Colombia, tripled the size of its armed
forces (to over 275,000), greatly increased its air force combat
units (helicopters, fighter bombers), provided advanced military
technology and several thousand official and "contracted"
military specialists. Fourthly Washington has recruited the
Gutierrez regime in Ecuador, invaded Haiti, established military
bases in Peru and the Dominican Republic, and has engaged in navy
maneuvers just off the Venezuelan coast in preparation for a
military attack. Fifthly Colombia (under US tutelage) signed a joint
military-intelligence cooperation agreement on December 18, 2004
with the Venezuelan Ministry of Defense, providing the US with
"inside information" and serving as a possible source of
infiltration of the Venezuelan Armed Forces to counter pro-Cuban
officers.
The Triangular Strategy
The US is relying on a "triangular strategy" to overthrow
the Chavez regime: A military invasion from Colombia, US
intervention (air and sea attacks plus special forces to assassinate
key officials) and an internal uprising by infiltrated terrorists
and military traitors, supported by key media, financial and petrol
elites. The strategy involves seizing state power, expelling the
Cuban aid missions and breaking all agreements with Cuba.
Prior to this concerted military strategy, Washington has designed a
propaganda campaign against the Cuban-Venezuelan alliance,
Venezuela's attempts to rectify the enormous military deficit with
Colombia by purchasing defensive arms, and raising the specter of
Venezuela's "subversion" of Latin American regimes. The
key to US policy is to prevent Venezuela from joining Cuba as an
alternative social welfare regime to the US neo-liberal clients in
Latin America. US aggression escalates as the agrarian reform
expands, Venezuela prepares self-defense and Chavez diversifies
trade and investment ties. Cuba's powerful support for Venezuela's
social welfare programs has consolidated mass support for the Chavez
regime and is a main base of defense for the radicalization of the
process.
As Venezuela confronts Washington's threats, it consolidates its
ties with Cuba. The fate of the two projects become intertwined and
bound together in a single common anti-imperialist alliance, despite
the differences in social systems and political composition.
Strengths of the Venezuelan-Cuban Alliance
The US "external" strategy toward Venezuela and its
"two step" approach toward Cuba face powerful limitations.
First of all the Colombian regime faces a powerful internal
opposition: 20,000 veteran guerrilla fighters and millions of
Colombians sympathetic to the agrarian reform program, independent
foreign policy and political freedoms of the Chavez regime. It is
very dangerous for Uribe to start a "two-front war" which
might open the way to attacks on the principle cities including
Bogota.
The US is heavily tied down militarily in Iraq and puts a higher
priority on war against Iran/Syria than Venezuela. The US
intervention would be limited to air and sea attacks and Special
Forces.
The war would mobilize millions of Venezuelans in a war of national
liberation, defending their own land -- homes, neighborhoods,
families and friends. Moreover popular liberation wars radicalize
the population and frequently lead to the confiscation of
counter-revolutionary property. A failed invasion could push
Venezuela toward greater socialization of the economy and eliminate
the domestic elite.
Moreover, US economy and multi-nationals stand to lose a reliable
supply of petroleum in a tight market and billions of dollars in
investments -- weakening the US position in the global energy
market.
An invasion would likely to lead to a joint military defense pact
between Venezuela and Cuba, which would counter-US policy in the
Caribbean. Such an invasion would also be likely to provoke major
unrest and instability throughout Latin America, threaten US clients
and undermining neo-liberal regimes and policies.
For all these reasons, Washington's attempts to pursue the external,
two step policy toward Venezuela and Cuba, while extremely dangerous
to both countries, could have a boomerang effect, setting in its
wake a new wave of anti-imperialist struggles throughout the region.
Up to now the escalation of US diplomatic and economic aggression
against Cuba has led to the greater isolation of the US in Europe
and throughout the Third World. An escalation of military aggression
against Venezuela as part of a "two-step strategy" against
Cuba could have even more severe consequences -- the expansion of
the revolutionary struggle in Colombia and the rest of Latin
America.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton
University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class
struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and
Argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed).
Copyright ) 2005. All rights reserved. CounterPunch is a project of
the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity.
-------------
Robert S. Rodvik
Author/media analyst
"Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure
was forgotten, the lie became the truth." -- George Orwell -
1984
Back to top |