?

Log in

No account? Create an account
David Hines [userpic]

AVATAR: a memo (mild spoilers)

December 18th, 2009 (01:35 pm)
Tags:

MEMO


FROM: David Hines
TO: the interstellar corporation from AVATAR
RE: your stupidity

Hey, guys --

Lemme see if I've got this straight.

You're on Pandora to collect a mineral called unobtanium. There is a huge concentration of unobtanium underneath the nearby native village. You want the unobtanium, the natives don't want to move, and so you take direct action, which, as always and everywhere, means "killing people and taking their stuff." Am I right about this? OK, good.

The movie I saw about you doesn't actually tell us what unobtanium is good for, but it does show us a sample of unobtanium on a character's desk, and based on that scene I think I can make a pretty good guess. The unobtanium is levitating a few inches above some kind of self-contained powered base. When taken away from this base, it doesn't levitate on its own. Obvious inference: that device on the desk creates an electromagnetic field, and unobtanium is a room-temperature superconductor.

Here's the thing: unless you're more interested in being evil, rather than ruthless, you're not necessarily in the business of oppressing natives. You're in the business of getting unobtanium. Right?

Well, I am totally not a geologist or a physicist or anything like that, but we are told several times in the movie that there are strong fields of whooziwhatsis on Pandora that screw up your instrument readings and various aspects of your technology, and we see that these fields are strongest in the Hallelujah Mountains, which are great big levitating rocks.

...yes. That's right; you are on this planet to collect an extremely valuable element that levitates when exposed to a presumably magnetic field, and your planet has great big levitating rocks in an area characterized by strong presumably magnetic fields.

Might I suggest that if you're having so many problems with the natives, you might want to ignore their goddamn village and check out THE GIANT FUCKING FLOATING MOUNTAINS, because you can bet your ass they are chock full of unobtanium.

If you aren't mining the Hallelujah Mountains, you are stupid.

This is not your fault, I know. You have to be stupid. Because if you're not stupid, there's no way you're wasting time with the blue kittycat people when you could literally be plucking unobtanium from the sky. But you're in a lefty self-hate movie, so it's not enough for you to be ruthless and amoral; you have to be out and out evil, to the point of killing people when it makes no business sense to do so. I get that. I do. I'm sick of it, sure -- just once, man, I would love to see a movie where a guy embeds in another culture and, while he comes away respecting them, still feels more comfortable and happier in his own -- but hey, that's the genre.

If it's any consolation, you guys aren't alone. When the hero -- who's never seen or heard of the Hallelujah Mountains -- finally sees them, he doesn't do what any other human being would do and ask, "So, how come those fucking mountains are floating, then?"

Anyway, best of luck with your endeavors, but I'm telling you, forget the Smurfs. Check out the floating rocks. I don't know how you guys wound up being there however long and never thought about them.

I don't know how James Cameron had them on the screen for a good chunk of a three-hour movie and expected *me* not to think about them, either.

Best,

David Hines

Comments

Posted by: Vvalkyri (vvalkyri)
Posted at: December 18th, 2009 07:17 pm (UTC)

Oy.

Posted by: rodlox (rodlox)
Posted at: December 18th, 2009 09:01 pm (UTC)
going to hug

its possible that the mountains use a form of unobtanium that is useless for industrial use.
(sort of like how pencil lead can't be used to tip drills, or how zebras can't be domesticated)

I suspect my beef will be with how the Na'vi are the only tetrapods on a planet full of hexapods.

Posted by: silk_noir (silk_noir)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 04:37 pm (UTC)
Future

This.

I am a bad lefty because I am more interested in the flora and fauna and how they work and don't work than I am in the race/colonial issues.

Posted by: rodlox (rodlox)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 09:51 pm (UTC)
Parker

look hard enough, and anything can be seen as a race/colonial issue. Look at the 'Terminator' movies - the established order is overturned by those murderous bastards who're supposed to obey us. (actually that describes a lot of movies)

I hate racefail aplenty, mind.

Posted by: holyschist (holyschist)
Posted at: December 23rd, 2009 01:55 am (UTC)

I am also a bad lefty, then. The plot was a bog-standard Mighty Whitey and I thought it was crap, insulting, and boring, but the worldbuilding fail is a WHOLE NEW THING to deconstruct. Cameron apparently didn't think of hiring a biologist, or even a fan with logical capabilities.

Posted by: •• the years oƒ living ∂angerously happy •• (nightengale)
Posted at: December 18th, 2009 11:10 pm (UTC)
Oi oi oi.

I need to show this to my friend who's batshit about the movie and says it's her new favorite movie EVER. I mean, she began explaining it to me (cause I never manage to actually pay attention to advertisements, movie or otherwise, so I really did need the tutorial) like so:

"So, the military goes to this other planet, and they find something important where all the alien people live, but the alien people don't want to move so they have to figure out how to get rid of them."

And she lost me right about at "military," but then again at "don't want to move," because really, there NEVER is another result to "don't want to move" in Hollywood, unless of course the ones who don't want to move are the white/male/American ones. >_>

/tangent

Anyway, I want to hang a big neon arrow pointing at the mountains and just leave it at that.

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 18th, 2009 11:16 pm (UTC)
Puzzled

I've been waiting to reach your post on my flist to ask, but what does "lefty self-hate" mean in this context?

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 01:48 am (UTC)
oh john ringo no

"The deep-seated conviction that concerns, views, needs, and actions of non-Western civilizations and cultures are valid and have moral weight, while the concerns, views, needs, and actions of Western civilization and culture are suspect at best and reprehensible at worst." (Not that there needs to be a non-Western component to the story; there are plenty of lefty self-hate stories that focus on the lousiness of Western institutions in general.)

I'm certainly not opposed to regarding ourselves critically, but I think self-hate can also have a toxic effect on the body politic and the culture, and the tendency of filmmakers, in particular, to indulge in it is really discomfiting. (Peter Berg, for example, who directed THE KINGDOM, took careful steps to sucker-punch the audience with an attempt at moral equivalency; he was reportedly stunned and appalled when audience members at a preview *applauded* the killing of the movie's terrorists, because he'd wanted to make a "cycle of violence" commentary.)

The other problem with AVATAR is not just that it is a lefty self-hate movie -- Stephen King's "The Mist," which I mentioned in the John Ringo review, is a lefty self-hate story at its core, but it's one of the great modern horror stories. AVATAR, by contrast, is so strident a lefty self-hate story that it keeps indulging in lefty self-hate stuff *even when that runs counter to the universe it sets up.*

My favorite example of this is one scene where Col. Quaritch, the military heavy, is laying out the strategy for fighting the hero and his Na'vi army. Quaritch bellows that he will "fight terror with terror." My reaction: er, *what* terror?! The natives have big arrows which are remarkably ineffective against bigger machines. Are they launching raids? Are they killing people? Are there cultural differences that escalate to brutality? No, of course not, because in Cameron's movie the Na'vi are wholly innocent souls who frolic in the forest reading trails and shit; they don't do shit to anybody, they get shit done to them, because Cameron is so dedicated to them being noble savages and perfect victims. But he's so devoted to putting lefty self-hate stuff in there he has Quaritch use "anti-terror" rhetoric anyway, because Cameron wants to Make a Special Comment about fighting terrorism, even though it bears no relation whatsoever to what he's shown us.

I think lefty reaction to this movie will be really interesting: I can see a lot of folks on my flist going nuts for the storyline, but feeling skeevy over, say, the diversity issues.

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 03:29 am (UTC)

Thanks for that. I plan to respond but it's not going to be right away. I have to prep my book to send to my agent. Tomorrow, I expect.

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 03:44 am (UTC)
donuts?

No worries, dude; there is *plenty* of time to tell me why I am Wrong On The Internet. :)

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 20th, 2009 07:04 am (UTC)
Restaurant

Let me start by saying I have zero interest in defending James Cameron. jamesenge called this movie "Dances with Thundercats", and that sounds like the perfect dismissive comment.

But! "Self-hate"? I think that's way wrong, both on the psychology of it and on the "toxic" effects.

See, the state is not the self. I do not feel self-hate when I hate villains from my own government or military. "Oh, no! A secret agency within the CIA is bumping off smoking hot nuclear physicists! What the hell was I thinking!?"

They may represent me to the world when they act outside our borders, but they aren't me, and I'm startled by the suggestion that they are. I do love my country, but that doesn't make us one unit.

I mean, I realize people do this--in Game of Cages, one of the characters shouts "He shot me!" when a guy shoots her car, because she lives in that car and she loves it. It's a thing people say, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Is this why John Kerry had veterans saying he'd slandered them personally because he described what he'd seen in Vietnam? Because they couldn't tell the difference between accusing other people of wrong-doing and accusing them?

For what it's worth, when I see movie villains in my own government--or even in fakey ess-effed-up versions of my government, I don't identify with them. Those people are others, just by their moral code. They may be close, culturally or whatever, but they aren't me.

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 20th, 2009 04:38 pm (UTC)
commies

Wow.

Seriously, wow. I think we've just identified a classic cultural gulf, and I don't know if I can adequately convey how deeply disturbing this viewpoint is for me. What you describe isn't self-hate so much as it is focused indifference, but the effect, IMHO, is pretty much the same. The present-day Western left admires, respects, and even insists upon other peoples' right to identify with their polity at the same time as they reject that prospect for themselves and mock or denigrate the people in their own societies who do that very thing.

I think this is a Very Bad Thing. Polities require a certain amount of identification by their citizens. I do not mean this only as a moral issue ("your country gives you so much! give something back!") but as a pure, cold-blooded, rational calculation. Polities lacking citizens who identify with them, who support them, who defend their institutions, are going to be weak polities and will have their ability to respond to a variety of problems seriously weakened.

(This is also a deeply boneheaded *political* move for the left, IMHO, because the more they succeed in moving the view of a country it creates a hell of an opening for said country's seriously nationalist fanatics to exploit. The legitimate political parties may decide that there are things they won't talk about or that are beyond debate, which means that the fanatics wind up becoming the only game in town. This can get very bad.)

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 20th, 2009 08:01 pm (UTC)
Boat Street

I figured we'd have to back-and-forth a couple times to clarify things.

What you describe isn't self-hate so much as it is focused indifference...

Oh, absolutely not. No one who saw the protests against the Iraq war should call the left "indifferent." We care, but we don't confuse culture with self, or the state with the individual.

The present-day Western left admires, respects, and even insists upon other peoples' right to identify with their polity at the same time as they reject that prospect for themselves and mock or denigrate the people in their own societies who do that very thing.

Actually, I would like to see polities across the globe represent their peoples, but I'm not sure why they have to identify with them.

I voted for Obama and I voted against Bush. That doesn't mean the successes or failures of either of those men are mine. I may be proud or ashamed of them, but only because they represent me globally. Not because they're me.

When U.S. soldiers in Iraq decide to break into a home and kill a family because they want to rape an Iraqi girl, my reaction is anything but indifference.

Polities lacking citizens who identify with them, who support them, who defend their institutions, are going to be weak polities and will have their ability to respond to a variety of problems seriously weakened.

Actually, I'm perfectly happy to defend our institutions. I just don't consider criticism of those institutions a personal affront. Hell, I'll defend my son to my last breath, but that doesn't mean he *is* me.

An important thing to remember is that these institutions are systems we created to serve the needs of our people and to defend our ideals. They're staffed with fallible humans, and sometimes the structures of these systems weaken them (hello, U.S. Senate). As a progressive, I believe in fixing things. And you can't fix them until you identify the problems.

That's why I vote and that's why I write letters to my reps; I'm constantly trying to improve this country. I don't have to *be* the great machine, I'm just squirting oil into the gears and winding up this here crank when it's needed.

And that makes for a much stronger country than the people who take criticism of the state as a personal insult. "My Country, Right or Wrong," is the truly toxic attitude, because it suggests the choice is between accepting or rejecting your nation, when the real choice is between improving it and letting the flaws get worse.

Look at it another way: You go to a restaurant with some friends and friends of friends, and someone you just met freaks out at the waiter because her water had tiny ice chips in it and there's no straw. You might be embarrassed to be associated with that person, and you might leave a bigger tip that usual by way of improving the waiter's day, but you wouldn't go home, look in the mirror and ask "What have I become?"

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 20th, 2009 09:20 pm (UTC)
commies

I don't think that back-and-forth will get us much of anywhere, though, because it seems to me that what we have here is an absolutely fundamental philosophical disagreement. The best we can hope for is to understand each other, which I think we probably do at this point.

When U.S. soldiers in Iraq decide to break into a home and kill a family because they want to rape an Iraqi girl, my reaction is anything but indifference.

As it should be. It's also worthy of outrage when Sadr's militia uses rape to keep local women in line, and tortures people with power drills, but when that happens the left doesn't give it much notice, somehow. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with our left; it's one thing to acknowledge one's own flaws and evils and another thing to hammer on them to the point of ignoring or excusing evils elsewhere. Or deciding that those evils are really our fault, when you get right down to it.

you wouldn't go home, look in the mirror and ask "What have I become?"

The irony in this view, for me, is that "what have we become?" is the *constant* refrain of the modern American left. Sackcloth and ashes are de rigeur. Admittedly, I don't know many hard-core social conservatives, but over the years I have known a couple of hard-righty people who were convinced the whole country was going to hell in a handbasket, yet they never seemed as mournful about it as the lefties do, and none of them ever talked about moving to Canada or the equivalent. (I saw online that a few hard right folks Very Put Out by Obama's election talked about moving to Costa Rica, but most of us laughed at those fools.)

I don't expect the American left to put on a "my country, right or wrong" attitude, but "my country, sometimes right" would make for a pleasant change every now and then.

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 21st, 2009 12:02 am (UTC)
Boat Street

The best we can hope for is to understand each other, which I think we probably do at this point.

Well, since we're talking about my beliefs and the beliefs of people who are sorta like me, I may have my doubts. :)

t's also worthy of outrage when Sadr's militia uses rape to keep local women in line, and tortures people with power drills, but when that happens the left doesn't give it much notice, somehow. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with our left; it's one thing to acknowledge one's own flaws and evils and another thing to hammer on them to the point of ignoring or excusing evils elsewhere. Or deciding that those evils are really our fault, when you get right down to it.

But when I point out a crime committed by our troops as an example of a problem that our institutions need to address--whether through changes to recruitment, training, oversight, whatever--you immediately point a finger someplace else, as though merely failing to mention that yeah, there are other bad people too is suspect.

None of the liberals I know would excuse or dismiss rape or violence committed by non-Westerners. Personally, crimes committed by our soldiers is a situation that Americans need to address, and right away, because it's a problem caused by us.

I suspect that you see more of the fringe lefties than I do. I certainly see a lot of fringe conservatives. But I pretty much assume that mainstream conservatives aren't the "Keep Government out of my Medicare!" types, even though there sure *seems* to be a lot of them. Rape-apologists--and I imagine they're out there, this is the internet after all--are pretty thin on the ground.

The irony in this view, for me, is that "what have we become?" is the *constant* refrain of the modern American left.

You changed the pronoun.

As for moving to Canada, there's only one thing preventing me from moving there already (aside from the dependent clause I'm about to write): it's a tremendously nationalistic country, and I doubt I could love it there as much as a citizen would, esp considering the amount of America-bashing I hear from our Canadian friends.

I hear Costa Rica is gorgeous, though!

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 21st, 2009 05:02 pm (UTC)
commies

We're having two different conversations here, and this is a prime example. Your reaction is to see my mention of the Sadr thugs as a defensive tactic. For me, that's not a defense -- how the hell could it be? (For the record, I think the soldiers in the above case got off far too lightly; they deserved to be shot.) It's an *attack,* a critique of a real and substantive and, to me, gravely worrying problem on the Left.

By and large, the Left does not belittle or excuse non-American failings or atrocities. It pretty much ignores them. The Left's concern over our institutions is juxtaposed by a complete or near-complete lack of concern over the institutions in organizations where atrocity -- kidnap, murder, rape, extortion (as in, "give us a million dollars or I kill your son" extortion) is not an aberration, not a crime, not even an example of systematic problems, but the way of doing business. It's as if, because the United States is not the object of criticism -- because the atrocities are not politically useful to the Left -- the people who suffer don't exist at all.

That's one of the things about the Left that I really don't like very much: its moral concern waxes and wanes in proportion to the potential for that moral concern to serve as a way to get the Left more political power.

(Hell, look at how Sri Lanka finally, brutally ended the Tamil insurgency. They even shot their leading dissident journalist because he wouldn't stop acting like our journalists act during wartime. I have fifteen gazillion politically activist lefties on my flist, and out of all of 'em, the only person to even mention that bit of news was *me.*)

The impression this ultimately leaves is not that our sins are the ones we can affect, or that our sins are the most crucial ones; it is that our sins are the only ones that matter at all.

As for moving to Canada, there's only one thing preventing me from moving there already

Dude, seriously? You're living in a place whose political culture you hate that much, and the only thing holding you back is that folks might call your former home names?

Go. Do it. Rock on with your bad self and live the lefty dream.

(I actually have a whole rant on the "moving to Canada" lefty thing, but the short version of part of it is *why the hell do the folks who go on about this never freaking go?*)

I hear Costa Rica is gorgeous, though!

It is! I have friends who live in Costa Rica. They're all socialists! I can't imagine what the crazy righties who talked up moving down there thought they were going to do.

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 22nd, 2009 02:51 pm (UTC)
wagon

It's as if, because the United States is not the object of criticism -- because the atrocities are not politically useful to the Left -- the people who suffer don't exist at all.

Wow. Just... wow.

"... not politically useful..."?

I've been thinking of the best way to respond to this sort of dehumanizing insult: Do I point to Amnesty International, which is on my end of year donation list? That's an organization few people would consider "conservative." Should I point out that criticizing our own institutions has not been all that "useful"? We haven't had a liberal administration at the federal level for years. Do I point out that, if liberals didn't hold the military (for instance) to account for their misdeeds, no one else would bother? Should I make some other argument?

But in the end, I decided it's not worth it. Liberals have been the target of dehumanizing attacks for 15+ years, not just from people on the web, but from our TV screens, too. I don't have to recite the names that I and people like me have been called, do I? That I'm "objectively pro-terrorist?" A traitor? Things have been mildly better in the last couple of years, but maybe the reason I dislike our political culture so much is because I'm sick of the abuse it heaps on me.

Whatever. I'm not going to dwell on it. It wouldn't be "politically useful."

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 22nd, 2009 08:25 pm (UTC)
catwoman and holly

And righties get called names, and have their speeches disrupted, and get stuff thrown at them, and all of this is seen as an item of general merriment.

maybe the reason I dislike our political culture so much is because I'm sick of the abuse it heaps on me.

And that's how I feel when I go to the movies, Harry.

Posted by: A large duck (burger_eater)
Posted at: December 23rd, 2009 07:47 pm (UTC)
wagon

Well, I think there's a false equivalency problem there, it's not the season to go on about it, and we're already pretty far from the original topic.

I hope you have a great holiday.

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: December 28th, 2009 12:14 am (UTC)

You too! As I mentioned, I figured we weren't going to see eye to eye on this stuff a while back.

(Sorry for being late to reply -- vito_excalibur just made me realize I'd forgotten to stop in here.)

Posted by: Amberley (amberley)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 06:00 am (UTC)
Corporate Synergy

Good question, but how would the Raining Death and Destruction From the Skies division of InterstellarCo meet its profit goals if Mining division just grabbed the free floating Unob and didn't need to bring in the DeathRaining hardware?

Not that I've seen the movie yet, although I was thinking about it, even though it seems too long at 2:40.

I'd love to see a movie made of Eric Frank Russell's classic "And Then There Were None", but that wouldn't cost $400 million, so it seems unlikely to happen.

Posted by: rodlox (rodlox)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 09:55 pm (UTC)
Re: Corporate Synergy
going to hug

maybe the free-floating stuff isn't usable. (horses and zebras are capable of the same things, but zebras can't be harnessed)

Posted by: silk_noir (silk_noir)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 04:33 pm (UTC)
Thoughtful

*sigh*

I love the movie.

But you're not wrong.

Yeah, I kinda went "Wha?" at the fighting terror with terror, but I ratoinalized with the acceptance that it was over-the-top whip-em-up nonsense that was intended to hit the amygdala, not the forebrain.

I also found it a little... less believable that Heroine Trudy (whom I loved, don't get me wrong) was the only dissenter.

Posted by: Pope Buck I (popebuck1)
Posted at: December 19th, 2009 04:52 pm (UTC)

Hey, James Cameron is a visionary technical director and special F/X genius, light years ahead of his contemporaries.

But no one has EVER accused him of being a great screenwriter.

Posted by: Vinzenz Stemberg (erlkonigvinz)
Posted at: December 20th, 2009 06:43 am (UTC)
Smoochysmoochy

You know what? I believe I have seen this entire plotline before. Not the "don't want to move" part, I mean the ENTIRE GODDAMN THING.........

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207035/
http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/reviews/27/

OH YEAH
AND IT WAS DONE BETTER HERE TOO, CAMERON!
Granted, because its supposed to be an interactive medium it sucked, but contrary to what the review says, when both halves are joined its quite decent. Like a poor man's Orson Scott Card. And then Cameron took this exact plot and dumbed it down for the tweenybopper generation. The frightening thing is he considers that monstrosity that resulted his opus. Kiss yo career goodbye jackoff!

Posted by: vito excalibur (vito_excalibur)
Posted at: December 27th, 2009 04:14 pm (UTC)

just once, man, I would love to see a movie where a guy embeds in another culture and, while he comes away respecting them, still feels more comfortable and happier in his own

PREACH IT.

Posted by: opportunity refund (beaq)
Posted at: December 28th, 2009 07:34 am (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that disdain for the people who seem to embody the perceived flaws of the Wrong aspects of our common culture, and a sense that the Wrong has more or less overwhelmed the Good and Right in America is an exclusively leftist failing. Nor is ascribing simplistic childishness to less-powerful groups of people. It might be more lefty to believe that the value of the poor little magic people is in their hearts rather than in their mines, but the fantasy is still all about how worthy and special we (people like us) are. Our fantasy films are about breaking away from what we perceive as corruption in our cultures, setting up a More Pure version of the world we already value. And most of them are profoundly insulting to the groups of people we stereotype. This movie indulges in a lefty brand of stereotyping, but I don't see how this smug fake-humility can be characterized as self-hate.

Posted by: Purple Vengeance Version (dr_memory)
Posted at: December 28th, 2009 08:30 am (UTC)

So apparently...

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html

In the original scripts for Avatar, the unobtanium was a room-temp superconductor, and in fact it was all concentrated in... the mountains. No nonsense about it all being buried under the Na'vi village: the Company was interested in the Na'vi (and funding the Avatar program) because they wanted to convice/coerce them into being the native mining workforce.

I'd really love to know how much cocaine, alcohol or blunt-force trauma to the forehead was involved in convincing Cameron that the version he ended up filming was the better one.

Posted by: Myranda Sarro (nagaina_ryuuoh)
Posted at: December 31st, 2009 07:47 pm (UTC)

I suspect that it wasn't so much the "better" one as "the one that 20th Century Fox film executives will be willing to let leave development." See: the forced excision of every scene that explained what the hell was going on from the theatrical print of The Abyss.

Posted by: telepresence (telepresence)
Posted at: January 1st, 2010 04:33 pm (UTC)

1. The movie does state outright that the natives consider the floating mountain area sacred. So if the Company had gone after them they would have had problems similar to the Home Tree situation anyway.

2. I also wonder what the costs of collecting the stuff would be compared to other areas. Digging the stuff out of the ground is probably simpler than trying to... I dunno, make flying mining machines and climbing harnesses for any human workers needed in the area or trying to pull the rocks down to the ground or... it just seems more complicated logistically. Not to mention all this equipment is going to be glitching constantly due to the location.

Posted by: Niall Harrison (coalescent)
Posted at: January 4th, 2010 09:24 pm (UTC)

You've probably seen this by now, but in case not: good call on the mountains.

Posted by: Niall Harrison (coalescent)
Posted at: January 4th, 2010 09:24 pm (UTC)

Note to self: read comment thread before posting.

32 Read Comments