Subscribe via RSS Feed

Archive for October, 2011

This Day in Labor History: October 26, 1676

[ 31 ] October 26, 2011 |

On this date in 1676, Nathaniel Bacon, the leader of the movement known as Bacon’s Rebellion, died of dysentery. This effectively ended the rebellion, an event that helped entrench slavery as the labor system of the American South.

The first African slaves arrived in Jamestown in 1619, but through the 1640s, it’s unclear whether they were held in what would become chattel slavery. There is evidence of slaves being freed and becoming landowners. In any case, African slaves were a small part of the early Virginia labor force. This wasn’t because tobacco planters didn’t want to buy slaves. Rather, they couldn’t afford them. Tobacco was a far less valuable product than sugar and thus even the richest Virginia planters were barely middling compared to the sugar barons of the Caribbean who could buy slaves and be so wealthy as to not care whether they lived or died.

But there were other labor options for the planters. Thousands of poor English, both men and women, were willing to become indentured servants in Virginia. Conditions in England in the early and mid 17th century were not good. Food riots were common. Work was scarce. Political strife, including the Puritan Revolution, did not help. Virginia offered these people hope. If you signed a contract for 5-7 years, you would get land of your own at the end of it. But that doesn’t mean things in Virginia were great. Mass death defined the Chesapeake colonies in the 17th century. People died of malaria, dysentery and other diseases at astronomical rates. Essentially, these were cold weather people moving to a subtropical swamp while wearing wool clothing, not understanding how to access clean water, and without immunity to mosquito-borne illness. People quickly realized what was happening and would time their arrival to Virginia in November and December, so they could develop as much immunity as possible before the pestilence of late summer and early fall would wipe most of them out.

Even if they did survive, and they usually didn’t, they faced other problems. You might indenture yourself to a quality man, but you might not. Your status as an English person granted you some rights, but enforcing those rights on the remote plantations was nearly impossible. Perhaps the worst offenses came with men taking advantage of their female servants. Most contracts for women included a clause where pregnancy would result in additional time on your contract. Masters sometimes raped their female servants, got them pregnant, and thus the woman would have to stay there longer.

If these indentured servants did survive long enough to get their own land, they had limited options. The fertile bottomland along the rivers was already purchased by the early plantation owners. That left two choices. You could buy land farther inland, but that meant you had to pay for the transportation costs to get your tobacco to the ships that docked at the big plantations, and had to pay the big owners for the privilege of using his dock. Or you could move farther west. But out there were Indians less than thrilled to see continued English expansion into their lands.

By 1676, the farmers who had chosen to move west were demanding that the leaders of Virginia raise a military expedition to force the Indians out. But the government in Jamestown, led by Governor William Berkeley thought these people, most of whom were former indentured servants, were a bunch of yokels and ignored them.

Nathaniel Bacon was a man who could straddle the divide between the rich and poor. Bacon was a newcomer to the colony and bought land in the west, but he was also well-heeled. His wife was friends with Berkeley’s wife. Bacon brought an impressive 1800 pounds of capital with him. Berkeley nominated him to the colonial council immediately. Yet Bacon was also sympathetic to the problems of his poorer neighbors. Moreover, he wanted to kill some Indians. Berkeley opposed this, wanting the friendship of Indians and worried about these poor people out there causing trouble.

In truth, there’s little positive to say about Bacon’s Rebellion. They murdered a bunch of Indians, captured Jamestown, murdered some more Indians, and then burned Jamestown to the ground. Then Bacon, like most everyone else, died of a horrible disease.

The real importance of the revolt is not in its accomplishments, such as they were. Its that, according to Edmund Morgan’s brilliant American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia, it turned the tide away from indentured white labor who had the inconvenience of eventually becoming free and causing problems toward permanently enslaved African labor. There were several structural factors that contributed to this, including improving conditions in England, knowledge of the horrible treatment of indentured servants in Virginia, and lower prices for African slaves. And while there’s no evidence of a meeting or something where Virginia landowners made this decision, after 1676, the number of African slaves increased rapidly with numbers of white indentured laborers falling equally dramatically.

Moreover, Virginia increased the institutionalization of permanent slavery. Some of the groundwork had already been laid. In 1662, Virginia declared the status of slave children depended on their mothers, allowing white men to rape slaves and then own their own children. In 1667, it ruled that baptism did not free a slave and in 1669, decided that death of a slave by a master was not a felony. By 1700, at least half the labor force in Virginia was enslaved.

As the 18th century began, new laws were passed to suppress runaways with maximum brutality including dismembering and murder and for the state compensation to a master if a slave was killed while being hunted down. In 1691, Virginia cracked down on miscegenation, reacting against a number of mixed-race marriages. To use their words they acted “for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another.” Free white women who had an illegitimate child by a black person was fined or forced to five years of forced labor while the child, although technically free, had to serve the first 30 years of its life as indentured labor. This move to an explicitly race-based labor system was a strategy by 18th century Virgina elites who found it convenient to build white solidarity against blacks as a way to overcome the serious class divisions that had led to Bacon’s Rebellion. The creation of despised black labor meant the rising in social status of even the poorest whites, creating an increasingly comfortable political stability for the colony’s wealthy leaders that continued until the American Revolution.

So while Bacon’s Rebellion is only something of a labor incident, its impact upon American labor and racial history is enormous.

Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom goes into all of this in much more detail and I highly recommend it.

Previous editions of this series have included the Bisbee Deportation on 1917 and the Pittston coal strike of 1989.

If you are looking to save on designer boys trench coat and leather jackets coats then join us today. We have stylish variety of leather car coat, mens leather motorcycle jackets and discount motorcycle gear review designed by our top designers.


Will the Court Decide on the Constitutionality of the ACA this term?

[ 33 ] October 26, 2011 |

Looks like we’ll know by November 14th. Like Denniston, I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that it will.

We have privileged in providing the best leather bomber jackets for women, boys quilted jacket and camel leather jacket. Our incredible offers for motorbike jackets for men and brown leather motorcycle jacket are accessible at reasonable prices.

The All-Fronts War on Reproductive Freedom

[ 24 ] October 26, 2011 |

Irin Carmon has an excellent piece about the “Personhood Amendment” being proposed in Mississippi, which should be read in its entirety. The key issues under discussion:

That’s partly because the Personhood movement hopes to do nothing less than reclassify everyday, routine birth control as abortion. The medical definition of pregnancy is when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterine wall. If this initiative passes, and fertilized eggs on their own have full legal rights, anything that could potentially block that implantation – something a woman’s body does naturally all the time – could be considered murder. Scientists say hormonal birth-control pills and the morning-after pill work primarily by preventing fertilization in the first place, but the outside possibility, never documented, that an egg could be fertilized anyway and blocked is enough for some pro-lifers.


Personhood represents an unapologetic and arguably more ideologically consistent form of the anti-choice movement. It aims squarely for Roe v. Wade by seizing on language from former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun – the author of the Roe decision — during the hearings that the case would “collapse” if “this suggestion of personhood is established … for the fetus.”

The strategy of Mississippi anti-choicers, first of all, is yet another reminder that attempting to reach common ground on reducing unwanted pregnancies is unlikely to work. Second, I agree with Carmon that the strategy probably represents overreaching. Abortion criminalization is a minority position, but has enough support to win in conservative states. But opposition to birth control is extremely unpopular, and the shift in poll numbers against the initiative that has occurred as the opposition has made the anti-birth control implications clear is striking. If it’s a political loser in Mississippi, it will be a loser anywhere.

Unfortunately, even if this amendment fails Mississippi anti-choicers have very successfully used Casey-approved regulations to make abortion inaccessible. Raney Aronson-Rath’s documentary on the subject is essential viewing on the subject.

Changing the law school climate

[ 15 ] October 26, 2011 |

Over the past few months I’ve found that, when it comes to the crisis facing law students and graduates — and therefore, eventually, law schools — law faculty and administrators tend to fall into four categories, which can be analogized to the categories people fall into regarding their reactions to climate change. (I’m not making any assertions about the merits of various climate change arguments in this post, as it’s a subject I know nothing about beyond what I read in the papers. What I’m interested in is the usefulness of the analogy).

First, you have your flat-out Deniers. These are people who simply deny there’s any crisis. For example, you have people who deny altogether that the earth’s climate is warming. The law school analogy is the professor (there is, I am reliably informed by one of his colleagues, at least one such law professor, who interestingly is middle-aged and doesn’t seem to be suffering from senile dementia) who denies that the cost of law school has risen relative to inflation.

Most Deniers are not quite this extreme: they’ll acknowledge the earth is warming, but they’ll claim this is a natural cyclical process, rather than a product of human activity. The law school analogy are faculty and administrators who acknowledge costs have gone up and the employment situation is bad at the moment, but who treat all this as a natural, cyclical, and most of all temporary situation, that has essentially nothing to do with what law schools have done or not done, and which will simply go away without any action on our part.

I know quite a few people in this category: They cite the (needless to say imaginary) employment stats from a few years ago, when “96%” of our graduates were “employed,” and say there’s every reason to believe we’ll be back in that situation as soon as the economy picks up again. As for the costs of legal education, they dismiss this part of the crisis with various hand-waving gestures, usually based on some vague belief that legal education is far better now than it was a generation ago, and that a better product is inherently more expensive. The bottom line for them is that the extent to which there’s any crisis at all is exaggerated, and in any case it’s all cyclical, while the skyrocketing cost of law school isn’t a product of what in the climate change literature is referred to as anthropogenic forcing, but rather of Newton’s fifth law of thermodynamics, which holds that, all other things being equal, education is priceless and can therefore not become too expensive even in theory.

Then you have your Fatalists. The Fatalists acknowledge there’s a crisis, admit it’s to a significant extent human-caused and likely to get a lot worse, but argue that at this point there’s little or nothing we can do about it. In the climate change world, these are the people who argue that even cutting carbon emissions by quite a bit won’t do much to forestall the future effects of our existing social arrangements, given what we’ve already put into the system, and who in addition point out that it’s pretty much useless for, say, the U.S. to cut back significantly on emissions if China and India don’t.

The law school analogy are people who admit the employment situation is terrible, that it’s going to get worse, and that it’s been made worse by the collective behavior of law schools, but who argue that there’s not that much law schools can do to improve it, short of the climate change equivalent of radical de-industrialization (i..e, closing half of the law schools currently out there). In particular, Fatalists emphasize there’s literally nothing individual schools can do by themselves, since this is a classic collective action problem.

The third category is made up of the Inconvenient Truthers. The ITs take the same basic view as the Fatalists, with the crucial difference that they believe that, with a combination of enough consciousness-raising and concerted political action, the collective action problems can be overcome, and many of the worst effects of human-caused climate change can be headed off, or at least ameliorated at an acceptable cost. The law school analogy consists of the people inside the system who believe that radical reform is both necessary and possible.

At this point, the ITs in both the climate change and law school world are largely dedicating themselves to trying to overcome ignorance, social inertia, and most of all the the considerable power of those vested economic interests who have the most to lose from any serious attempt at reform, and who are therefore doing everything they can to keep people in either the first category or the fourth.

The fourth group consists of the Sleepers — the people who just aren’t paying much attention to this issue one way or another. In the world of climate change, the Sleepers are people who have a vague sense that there’s a fierce argument out there about how global warming is either a potential environmental catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, or an insidious myth fabricated by tree-hugging wackos, or possibly something in between. But since the consequences of what is or isn’t happening are still somewhere off in the medium to distant future, the Sleepers basically ignore the controversy altogether as they continue to live their lives in the same fashion they did before anyone started trying to raise the alarm about rising global temperature.

Although in terms of behavior Sleepers are indistinguishable from Deniers, they’re not, unlike the latter group, ideologically committed to the idea that Everything Is Fine: rather, they’re just not paying attention yet. This makes them (perhaps) more promising prospects for the efforts of the ITs, although it’s important not to underestimate the extent to which inattention can sometimes be even more difficult to overcome than conscious denial.

In the law school world, I would guess the vast majority of faculty, and even a surprising percentage of administrators, are at this point Sleepers. There are probably about equal numbers of Deniers and Fatalists, who are being harassed by a still-tiny cadre of Inconvenient Truthers. But whatever the proportions may be, any serious reform effort requires finding a way to move as many people as possible out of the fourth category and into the third.

c/p at ITLSS

Predictable Anti-Airpower Screed….

[ 26 ] October 26, 2011 |

The airpower advocates are crawling out of the woodwork:

The lessons we take from Libya matter, because they will inform military procurement and intervention decisions for years to come. In the United States, the Army is battling budget hawks who will no doubt take solace in the perceived effectiveness of airpower in Libya. In the United Kingdom, the RAF and the Royal Navy will continue their nearly century-long struggle for both funding and control of air assets. To be sure, none of the major powers had an interest in launching a major ground campaign in Libya, much less a prolonged occupation. Still, policymakers should be hesitant in the face of claims that airpower has displaced ground power or sea power, just as they should resist arguments that future interventions will be cheap and bloodless. The war in Libya surely does carry many lessons for military action, but they should be drawn and analyzed only with the greatest care. And if the principle lesson learned from Libya is that “airpower can win wars cheaply and bloodlessly,” rather than “the combined naval and air assets of the NATO alliance, in close coordination with an extensive rebel army, took six months to topple a weak, unpopular regime without a professional army,” then we have a problem.

We provide a complete set of hooded bomber jacket, girls quilted jacket and leather waistcoats for men. You can easily get access to our best quality dirt bike apparel and motorcycle riding jackets.

Reactionary Abortion Policies Don’t Work In Any Sense

[ 8 ] October 26, 2011 |

Another reminder.

A Marriage I Would Not Go Through With

[ 80 ] October 26, 2011 |


When Taylor Branch and his wife, Christy, exchanged vows in 1978, Branch had to do more than promise to remain faithful through sickness and health: he also had to give up football.

Branch had been a standout high school football player in Atlanta before turning down a scholarship to play at Georgia Tech, but his wife was not a fan. She wanted him to refrain from playing, watching, cheering — everything — and in exchange, she pledged to learn to love baseball. Branch complied and kept his distance.

Really? I love football, sure. And I certainly love Taylor Branch’s books. But that’s not the point. Should anyone go into a marriage when the partner bans the person from enjoying something they love? Isn’t part of a marriage embracing what your partner loves, even though you totally don’t understand it? In my case, this would me more or less accepting my wife’s enjoyment of Sex and the City and being Irish.

Still, whatever works for you. But if my partner told me I had to give up silent movies or martinis or staying up til 2 a.m. on the east coast to watch random Pac-12 football games, I don’t know. Instead, she just wisely makes fun of me and goes to bed.

Occupy Oakland

[ 2 ] October 25, 2011 |

…under attack from the city. More here.

No need to look other side for creative designer jackets for women and woman leather jacket. If you are worried about cheap leather jackets for men and motorcycle riding jackets, come and shop at motorcycle airbag jacket.

Newsreel as Plot Device

[ 30 ] October 25, 2011 |

With the World Series off tonight, I watched Three on a Match, the 1932 film starring Joan Blondell, Ann Dvorak, Bette Davis, and Humphrey Bogart. It’s not great, despite the cast. Joan Blondell is massively underrated with some of the greatest eyes in Hollywood history, but Davis is underused and Bogart was still in his early typecast as thug phase. And seriously, what is with child acting in the 30s and 40s? The average kid in a movie at this time makes Culkin in Home Alone look like Nicholson at his peak powers. I really wanted someone to kill the little monster. Still, if you like stories about rich women becoming dope fiends and ending up in the gutter, it might be your kind of movie.

The film also provides the single least flattering introduction to a character I have ever seen, the head of the gangsters, seen below.

The Hays Code was worthwhile just if it got rid of scenes like that.

But I’m not writing this post to promote the film. Rather, I’m interested in why so many films from the 30s used what were essentially newsreels to advance the plot. It’s the classic, let’s put the year up on the screen, then show some footage from that year to set our story in place and time. And that’s fine except so often, this device was used to get the audience to remember all the way back to last year. Even at the beginning of the movie, I was laughing at this, as the 3 girls are in grade school in 1919. 13 years ago, so long. Who can remember that far back?

And then they kept using the device over and over until we got to 1931–the year before the film was made! The filmmakers needed to remind the audience of the major news events of the last year. The Japanese invaded Manchuria! Businessmen were optimistic the Depression would end soon! Did the audience really needed to be reminded of what had happened mere months before? I can imagine this today, a giant “2010” on the screen, with images of John Boehner celebrating becoming Speaker and the Gulf oil spill. You know, to remind the youth of the distant past or something.

I’m just curious as to what point this is supposed to serve, other than to kill time. It’s not like any of it was at all relevant to the movie. The gangsters weren’t even bootleggers.

The most important cute leather jackets you’ll ever own is the cheap trench coats. Our hooded bomber jacket is generally less expensive than waterproof motorcycle gloves and cheap motorcycle clothing.

Libya, R2P, and Precedent

[ 23 ] October 25, 2011 |

Scott Horton has an interesting essay at Foreign Policy discussing the domestic and international impact of the intervention in Libya. The domestic side is mostly right; the international side, not so much:

While much of the military operations in Libya were plainly within the mandate of Resolution 1973, some aspects exceeded it. For instance, attacks fairly early in the conflict targeted command-and-control centers of the Qaddafi regime. Such steps would be routine in wartime and would plainly be authorized under the laws of armed conflict. But it’s not so clear that they were authorized by Resolution 1973, the authority of which rested on the doctrine of “responsibility to protect” (R2P): the notion, adopted by the U.N. in 2005, that intervention is justified to protect a civilian population from harm, even at the hands of its own leaders. After all, strikes were mounted against military positions far away from the attacks on civilians and with no apparent linkage to them. Moreover, as the war progressed, the posture of the fading Qaddafi regime became increasingly defensive. The final weeks of the campaign put this in sharpest perspective, as Qaddafi and his final core group of retainers withdrew to his hometown of Sirte, ultimately fleeing in a convoy that was fired upon by NATO aircraft and an American Predator drone, destroying two vehicles. Libyan authorities have denied an independent autopsy that might show conclusively the cause of Qaddafi’s death — which may have been shots fired after he surrendered and was in rebel custody — but the role played by NATO in his final moments points to the near perfect inversion of the mission. Instead of protecting civilians from attack by Qaddafi and his forces, they were attacking a fleeing and clearly finished Qaddafi.

At this point, some members of the Security Council clearly feel they got suckered. They voted for a resolution to protect the people of Benghazi from slaughter and saw their authority invoked to depose Qaddafi and install a new government. That will have consequences for future humanitarian crises. Russia and China have now blocked Security Council resolutions targeting Syria. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has made clear that Russia supports demands for reform in Syria and abhors the use of violence against demonstrators, but has been equally clear that Russia cannot risk a repeat of the Libyan example.

NATO’s operations in Libya began as a valid demonstration of the use of military force to protect civilians. But they evolved quickly into an exercise in regime change. In the wake of Libya, the Security Council is unlikely to embrace another R2P operation anytime soon. And that is bad news for the people of Damascus and Hama, as well as for advocates of the responsibility to protect.


Anyone who believed that the intervention in Libya wouldn’t involve at least an attempt to overthrow Gadhafi is either stupid or lying. With the Russians, the Chinese, and the Arab League it’s pretty obviously the latter; none of them gave a fig for Gaddafi, but they were happy to express their shock and indignation when the campaign went beyond a no fly zone. It was obvious from day one that the initiation of military operations would inevitably produce an effort to overthrow Gaddafi, although it was less certain for some time whether that effort would succeed. There was never the faintest chance that the Russians were going to allow a UNSC mandated no fly zone over Syria, a country where they have real interests, and it’s rather sad that Horton (as well as a few opportunistic neocons) believes otherwise. No criticism of the Russians intended; countries tend to defend their interests. Moreover, I’d say that there’s pretty much zero chance that the US, France, or the United Kingdom were ever going to ask for an NFZ over Syria, no matter what happened in Libya; fighting the Syrian Army and Air Force would be a much more expensive and difficult operation that defeating Gaddafi’s rabble, with the political effects much less predictable.

Moreover, what Horton seems to be asking for here is the worst of all worlds; a situation in which NATO became the militarily necessary guarantor of a Libya split between Loyalist and Rebel factions, observing a resolute neutrality regarding who was supposed to win. This interpretation of R2P would lead inevitably to the carving out of multiple statelets with minimal internal legitimacy and no ability to defend themselves. It is very difficult for me to understand how anyone would find this to be a desirable, much less an outcome that would provide a useful precedent for future action.


[ 74 ] October 25, 2011 |

The resounding success of Mike Napoli after years of Mike Scioscia trying his best not to use him and them dumping him for nothing has finally put a dent into the idea that Scioscia is a brilliant manager. Scioscia finally spoke about it today and used a classic line:

“Mike had to work on stuff that didn’t come naturally to him, more so than other catchers who maybe do it more naturally.”

This is as opposed to Scioscia’s crush on Jeff Mathis, who of course has nothing to work on. Certainly not hitting, not with his career 50 OPS+. And while I don’t doubt Mathis is better on defense and probably handles a pitching staff better, his career success throwing out basestealers is 24%, while Napoli’s is 25%.

The real issue here of course is that Scioscia believes a catcher should be just like he was. Scrappy, all about handling a staff, etc. And when confronted with the best hitting catcher since Mike Piazza, well, Scioscia couldn’t see the value.

Outstanding girls quilted jacket and finest draped leather jacket are always very demanded in cool weather. Beside affordable and leather jackets coats are also highly appreciated by the bikers along with latest motorcycle riding pants. Biker also appreciate women’s motorcycle apparel.

Moore and Stewart

[ 142 ] October 25, 2011 |

One doesn’t usually look to Pop Matters for political essays, but this piece praising Michael Moore and lambasting Jon Stewart is interesting.

Michael Moore is one of the few heroes of contemporary American culture. He is a true patriot, a serious populist, and a clever provocateur, dedicated to striking politicians, jabbing corporate elites, and encouraging the American public into summoning the courage necessary to create a country of egalitarian love, benevolent community, and universal justice. The amazingly simple messages of his films – don’t outsource manufacturing plants because it will destroy American towns, don’t allow people to buy guns without precautionary measures, don’t deny people health care for seemingly arbitrary reasons to increase corporate profit, don’t go to war for specious reasons – have, in just a few years, gone from controversial to dully prescient and obviously correct


It’s impossible to understand the hatred of Moore from the cocktail party and faculty lounge scene of the liberal establishment without also understanding the same politically impotent group’s love for Jon Stewart. Understanding the juxtaposition of Moore andStewart reveals the true depths of the failure and soullessness of modern American liberalism.


Michael Moore is a populist and Jon Stewart is an elitist. The blind liberal embrace of the superficial smugness of Stewart and detachment from the heroism of Moore is the most powerful and convincing illustration of the suicidal tendencies, moral bankruptcy, and spiritual decay of the American left.

Well then. It’s obviously meant to be a provocative essay and while I wanted to toss it out the window, I actually have a hard time doing so. Stewart is brilliant and generally remains so. He allowed me to stay sane during the Bush years. But he’s obviously not a movement leader. He’s a satirist. When he leaves that role, things get shaky. The Rally to Restore Sanity never did make any sense; not surprisingly, it also made no difference.

That hardly means one is an elitist to enjoy his show. The piece John Oliver did on the Occupy Wall Street was fantastic. I think one has to be able to laugh at the movement one is involved in.

Or maybe not. If we are leaving an age where young people are super ironic and unable to commit to a cause, that’s probably a good thing. I’ve bemoaned that very irony many times. Sincere belief in a cause may open one up to a bit of teasing, but that’s a small price to pay for making change.

On the other hand, I still have trouble seeing Michael Moore as heroic and I don’t think that makes me “a member of the faculty lounge scene of the liberal establishment” to say so, even if that describes me pretty well (though I generally disdain anything reeking of a faculty lounge). Moore may be a “true populist,” but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Moore may be right on many issues, but he’s also a provocateur and not much more. He’s an extreme egoist, has committed his life and art to promoting himself as much as any cause, and gets attacked not for his causes or his weight but because too often his actions themselves, as well as the level of analysis in his films and books, are indeed kind of embarrassing for the hard-thinking liberal. If saying that makes me insufficiently worshipful of leading lefties, so be it.

Jon Stewart might not provide any kind of leadership for lefty activists, but Michael Moore isn’t too much. We need better leaders. Occupy Wall Street is hopefully creating those leaders. May they be more serious than Moore.

After the best availability for italian leather jackets and long leather coat, you can shop the latest double breasted trench coat and motorcycle jackets by our handpicked global community of motorcycle gear.

Page 4 of 20« First...23456...1020...Last »