Saturday, November 21, 2015

Some Refugee Questions

Before we decide to (Democrat) compassionately take in the "Syrian" refugees or (Republican) hawkishly keep them out, there are some questions about the refugees that I, for one, would like to see answered.

1)  The Syrian civil war has been going on for over eight years.  Why are refugees from the conflict flooding Europe in great numbers only now?

2)  If these refugees are fleeing the violence in Syria, why are so many of them from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chad, Niger, Somalia, Mali and Libya?  What motivated them to suddenly leave those places?

3)  Despite the attacks in the middle-east on the few remaining Christians and Jews, all the refugees are Muslim.  Why haven't the numerous Muslim countries taken them in?  Why are they running to Europe?

4)  If these are simple refugees fleeing violence at home, why are so few of them women, children and old folks?  Why are the great majority of them military-age men?

5)  How have these "pitiful" refugees behaved in the countries -- like Britain, Germany and Sweden -- that have taken them in?  Have they shown any gratitude for the free blankets, food, clothing, shelter, money, cars and TV sets that the host countries have given them?  Have they bothered to conform to the local laws and customs of their hosts?  How many of them have bothered to learn the local languages?

6)  Wherever the refugees have been even temporarily settled in refugee camps, large numbers of them have mysteriously vanished.  Where have they gone?

7)  Where the refugees have been settled in Europe, they usually haven't gotten jobs but have gone on "the dole"/Welfare, and they boast of having sent some of the money back to their families in the old countries.  Just how much money does that come to, and exactly where is it going?

I really think we should get accurate and complete answers to these questions before we take in any more of these "Syrian" refugees.  In fact, I think that when we get the answers we should seriously consider deporting the ones who are already here.

--Leslie <;)))><  


Saturday, November 14, 2015

History Repeats: 1939 Reshuffled

Santayana was right;  those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Has anyone else noticed current parallels to the days just before World War Two?

Consider: the world, and the US in particular, is just pulling out of a serious economic depression, accompanied by weather shifts that have caused equally serious ecological problems.  Russia harrumphs and bullies its neighbors and flexes its military muscle.  A dangerous political movement is spreading, deliberately, into Europe and Asia with world conquest clearly in mind.  The western countries dither over it but take no action, and the rest of the world watches to see which way to jump. 

Yes, there are differences, but the similarities are downright eerie.  The Jihadis even use the same anti-Jewish propaganda that the Nazis did, right down to the cartoons, and the intelligentsia make the same excuses for their aggression.  Seriously, I've seen supposedly educated political pundits whining that the Jihadis only attack western countries in revenge for insults from the Jewish Banking Conspiracy which supposedly rules Wall Street. 

More ominous, back then the Nazis did their best to implant tactical units and loyal German populations in every country in the world.  Most of these were small, and did little more than propagandize and recruit sympathizers to the Nazi cause, but some of them were primed for sabotage and more.  (There realy were sabotage incidents early in the war, which have been kept secret until just recently.)  Meanwhile, their propagandists did a fine job of insisting, to anyone who could be made to listen, that Germans were a civilized people who only wanted some of their "stolen" land back, and all the western countries had to do was placate them, and all would be well.  This led to the western countries letting the Nazis have all of Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise of, in Chamberlain's infamous phrase, "Peace in our time."  Of course the Nazis weren't satisfied, and when they invaded Poland the western countries finally realized their danger, and acted.  By that time the Nazis were numerous and powerful enough that it took World War Two to eradicate them. 

In this case, the Jihadis took care to implant large populations of sympathizers in their targeted countries -- large enough to comprise small armies -- before taking overt action, namely the 9/11/2001 attack on the US.  The attack was weak, in that it didn't topple or even cripple the US, but brought serious retaliation on lands (Afghanistan and Iraq) that the Jihadis already held.  But then, the US fought a rather weak war, too: merely toppling the former regimes and then walking away -- leaving the conquered territories to be retaken by Jihadis.  It also left the implanted Jihadi enclaves intact, capable of doing further harm and spreading more Jihadi propaganda which the government and the intelligentsia still lap up.  Since then, we've been fighting something of a "Sitzkrieg", tossing slight and ineffective attacks against the Jihadi troops,trying to negotiate different factions of Jihadis (like Iran) into fighting others, while the European countries have done even less -- letting thousands of Jihadi sympathizers, disguised as refugees, flood their countries and add to the Jihadi enclaves.

The western governments' excuse for this weak opposition is the idea that most Muslims are harmless "moderates", and only a few "extremists" are really pursuing the war.  In fact, the Muslim populations in their countries are at least passively supporting the Jihadis -- providing money, recruits, and safe enclaves where the Jihadis can continue their work.  The exceptions are few and irrelevant. 

But the government/intelligentsia tolerance hasn't prevented the majority of citizens in the targeted countries from growing very disillusioned with the Jihadi propaganda, and pressuring their governments to oppose the Jihadis more effectively.  Most countries in the west have refused to take large numbers of the "refugees", and others have refused to take any at all.  The government sympathizers have found themselves increasingly at odds with their own populations, and are feeling obliged to seriously attack the core of the Jihadi army -- namely, the group variously called ISIS, ISIL, IS and Daesh.

Seeing the tide turning against them, the Jihadis staged a major attack: first, calling on all Palestinians in Israel to attack "the Jews" at random, then launching the attacks in Paris -- with a promise of more attacks coming. 

Well, if the current attacks were meant to panic Israel and France into capitulating, they failed.  All the hostility to Israel that decades of careful Jihadi propaganda implanted in Europe has begun to erode as the news faithfully displays videos of innocent-looking Palestinians suddenly attacking people in the streets.  If Israel were to finally say "enough" and deport all the Palestinians within its borders, nobody in the west would cry too hard.  The president of France finally used the "w" word, calling the attacks in Paris "an act of war", and I expect we can soon see French war-planes joining the bombing raids on ISIL.

The sensible next step in this slow reenactment of WWII would be for all the western nations to say to their Muslim populations: "We're sorry, we know that most of you are innocent and harmless, but we can't tell you from the Jihadis on sight, and we can no longer tolerate the Jihadis' presence among us.  You're all being deported."

 Yes, deport them all.  By all means, let them take with them all the goodies and money they got here in the oddly-prosperous non-Muslim countries;  if they own immovable property, sell it and let them take the money with them.  If they have children born in the west, the children can stay -- and be raised in western orphanages -- but the adults must leave.

And where should we send them?

Why, to the one place on Earth that good Muslims all want to visit at least once in a lifetime -- Mecca.

Of course we must send them off with exit visas but no passports -- and take thorough photographs, fingerprints, retinal prints, voice prints and DNA prints, and enter those in an international data-base which police and border guards everywhere can instantly access -- to make sure that they don't come back.  Any attempts to sneak back into the western countries will be treated as espionage, and those attempting it will be shot on sight.  Send the Jihadis and their supporters to Mecca, and leave them there -- and let the Saudis deal with them.  That, at least, will keep the Saudis busy with problems inside their own borders and in no position to support the Jihadi cause.

Meanwhile, let everyone send troops -- and more importantly, planes and drones -- to eradicate ISIL.  Yes, we can do it.  The US military mentioned that they had used drones to identify and locate "Jihadi John", after which they sent the bombers to pulverize the area where he was hiding;  this means that the military really are using spy-drones to precisely identify and locate the Jihadi troops.  This means we can specifically target them with smart missiles, while sparing the civilians they like to hide behind.   We can, and should, kill every last one of them -- starting with the ISIL troops in Iraq and spiraling out from there to every country where they're fighting openly.

Now, what to do about countries where the covert Jihadi attack units will still be hiding, planning to go out and commit more terrorist attacks?  Well, besides setting our various security/intelligence forces to hunt for them, we really have to defend our people.  Countries like France must do an about-face with their decades-long policy on gun-control;  we must arm and train our entire populations, like Switzerland.  Everyone must be capable of fighting back against Jihadi terrorists, not stuck unarmed and helpless like fish in a barrel -- like the audience in that theater -- to be killed at the Jihadis' pleasure while the police plan the counter-attack.  This will not be a difficult transition in America, where most citizens are tired of mass slaughters in "gun-free"zones.  Other countries, like France, may have a harder time changing their minds.  I sincerely hope they won't suffer further slaughters, like Friday's, before they're convinced.

Make no mistake, this will be a long and slow war.  Still, if we realize what we're fighting, right now, we can keep the death-toll down to less than the 47 million that died in World War Two.

--Leslie <;)))><  )O(           

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Hen-and-Chicks Border Defense

(Hi, team.  I'm back, and I've got an idea from an old friend in Wisconsin that I'd like to kick around.)

Ever since the flood of Muslim "refugees" began pouring into Europe -- and our federal govt. promised that we'd take in a few hundred thousand of them -- there's been renewed interest in our broken immigration system, particularly as regards our cobweb of a southern border, particularly since a disturbing number of those illegal immigrants are not Mexican or even Latino.  We're especially concerned here in Arizona, where illegals have been flooding across our border for decades and the federal govt. has refused to let us turn them back (as viz. the federal courts' gutting of Arizona SB 1070).

Ah, but no law forbids a county or a township -- or an Indian reservation, for that matter -- from keeping out people it doesn't want.  The border counties and towns and reservations of Arizona could join forces, and funds, on a couple of tactics that can and will work.

First, the fence.  Farmers and ranchers have already built, at their own expense, some 20 miles of fence along the western end of the border.  There's no reason that fence couldn't be extended, but I'd suggest setting it some 25-50 yards back from the federal border, so that there's no question about the new fence being on Arizona land.  Yes, put fortified and well-guarded gates in the wall where the major highways penetrate, and check -- by hand -- every truck and car that goes through.  It wouldn't hurt to have a medical team attached at each check-point, to give the drivers and passengers quick medical checks.  This would be a public health measure, which is hard to argue with.

Also, at every 50 yards along the fence, put large signs facing toward Mexico with the following, written in Spanish:  "Warning, Illegal Immigrants.  Beyond this fence lies the rest of Arizona.  Arizona doesn't want you.  If you proceed further, you will be captured and sent back the way you came."  Below that put two arrows, pointing east and west, and the words: "XXX miles east lies New Mexico.  New Mexico will welcome you with jobs.  XXX miles west lies California.  California will welcome you with free housing, free food, free medical services, easy jobs, and free money.  Go east or west, but do not proceed north."  If the governments of California or New Mexico complain, tell they we'll take the signs down when they change their policies.

As for how to enforce this, here's where the wonders of modern technology come in.  Every 100 yards or so, perch a drone disguised as a large bird.  This drone will contain a host of smaller drones, disguised as flying insects, which can fly around the area and come back into the bird-drone for refueling.  The bird drone will have a solar-electric generator which can refuel its own battery and the batteries of the bug-drones.  The bug drones will contain, besides their own engines and GPS locator, sensitive microphones and videocameras;  they'll transmit back to a computer base-station, which will record the pictures and sounds of every creature that approaches the Arizona-side fence.  The humans watching the computers will see if any human tries to get over, under, or around the fence, in which case they'll send out bigger drones armed with tranquilizer guns or tazers to shoot the invaders, and notify the police as to where the comatose bodies are.  The police can examine the would-be invaders, see if there are any outstanding warrants on them, escort them back to the federal fence and push them across.

Yes, all this will cost money, but not nearly so much as illegal immigrants cost the state every year -- let alone what damage invading terrorists can do.  What say you all?

--Leslie <;)))><  )O( 


Sunday, October 11, 2015

Is It Real Or Is It Media-Rex?

by Leslie Fish <;)))><

First off, my bona fides;  as my day-jobs, while working as a folksinger/filksinger and freelance writer, I've worked as an editor for two newspapers, three small magazines, a radio station, and four online publishers.  In that merry career I've learned to spot faked photographs, news propaganda, and a good bit of junk science.  I've learned that all news media are biased, to one degree or another, in one direction or another, and I've learned how to balance the biases so as to get a better approximation of the truth.  I also became a cynic, a practical political paranoid, and an Anarchist at an early age. I'm also convinced that our schools don't teach nearly enough Logic, Critical Thinking, or proper Investigative Journalism -- and our citizens desperately need those skills in an age of shameless public lying.  Bear that in mind.

That's why I didn't want to comment on the Umpqua College shooting until I got answers to three questions:

1) Did this incident really happen, or is it an elaborate Wag the Dog hoax?
2) If it did really happen, how much of it happened the way the news media reported it?
3) If it did really happen, then why -- out of 3000 or 35,000 students (media accounts vary) and several hundred staff -- was nobody on campus armed and capable of taking down the shooter before he'd killed,, 9 (media accounts varied before they settled on an acceptable figure) students?

To start with the first, yes that's a serious question.  We've seen, just over the past half century, several cases of politicians -- and governments at every level, and police departments -- and their media-flacks pulling off hoaxes (not to mention cover-ups) as big as this.  (Sometime watch the movie "Wag the Dog";  it's more accurate than you think.)  To start with, there's the Kennedy assassination;  after 50 years of almost-frantic propaganda, does anyone really believe that JFK was shot only once, and only from behind?  Then there was the Gulf of Tonkin caper, during the Vietnam War, which was thoroughly debunked -- years later, too late to prevent a hell of a lot of unnecessary bloodshed.  Then there was the Abu Ghraib hoax;  anyone who bothered to look up pictures of the real Abu Ghraib fortress could readily tell that those photos were faked -- as both the Army and the Red Cross later determined.  Then there was Bush's claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq -- hinting broadly of nukes, having officers come up with supposed clues of nuclear weapons.  The bitter irony of that one is that Saddam really did have a lot of Sarin gas, and had used it previously on the Kurds in his own country, as was readily proved by the survivors;  the lie was unnecessary, but Bush & Co. were so used to lying in public that they lied automatically even when the truth would have served them better.  Yes, we have seen hoaxes of this size before. 

So what evidence is there that the Umpqua shooting wasn't real?  First (as you can find if you search the gods-blessed Internet), students who were in the nearest class -- just across the corridor from that fatal writing class -- did not hear any gunshots.  Neither did they see any bodies or wounded students coming out of that classroom.  The first any of them knew of the incident was when the police came and herded them out of the school, into busses, and away to a "safe" center where their families could come pick them up.  The only people who claim to have actually been in that writing class and witnessed the shooting gave interviews that were distinctly... off.  For one thing, they were carefully dressed and made up and groomed -- after an ordeal like that.  For another, they all smiled and posed and carefully declaimed for the camera -- less like writing students who'd just missed being killed than like C-list actors hoping for their big break.  (Other cynics have already come up with a term for this: Crisis Actors.)  For a third, the story they told -- that the shooter first killed the teacher, then called up the students one by one, asked them what religion they were, then shot them dead if they said they were Christians but only wounded them in the legs if they said anything else -- was first hyped, and then carefully downgraded, by the media.  So was the alleged shooter's (no, I won't mention his name and add to his 15 minutes of fame) race;  first reports showed that his father was White and his mother was Black, and the first photos of him showed him looking distinctly Black -- but in later reports CNN carefully kept his mother out of sight and lightened his complexion.  Fourth, motive: this shooting is suspiciously opportune, and theatrical enough to inject new blood into the Democrats' sinking policy of gun-control.  Note how quickly the media did their usual whipping up of emotion to stampede the public into demanding that politicians DOOOO SOMETHING!!! (the most dangerous words you can say to a politician) to Stop The Slaughter.  Note how the usual pundits, including Obama himself, shamelessly took advantage of the shooting to make the usual vague promises of gun-control, including blatant lies (no, the US is not the "most violent" of countries, or even of "the western nations" or even in North America;  according to no less than the World Health Organization, the US is the 107th highest-ranking country in homicides).  Obviously, this incident was a welcome shot in the arm for the Democrats.  Also obviously, the media have a boilerplate script ready to hand for exploiting any shooting incident that comes along.

And then there's the curious case of Chris Mintz.  When the first reports of the Umpqua shooting came out, a lot of people began tweeting/emailing/phoning queries about why all the students in that class did nothing but sit like sheep, waiting to be called on, questioned and shot.  Even Ben Carson, hopeful GOP candidate, made a point of asking why nobody tried to stop the killer.  Very soon after that, the media started reporting the case of Chris Mintz;  he was supposedly in that class, and though unarmed, he charged at the shooter -- and was then shot seven times: in the back, in the abdomen, in both hands, and "both his legs were broken".  There's even a photo showing him being carried off on a gurney afterwards.  The problem with this story is that he survived being shot seven times with the same gun that had killed nine other students with single shots.  Almost instantly, a website was set up to appeal for money on the Internet to pay for Mintz's medical bills, and it has already raked in over half a million bucks.  The problem, as you can see at a somewhat-indignant website -- -- is that the photo shows Mintz stripped to the waist on his gurney, but he has no visible wounds or bandages.  He's lying on his back, and there's no sign of any bandaging for the supposed wound on his back.  Neither is there any bandaging on or near his abdomen.  Both his hands are visible, and there are no wounds or bandages on either of them.  His supposedly-broken legs aren't splinted, nor are there any support-boards under them.  His head is slightly raised, and the expression on his face has no hint of pain or stress or even paleness, such as would be expected if he'd lost blood from seven gunshot wounds.  How curious.

Apparently a few other people have such suspicions too, because I've already seen accusations of "False Flag" cropping up all over the Internet.  Likewise, the head of Gun Owners of America went through Obama's post-shooting speech, refuting his points and exposing falsehoods, line by line -- at GOA's website on the Internet.  Goddess bless the Internet;  it makes questions about media stories available to the public immediately and unfiltered, in contrast to snail-mail letters to the editor.  The public does not stampede so blindly and thoroughly as it used to, back when the only sources of current information were the official channels.

This might explain why the media have backed away from the Umpqua story and gone howling after an even more recent shooting, right here in Flagstaff, at Northern Arizona University.  Unfortunately for the usual pundits, this story doesn't lend itself to the usual stereotype.  A bunch of drunken frat-boys got into a fight on the frat-house lawn, and one of them walked away from the fight (sensible), but then went to his car and pulled out his gun (not so sensible), came back to the fight and shot four of the other frat-boys before he was grabbed and wrestled to the ground.  One of his victims died, the other three are in the hospital, and the drunken fool -- now considerably sobered -- was arraigned on murder and assault charges the very next day.  He was, his fellow students attest, lucky that he wasn't shot at the scene.  The only lesson to be drawn from this incident is the old, old news that guns (or any weapons) and alcohol make a bad mix -- especially when shaken and stirred in thoughtless young boys.

Now for my part I believe that something happened on the Umpqua campus, but whatever it was, the media hyped it to the sky for political purposes, namely pimping gun-control.  There probably really was a shooter, who really was (politically-incorrectly) half Black and was (although this was carefully not mentioned) probably a fundie-Muslim Jihadist, and he really did do that ritual of asking the students about their religions, killing the ones who admitted to being Christians and just wounding the rest.  That story was too bizarre to make up, and neither the government nor the media would want to invent such an "islamophobic" tale.  Just how he was finally taken down is still something of a mystery, and I don't believe the Chris Mintz story, no matter how much money he's raked in for telling it.

So the question I have left is: why, among all those students, was nobody armed, capable, and willing to take him down?  So far I've managed to find two answers.  The first comes from a student in another class who admits that he had a gun on campus, but chose to walk away with all the others because, if you please, he feared that if he went after the shooter himself, the police would shoot him.  This sounds like a reasonable story, especially considering the other answer: that although the school management had agreed to let students or staff who had concealed-carry permits bring their guns to school, the official policy for this wouldn't go through until next January.  That means, among other things, that the student who did have a gun wasn't quite carrying it legally, and didn't dare use it for another reason: that if the cops didn't shoot him, they'd at least arrest him. 

These answers all make depressingly good sense, given the state of current politics.




Saturday, September 26, 2015

Before I Make This Into A Petition...

As an Anarchist, I very rarely propose passing laws -- but this is one I think we need:
" Any religious organization which holds as a tenet of its faith that its members must convert -- by means including force -- everyone on Earth to their faith (or else harass, reduce to second-class citizenship, enslave or kill any who refuse) is in violation of the US Constitution; and no unconstitutional religious organization shall receive any support – financial, political, legal or whatever – from any government within the United States."
Before I make this into an online petition, what do you-all out there think about this?

--Leslie <;)))><    

Saturday, September 19, 2015

An Added Incentive

Heheheh.  In addition to announcing Rasty's and my new book, I thought I'd add a bit of a teaser -- like the first few pages.  If Intrigued, go to Smashwords and read further -- at

A Book Of Instructions
For living with a smart modern woman in the USA

by the Anonymous Desert Rat

Published by Leslie Fish
Copyright 2015 Leslie Fish



Not Exactly an Owner’s Manual

When I was young I thought a wife should come with an Owner’s Manual, just like a new car.  50 years and 4 marriages later, I have given up on that.  No modern woman with an IQ above room temperature is going to be owned.  Women are a lot like cats, although more likely to come when you call them.  And about as likely to do what you want when they get there as a cat.  Most of us men have a fantasy of a smart wife that is a slut in the bedroom and a lady in the drawing room, and our own slave who would never look at another man.  Lots of luck with that.  But if you can’t get a Owner’s Manual, a wife should come with a book of instructions on how a man can live with her.  Read this carefully and you may not have to go through 3 or 4 wives to find one you can live with.


To my  [pick one or more]    Loving Husband, Live-in Boyfriend, Longtime Lover, Significant Other, Current Owner, Other_______________

From your  [pick one or more]  New Wife, Live-in Girlfriend,        Longtime Lover, Significant Other, Current Trainer,                           Other________________


Other Dedication

This page is for the woman that was smart enough to buy this book for her man;  every woman should come with a book of instructions.
If you're the man, you should start on the next page.  There's nothing for you to see here.  Turn the page!

Now, as I was saying, ladies, the fact that you came with a book of instructions will not get him to read it.  A Real Man don’t need no stinking book, ever.  After all, he knows all about women.  He learned it all from the bigger boys when he was young -- and that's half the problem.

You see, when boys grow old enough to start getting curious about girls, who do they ask for answers?  Do they ask girls, let alone women, "What do you like?  How can I please you?"  Oh no, never.  They ask the bigger boys.  And the bigger boys, for all their bragging, don't know jack-sh#t.  99.9% of them are lying virgins.

But by giving your man this book, now when you don’t do what he thinks you will do, you can say:  "Did you read the book?  It’s all there in the Instructions."  Now he will have to read the book or shut up.

This book is for women with an IQ above room temperature, who can make their own way in the world, and expect to be treated as equal to their husbands.  Now I know that there are a few women around who think men are superior to them, that as he worships the big GOD above, she gets to worship the little god down here – him -- that her job is to be a brood mare and have a bunch of kids to fill his quiver.  If you believe that, this book is not for you. Likewise if you are a Biker Mama, and your idea of a good time is when your man tells you "Strip, and get your ass up on the pool table and spread, 'cause me and my bros are horny", this book will have little to do with your lifestyle.  You will find some blank pages at the end of this book where you can write down your own little dos and don’ts.

As you know, men are pretty much the same.  They're kind of like Fords;  you can’t tell one from another.  They are kind of interchangeable.

Women, on the other hand, are like hot sports cars;  they have the same parts, but how you tune them makes a big difference.  I have learned, the hard way, that what one woman loves another will hate.  It’s only fair that you list your main dos and don’ts: not all of them, just enough to give the man an idea of what he has gotten himself into.  Then, when he wants to know why you're mad, just tell him it's in the book.


Monday, September 7, 2015

Now For Something Completely Different...

I want to brag about my new book -- well, actually mine and Rasty's -- and of course advertise my other books and albums.  Anyway, the new book can be found on, and needs a Kindle or something like it to read, but with enough downloads I think I can persuade some publisher to put out a hard-copy version.  It listed under nonfiction, satire and sex.  So, go to Smashwords and look up:

A Book Of Instructions

For living with
a smart modern woman
in the USA

by the Anonymous Desert Rat

Oh, and be sure to click the "Adult Content" button when searching.


You can also order my filkmusic albums from my music publisher, Random Factors, at, or get my books from   Or you can order them directly from me, at, or by mail at: Leslie Fish, 1300 S. Watson Road #114-288, Buckeye, AZ 85326, using this form.


_____  "Offensive As Hell: The Joys of Jesus-Freak Bagging", $10  (satire)
_____  "For Love of Glory", $20  (historical fiction)
_____ "Of Elven Blood", $20  (fantasy/scifi fiction)


_____  "Avalon Is Risen", $15 (pagan and fantasy songs)
_____  "Lock and Load",  $15 (1st and 2nd Amendment songs)
_____  "Cold Iron", $15 (Kipling's historical poems as songs)
_____  "Our Fathers of Old", $15 (Kiplng's philosophical poems as songs)
_____  "Skybound", $15 (scifi and Star Trek songs – includes "Hope Eyrie")
_____  "Smoked Fish and Friends", $15 (WorldCon filksing, with others)
_____  "Serious Steel", $15 (SCA songs, with Joe Bethancourt)
_____  "Folksongs for Solar Sailors", $15 (Star Trek songs, from original LPs)

Totals:      Albums: _____      Books: _____     Payment: __________

(pay by check _____  or PayPal________to the above addresses)

Send To:

Name: __________________________________________________________________


City, State, Zipcode: ______________________________________________________

Anything else you want to tell me: ___________________________________________