Archive for January, 2013

Note: There’s been some news about this; see the update below.

'You will know them by their fruits.' / Matthew 7:16a, NASB / PsiCop original graphicAh, the “religion of love” in action, once again. I continue to be amazed at the kinds of privileges Christians — in this case, one who claims to be a “pastor” — arrogate for themselves. Rather unbelievably, this loving Christian decided she didn’t need to pay a tip to her waitress when she dined out, according to the Consumerist (WebCite cached article). Part of a group large enough to trigger an automatic 18% gratuity, which asked for separate checks, he zeroed out the tip line on his own check and wrote something fairly insulting in its place:

The photo, which began tearing up the Atheism page on Reddit [cached] not long after it was posted a few hours ago, shows a receipt for $34.93 with an automatic gratuity of 18% ($6.29) included.

But the diner has scratched out that tip, writing instead that “I Give God 10% Why do you Get 18? and adding the word “pastor” above his signature. And instead of leaving a tip that was merely less than the 18%, just wrote a big “0.”

Here’s a photo of the receipt in question:

'I give God 10% why do you get 18,' signed by a pastor, via Reddit r/atheism

‘I give God 10% why do you get 18,’ signed by a pastor, via Reddit r/atheism

I admit to being at a loss to understand this “pastor’s” objection to paying an 18% tip. Is he saying that, if 10% is good enough for his God, it should be good enough for wait staff, too? If so, he need not have zeroed out the tip; he could have tipped 10% and written in $3.49 instead. Does he object on the grounds that he thinks the 10% he pays God shouldn’t have to go to the waiter? If so, he should have tipped the difference, 8%, and written in $2.79.

But the bastard for Jesus did neither of those. He tipped a big, whopping, generous, charitable “0.” What’s worse, he wrote out his objection, and topped that off by saying he’s a “pastor.” As though that somehow excuses his stingyness.

P.S. I’m aware there are lots of people who object philosophically to having to tip. But Mr Pastor is not one of them. At least, he didn’t indicate so on the receipt. His stated objection was clearly and solely religious. As for folks who refuse to tip … I hate to break it to them, but tipping at dine-in establishments is the custom in the U.S. Every American knows it. If you don’t like having to tip, the solution is simple and obvious: Just don’t eat in such establishments. I would urge Mr Pastor to follow that policy from now on.

Update: It was not the stiffed waiter, but another server in the same restaurant, who posted this receipt to Reddit, and the Consumerist reports she’s been fired (cached). And the Smoking Gun reports the name of this non-tipping pastor (cached); she’s Alois Bell. Ms Bell has apologized for her rudeness, and claimed she left a $6 cash tip, but this doesn’t jibe with what she wrote on the receipt. And the Applebee’s in question ended up charging her the 18% “autograt” anyway. My thanks to the commenter who tipped me off to this (pun intended!)

Photo credit: PsiCop original graphic, based on Mt 7:16a.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 2 Comments »

CEDRHAB TimbuktuSeveral months ago I blogged about militant Sunni Islamists in Mali destroying Sufi sites there as part of their sectarian campaign of violence. Earlier this month, France intervened in the ongoing civil war there. Since then, the rebels have lost ground, and the militant Islamists are in retreat. In the process, as Reuters reports, they took out their religiofascist anger out on yet another site of historical importance in Timbuktu (WebCite cached article):

Islamist fighters fleeing Mali’s ancient Saharan city of Timbuktu as French and Malian troops closed in set fire to a South African-funded library there containing thousands of priceless manuscripts, the city’s mayor said on Monday.

“The rebels sit fire to the newly-constructed Ahmed Baba Institute built by the South Africans … this happened four days ago,” Halle Ousmane told Reuters by telephone from Bamako. He said he had received the information from his chief of communications who had travelled south from the city a day ago.

No doubt these furious Islamists hoped to emulate the legend told of the Muslim general ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, who after conquering Egypt c. 640, supposedly ordered the famous ancient Library of Alexandria destroyed.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on More Gratuitous Islamofascist Destruction In Mali

Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt! (proverb)At this point one would have thought the Republicans should have learned the lesson of the 2012 election, which is that letting the idiots within its ranks mouth off like the clowns they are, is a bad idea. And voters seem to have agreed they were idiots: Richard Mourdock, Joe Walsh, and Todd Akin — at one time all favored to win their races — ended up losing, because they opened their mouths and shoved their religionistic feet in them. Remarkable losses such as these ought to have sent a message to the country’s Religious Right politicians.

But it seems some of them either never got the message, or they got it, but have decided spewing idiocy won’t hurt them. The New York Times Caucus blog reports on one who’s gone and done just that (WebCite cached version):

The lawmaker, Representative Phil Gingrey, an obstetrician and gynecologist, told the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce that neither Mr. Akin, who lost his Senate bid to Senator Claire McCaskill, nor Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who lost to Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, had been treated fairly in the wake of their rape comments, according to The Marietta Daily News.

“I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things,” Mr. Gingrey said, according to the paper. “It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he?” …

He also justified Mr. Akin’s distinction between “legitimate rape” — which Mr. Akin had said women’s reproductive systems can defend against — and other unspecified sexual acts that can lead to pregnancy.

Mr. Akin, he said, “was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’ — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’

“That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.”

So you see, even after a disaster of an election which left the Republicans still out of the White House, and with a smaller number of seats in both houses of Congress, they still cannot seem to get over their belief that calling out idiots for their idiocy is somehow “not fair” to the idiots; that not all rapes are really “rapes”; and that women who are raped are less likely to become pregnant than women who aren’t.

Oh, and the part about fueling women with wine in order to get them to “loosen up” for sex … what juvenile fucking bullshit! I think I got over that idea back when I was in high school. But what the hell do I know!?

If you unsure how the next two years in GOP politics are going to go, this seems to provide an indicator: They plan to double down on their stupidity and buffoonery, be laughed at and derided as the clowns and loons they are, and continue to intone the endless mantra that they aren’t being “treated fairly.” Apparently they think this is a winning formula, in spite of the 2012 elections whose results say something else.

Update: The folks at PolitiFact examined Gingrey’s (and by extension Akin’s) claim and found it had no scientific basis at all (cached). As the article explains, and as I hadn’t known until just recently, there’s a significant wing of the Religious Right which really, truly and seriously claims either that women cannot conceive when they’re raped, or that the likelihood of conception is greatly reduced. The reason they make this claim is so that they can justify banning all abortions and not even grant an exception for cases of rape. They are willing to lie to people in order to justify forcing the entire country to live according to their metaphysics, and they’ve been doing it for many years.

Photo credit: PsiCop original, based on proverb.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Religious Rightist In Congress Supports Todd Akin

Secret of my success: I'm going to succeed because I'm crazy enough to think I can …. / Motifake.ComNote: There’s some recent news about the subject of this blog post. See below for more information.

I’m guessing most of you have no idea who Martha Dean is, not even those of you who live in my home state of Connecticut, where she also lives. Ordinarily, I’d have provided a link to her bio on some reference site like Answers.Com — but she’s not even well-known enough for that. That said, she’s hardly a nobody. She was the Republican nominee for Connecticut state Attorney General in 2002 and again in 2010.

Ms Dean is a gun-rights advocate and Republican activist, and one who’s not exactly all together upstairs. For example, while running for A.G. in 2010 she advocated mandatory gun training for all school children in Connecticut (cached) (just the liability insurance alone would make this cost-prohibitive for nearly every school district … but that didn’t matter to her, despite the fact that she’s a lawyer and surely had to have realized it).

Well, this shifty character managed to step in it a few days ago, when — as the Litchfield County Times reports — she posted a link to a “Newtown Truther” conspiracy video on her Facebook wall (WebCite cached article):

Republican legislative leaders have asked former GOP attorney general candidate Martha Dean to take down a link on her Facebook page to a conspiracy video that calls the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown a “hoax.”

Put together by One Truth 4 Life, the 24-minute video, combines the early confusing reports out of Newtown when police were looking for a second shooter and comments from others at the scene to ultimately conclude that “this was a total hoax. There are just a bunch of people walking around a movie set.”

“Oh my God. It is just vile. It is beyond me how someone would post this, particularly a standard-bearer for any political party. It is such a disgraceful video,” said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero. He said he couldn’t understand why anyone would call attention to this material.

Larry may profess not understand the reason, but I do: It’s because Martha long ago drank the NRA’s paranoiac Kool-Aid and believes this was all contrived by the Obama administration to take away her precious guns. (Really, Larry, you already know this, too, and don’t need me to tell you. It’d have been better for you just to admit your co-Republican is a lunatic nutcase that no one should listen to and who had no business being on your party’s ballot twice in 8 years. But you haven’t the courage to say it. More’s the pity.)

Ms Dean apparently wasn’t unaffected by the fallout:

When reached Thursday, Dean read from a new post she put on Facebook on the criticism.

“We all love kids and we all mourn the tragic loss of school staff and children at Newtown, but we must never fear asking questions — or posting questions asked by others,” it read. She said she didn’t plan to comment further.

Except, that turns out to have been a lie. Today she had plenty of comment on it … when, as the Hartford Courant reports, she appeared this afternoon on the WTIC-AM radio show of convicted felon and ex-governor John Rowland (cached):

In an extraordinary radio interview [cached] that aired Wednesday afternoon, former Republican Gov. John Rowland, now host of a drive-time talk show on WTIC, relentlessly grilled Martha Dean, the former Republican nominee for attorney general who had posted a Sandy Hook truther video on her Facebook page [cached].

The exchange, which took up most of the 5 o’clock hour, touched on an array of topics, from the Lusitania to Benghazi to Susan Smith. …

“People want to know why you posted the video on your Facebook for Facebook followers,” Rowland asked. “What was the purpose, what was the point? What were you trying to prove, what are the questions that you’d think that people need to bring up in Connecticut..that’s what people want to know.” …

Dean said she uses her Facebook page as a forum for ideas, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn’t.

But Dean also say repeatedly that the video “raises questions” about the narrative that unfolded on Dec. 14. Among the questions she cited: How did shooter Adam Lanza get into the school? (He shot his way in [cached].)

The whole “there are questions, therefore my insane theory must be true” rationale is absurd on its face. Of course there are questions about what happened during the Newtown massacre. Dozens of them. I’ve asked some of those questions, myself. I will state very clearly, I find the Connecticut State Police — who’ve controlled the investigation — have been slippery and evasive where it’s concerned, to the point of even being dishonest about it (e.g. saying they discovered evidence of a motive for the massacre, yet continuing to say they have no idea what the motive could have been). However, that’s no reason to presume some insane conspiratorial hypothesis, nor is it good reason to post a video insulting to the victims of the Newtown massacre. The “people have questions” thing has been used to justify any number of crazy or hateful notions. One example is Holocaust denial; some Holocaust deniers predicate their objections on the question of just how many Jews were killed by the Nazis, as though if the number were “only,” say, 1 million instead of, say, 7 million, it means there couldn’t have been any genocide. That, of course, is laughable and asinine. What Martha is doing here isn’t so very different.

Based on the Courant‘s account of Rowland’s takedown of Ms Dean, I almost wish I were one of Rowland’s listeners. But it will take a lot more than just this to get me to listen to that felonious windbag.

At any rate, Martha’s fans within Connecticut’s extreme Right wing (which does exist in spite of this being a very “blue” state) and among NRA activists will, no doubt, laud her for her “courage” and praise her for having “asked questions” they think no one else has dared ask (even though lots of people, including myself, have done so). In other words, she’s already impressed everyone she’d hoped to impress with her little stunt. Nothing she says afterward, and nothing anyone else says about her, can change it. That John Rowland, Larry Cafero, or anyone else — even if they’re Republicans — disapproves of her maneuver, doesn’t matter one iota to her or to her supporters. She’s hooked them, and the barb has sunk in. And she’ll laugh all the way to the bank, especially if she decides to run for statewide office again in 2014.

P.S. I have no idea what Susan Smith has to do with this. I can only imagine what Martha thinks her link is to the Newtown massacre. I don’t even want to know … !

Update: The paranoiac, gun-toting Martha Dean announced she’s running for governor of Connecticut in 2014 (cached). Which obviously didn’t work out for her, since she didn’t even last long enough to primary.

Photo credit: Motifake.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 13 Comments »

FILE - In this Sept. 22, 2007 file photo, Cardinal Roger Mahony speaks during an annual multi-ethnic migration Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahony and other top Roman Catholic officials from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles maneuvered behind the scenes to shield molester priests, provide damage control for the church and keep parishioners in the dark, according to church personnel files. Mahony, who is retired, issued a statement Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, apologizing for his mistakes and saying he had been "naive" about the lasting impacts of abuse. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon, File)Over the last 10 years or so, a lot of civil cases against Catholic dioceses have been launched and played out in courts around the country. A side-effect of these has been the sporadic release of administrative documents showing the Church’s complicity (usually after-the-fact) in child abuse committed by its clergy. This happened in San Diego a couple of years ago. A little to the north, as the Associated Press reports, the archdiocese of Los Angeles recently loosed its own trove of documents that reveal its own guilt (WebCite cached article):

Prosecutors who have been stymied for years in their attempts to build a criminal conspiracy case against retired Los Angeles Archdiocese Cardinal Roger Mahony and other church leaders said Tuesday they will review newly released internal priest files for additional evidence. …

Thousands of pages from the internal disciplinary files of 14 priests made public Monday show Mahony and other top aides maneuvered behind the scenes to shield molester priests, provide damage control for the church and keep parishioners in the dark.

Some of the documents provide the strongest evidence to date that Mahony and a top aide worked to protect a priest who acknowledged in therapy to raping an 11-year-old boy and abusing up to 17 children, many of them the children of illegal immigrants.

These documents finally came to light — and they will be followed by more — due to a settlement over 5 years ago, whose terms the archdiocese only just now decided to obey:

The files of dozens more accused priests are expected to be released in the coming weeks as part of a 2007 settlement agreement with more than 500 alleged victims. A judge recently ruled that the church must turn the files over to attorneys for those people with the names and titles of members of the church hierarchy blacked out after The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times intervened.

The documents released Monday and the additional 30,000 pages expected soon raise the possibility of renewed criminal scrutiny for Mahony and other members of the archdiocese hierarchy. Mahony retired in 2011.

Despite the fact that these documents might reveal criminality, and even in spite of their own stated interest in them, prosecutors are still hedging, and aren’t promising much:

In a 2010 memo, a lead prosecutor in that eight-year investigation [launched in 2002] said the documents he had showed “the possibility of criminal culpability” by members of the archdiocese leadership, but a criminal conspiracy case was “more and more remote” because of the passage of time.

Deputy District Attorney William Hodgman said investigators had insufficient evidence to fill in a timeline stretching over 20 years and were, even then, hampered by the statute of limitations. He did not return a call or email seeking comment Tuesday.

It looks as though California prosecutors’ longstanding habit of giving the Church a “pass” is continuing; they have their rationale for not going after the archdiocese, and I expect they’ll stick with it. As usual.

One final note: Cardinal Mahony claims he’d been ignorant of the fact that child abuse is bad:

Mahony was out of town but issued a statement Monday apologizing for his mistakes and saying he had been “naive” about the lasting impacts of abuse.

Of course, his claim of ignorance is no excuse. Child abuse has been illegal — in California and lots of places — for a very long time. Mahony and his archdiocese was subject to a mandatory-reporting law beginning in 1997. Child abuse was wrong in the 1980s. It was wrong in the 1990s. And it’s wrong now. So he can’t credibly and rationally say he had no idea that child abuse wasn’t something he ought to try to prevent. Of course he knew it.

Note this is not the first time we’ve heard this sort of claim from a Catholic hierarch, in spite of how inexcusable it is. Former Milwaukee archbishop Rembert Weakland made a similar admission, a few years ago. Other hierarchs have expressed a flippant, dismissive attitude toward abuse allegations. Really, this is an old story. The hierarchs’ lack of anything remotely resembling morality has been on the record for many years. Yet, millions of Americans still cling to the Roman Catholic Church and continue to do the hierarchs’ bidding. Sad, really.

Photo credit: Reed Saxon / AP photo.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 8 Comments »

crying baby leoOne of the things I go into at length, in my page on scriptures that Christians love to ignore, is Jesus’ injunction against his followers judging others. He was very clear and specific on the matter, yet Christians have, historically, refused to obey this explicit instruction. Christianity’s history is a long chronicle of Christians judging other Christians … and non-Christians … adversely, and often coming to blows over it. It’s not as though they aren’t aware of this teaching; what they’ve done is to rationalize it away so as to grant themselves license to judge, even though they’ve been ordered not to.

An example of precisely this sort of rationale was offered by the AFA’s Bryan Fischer. He objects to people he calls “secular fundamentalists” and “Leftists” using this injunction against dutiful Christianists like himself (WebCite cached article):

Leftists think it’s [i.e. Matthew 7:1] their trump card. Anytime a social conservative expresses criticism of, say homosexual behavior, the secular fundamentalist throws the “judge not” card on the table, declares game over, and smugly dares his vanquished opponent to breathe another word.

Here’s the problem. A leftist cannot use that argument without condemning himself.

If judging other people is wrong, then, to personalize it, he has no moral right to judge me, which is exactly what he is doing by condemning me for criticizing deviant sexual behavior.

His whole argument is predicated on his mindless conviction that passing moral judgments on other people is, well, immoral. But then he is guilty of the very thing of which he charges me.

Fischer even conjures up a laughable, imagined dialog with his own personal version of a “Leftist” in support of his contention.

His problem is, his entire argument is predicated on a straw man. He assumes that “secular fundamentalists” (aka “Leftists”) are under the same injunction that he is. The problem: They very well might not be! Jesus’ order to his followers not to judge others, by definition does not include non-Christians, who increasingly make up a larger proportion of America’s ideological Left (or what Fischer refers to as “secular fundamentalists,” whatever that might mean).

I concede that any Christians within the ideological Left would, of course, be subject to the same injunction Fischer and all of his fiercely Rightist co-religionists are. But given that Fischer is complaining about “secular fundamentalists” and equating them with “the Left,” he’s referring to a larger group than just liberal Christian believers, a group that would have to include non-Christians. Some of Fischer’s critics to whom he’s responding are not subject to Jesus’ injunction against judging others, and are allowed to judge him negatively — and simultaneously inform him that he’s violating Jesus’ teachings.

Fischer didn’t use it, but some Christians cite another scripture passage as an evasion:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

This passage is an admission that it’s sometimes necessary for Christians to correct each other. However, it clearly contradicts what Jesus said on the subject. And it’s not a “clarification” of what Jesus taught, because it’s not worded that way. No part of 2 Timothy says anything along the lines of, “Jesus did teach us not to judge one another, but sometimes you need to admonish and correct others, and when you do, Scripture will help you do it.” It’s not in there … at all. But even if 2 Timothy did say that, we’d still end up with Jesus on the one hand teaching one thing, and the author of 2 Timothy (which, in spite of Christian tradition, was not written by Paul), who says another.

At any rate, if Fischer, or any other Christian, objects to being told s/he isn’t supposed to judge anyone else, too bad. It’s their religion, they picked it, and that’s what it teaches. If they don’t like it, they either need to alter their religion and its scripture so it teaches something else, or leave the religion and find another. This problem is entirely between Christians and their God.

Photo credit: storyvillegirl, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Christofascist Proves He Has No Idea What He’s Talking About

ManWearingTinFoilHatWhen one encounters crazed conspiracy theorists, it’s natural to ask what’s the problem with them. The US is a free country, after all. People are free to be idiots, morons, and ignoramuses driven by delusions and phony outrage, if they want to. They can make and wear their tinfoil hats anywhere they wish, no matter how strange they look. Their laughable obsessions don’t hurt anyone but them … so who cares?

Except sometimes, that’s not true. Sometimes the sanctimonious fury of insane paranoiacs does, in fact, cause harm. A sterling example is that of Gene Rosen, a Newtown CT man who took in some of the kids who’d escaped the carnage at the Sandy Hook Elementary School (it’s a horrific event I’ve blogged a few times about). Salon reports he’s now the target of angry “Sandy Hook Truthers” who vent their rage at him, because they’re too childish to figure out how to control themselves (locally-cached article):

“I don’t know what to do,” sighed Gene Rosen. “I’m getting hang-up calls, I’m getting some calls, I’m getting emails with, not direct threats, but accusations that I’m lying, that I’m a crisis actor, ‘how much am I being paid?’” Someone posted a photo of his house online. There have been phony Google+ and YouTube accounts created in his name, messages on white supremacist message boards ridiculing the “emotional Jewish guy,” and dozens of blog posts and videos “exposing” him as a fraud. One email purporting to be a business inquiry taunted: “How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting’. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov’t sponsored hoax anyway?” …

What did Rosen do to deserve this? One month ago, he found six little children and a bus driver at the end of the driveway of his home in Newtown, Conn [cached]. “We can’t go back to school,” one little boy told Rosen. “Our teacher is dead.” He brought them inside and gave them food and juice and toys. He called their parents. He sat with them and listened to their shocked accounts of what had happened just down the street inside Sandy Hook Elementary, close enough that Rosen heard the gunshots.

In the hours and days that followed, Rosen did a lot of media interviews. “I wanted to speak about the bravery of the children, and it kind of helped me work through this,” he told Salon in an interview. “I guess I kind of opened myself up to this.”

The “this” in question is becoming a prime target of the burgeoning Sandy Hook truther movement [cached], which — like its precursor that denied the veracity of the 9/11 terror attacks — alleges that the entire shooting was a hoax of some kind.

I’ve already blogged about the insanity which is the “Sandy Hook Truther” movement, but I underestimated these lunatics; I had no idea they were capable of stooping to something like this.

If it’s not clear to you by now, let me spell it out for you: This is nothing more or less than immaturity. Plain and simple. PCT’s don’t like something they hear about, so rather than accept the bad news like mature adults and get on with their lives, they throw an intellectual tantrum and cook up some delusional rationale for not accepting that it happened as it was reported. That’s really what this boils down to.

One of the ways you can tell these folk are not exactly firing on all cylinders, or basing their views on a single set of facts, is that they can’t or won’t agree whether or not anyone died in Sandy Hook Elementary School: Some say no one died and it was all staged by “crisis actors”; others claim it was a real massacre ordered either by President Obama (in order to take everyone’s guns away) or by Mossad (in order to get back at Obama for not having backed Israel’s plan to attack Iran). If they’re going to concoct a fictional scenario and rail about it, you’d think they could at least get their story straight … but they won’t.

At any rate, I can see the reactions of the PCT’s now. They’ll say Rosen is still acting, that no one has harassed him, that he’s lying, that he made up the harassment in order to appear a “martyr” and further whatever cause the Sandy Hook “Hoax” was supposed to have supported. Or something like that. Twisted rationales are easy for these juvenile wingnuts to cook up. It’s long past time for them to grow the fuck up and get over it already, fercryinoutloud.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 2 Comments »