punching up

Piggybacking off Sady’s post on rape jokes and Tosh-type incidents, and going on a bit of a detour:

I wonder if the butthurt response by comedians and artists to, “Hey, I’m a woman in your audience and you offended me, hurt me, pissed me off,” isn’t just privilege by itself, but privilege mixed with insecurity about being artists.

As artists — writing, drawing, stand-up, whatever — what we do isn’t super high on the hierarchy of needs. It’s important, even essential; we need entertainment and stories as humans, it’s part of our makeup — but it doesn’t come before food, shelter, etc. If a bomb explodes in your imediate vicinity, the first questions on everybody’s lips aren’t, “Sweet God, where are the stand-up comics and the screenwriters?”

And I think we know that, deep down, or not-so-deep down, and that’s why there are jillions of essays bloviating about how goddamned important we are. But I think it’s better if we go the other direction, and put what we do in perspective. I know that can look dangerous, because it’s a way the money guys have exploited artists for a while — “Look, you know in your heart that what you do isn’t that important, so you don’t really need residuals, right?” — but that’s a red herring. That’s a labor issue. Humans deserve to get paid a living wage for their labor, end of story.

I just wonder if that’s in the mix whenever the reaction to, “Your art offended me and hurt me and pissed me off” has that, “It’s Art! It’s there to offend you! To ~challenge you!” thing going on.

I’m not convinced that this is what’s going on — I can easily believe that it’s straight-up, classic male privilege, original recipe. But if it is, the tonic for it might be:

1. Put your art in perspective. Human beings are always more important than your — than our — art.

2. Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. If you’re not punching up, Ur Doin’ It Wrong.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

chuck that baby! and its commie bathwater, too!

The Oregon Medicaid study Republicans will cream their jeans over:

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. 

Gosh, I can’t think of any reason low-income people would have higher blood pressure or higher cholesterol levels despite medical intervention! Or why they might not be taking medicine as often as affluent people with or without health insurance, even if they’re able to see a doctor!

I GUESS THAT MEANS WE SHOULD THROW MEDICAID OUT COMPLETELY. GODDAMN SOCIALISM, WE ALL KNOW IT DOESN’T WORK.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

You really want to know what happened to Zuko’s mom?

Originally posted on Mike DiMartino:

583215-avatar_the_last_airbender_the_search

The first part of The Search was released in comic book stores today and should be in wide release in the next couple of weeks. And so begins the 3-part story that answers the question fans have had for years — “What happened to Zuko’s mom?”

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been asked that by fans of the show, because it’s a lot.

While we were working on Book 1 of Korra, Bryan and I pitched a TV movie version of the search for Zuko’s mom to Nickelodeon. They weren’t interested in doing animated TV movies, and chose to pick up Book 2 of Korra instead.  (And yes, we’re still working on it.) Around the same time, Dark Horse wanted to publish ongoing stories with Aang and Zuko, so we started working with the writer Gene Yang to develop new adventures. We decided against having The…

View original 599 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

the perils and pleasures of an equals sign made of bacon

rae-rose:

agnesgalore:

It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that, though I didn’t think about this at the time, I probably started a blog because I need somewhere to vent my boundless rage that is not random people’s Facebook walls. I mean, one thing among the many thousands of things that are…

Forewarning this is a rant, feel free to ignore

I agree with a lot of what the OP says….to a point. I haven’t been a fan of the HRC for a long time. There record with POC and Trans* rights is atrocious and they tend to have some issues (in my opinion) with making mountains out of molehills.

That being said, the equality signs still make me happy. And I still see good in them. And here’s why.

On the HRC:

Yes, the organization takes money from corporations. Guess what? Up until at least 2004 (or so I managed to find doing a rather quick internet search) so did the NAACP. And other, awesome organizations (Campus PRide, for example, which does a lot of great work for LGTBQIA Alley students) accept donations from companies. I have an American apparel shirt from my 2010 Summer Leadership camp that was donated to them. So you know what? Yes, it sucks that organizations get money from corporations, that it (in doing so) supports a rather sucky capitalist system. But short of tearing society down and rebuilding that whole damn thing up, there isn’t a whole hell of a lot else to do. Especially not to run the sorts of campaigns they do. And I’m sorry but anyone who buys anything that’s mass produced is contributing to the socioeconcomic oppression in this country. It’s an ugly fact.

[...]

Talking about allies using it. Not everyone knows everything about gay rights. Not everyone understands the intricacies of it. Guess what: they don’t have to. People don’t have to know the ins and outs of everything to support it. And they don’t have to support every single thing a group does to support the group in one thing they agree on. Allies don’t have to understand all the in-fighting, agree with every single thing and every single aspect of the community and community rights to be allies. Same thing for LGBTQIA individuals, they don’t have to agree with everything the HRC does to support this one particular action. Continuing on the topic of allies, why do you expect them to do more than just support it? Why do people seem to expect them to understand our struggles? They’re not LGBTQIA. But they are trying and that should always be commended. Without out allies beside us, our cause would have been a much longer and more different affair. People who didn’t necessarily understand still stood up and helped us, sometimes at personal risk. And I think that many people forget that. 

[...]

As for the symbol…I think that after a certain point a symbol can have a meaning beyond its origin. Seeing that sea of red isn’t necessarily supporting an organization but supporting one thing that organization believes in. And there is a difference. To be angry with them for choosing to express their solidarity in this way is, of course, a persons decision. But while you can take a darker view of the situation, you can also look at it like this:

I didn’t agree with everything said in this post, but I excerpted the parts I do agree with.

The HRC-equals-sign-all-over-Facebook is, for me, simultaneously an annoying piece of slacktivism by people doing the bare minimum to look liberal and a heartwarming “thumbs-up” from straight people that they respect and support gay rights. I said, “Everybody posting a fucking equals sign better have phone-banked or canvassed or donated” while saying to my kid sister, “Wtf, where’s your equals sign?!” on the same damn day. (She now has an equals sign. Or an ally banner. Or something. Idk, I barely use Facebook.)

I mean, look. I canvassed for marriage equality. I phone-banked, both for regular “which way do you think you’re voting” purposes, but also trolling for volunteers. I live in Maryland, one of the bluest states in America, and it was like pulling goddamned teeth. Not because people were homophobic, or didn’t care, but just because… people don’t want to do this shit. And the people that do agree to come, well, half of those people are going to actually show up, if you’re lucky. Hey, I get it. I’m lazy. I was supposed to be a warm body for United Workers a weekend or so ago and I bailed like an asshole.

Most people are not activists, let alone people that casually toss around words like “privilege” and “intersectionality” and “horizontal oppression”. Most people are your Facebook feed. They’re posting dumbass shit about Kim Kardashian or whatever the fuck. They’re apolitical. They view politics as that boring thing that involves facts and figures, that useless thing because all politicians are liars, or that upsetting thing because it makes people fight at Thanksgiving dinner.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t expect more from people– well, okay. That’s exactly what I’m saying. There’s only so much we can expect from people unless we’re willing to do the tough organizing work (again, pulling teeth) that activates people and politicizes and radicalizes them. And even then, you’re only going to reach a fraction of the people you set out to motivate.

So, I’ll take an equals sign, is what I’m saying. I’ll feel conflicted about it, and be kind of an asshole about it, but I’ll also feel grateful for it. There are countries where their citizens are a lot more politically engaged, but right now, this country isn’t one of them. We’ve gotta work with the citizens we have. Or change them. And that’s offline work.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Leftist Argument Against Leftist Arguments Against Gay Marriage

I’d supported same-sex marriage since I was a teenager back in the ’90s. Since before I identified as bi. The only arguments I’d heard against it were the usual bigoted froth.

Then I hit college and read The Trouble With Normal . It blew my mind wide open. It (along with That’s Revolting!) exposed me to a critique of marriage equallity from the left. You probably know it already, but just to make sure we’re all on the same page here, it goes something like this:

    Back in the ’70s, gay activists were radical. They pushed back against heteronormativity, against the nuclear family structure. The basic idea: straight people act like we’re abnormal and deviant. Instead of saying, “No we’re not, we’re just like you,” what about saying, “Okay, what if we are different? If we are ‘deviant’, what are we deviating from?? Maybe the stuff we’re deviating from is actually fucked up. Maybe it’s constraining and harmful. Maybe there are other, equally valid, ways to live, to date, to have sex, to form families.”

    Now our political fight has been co-opted. Now we’re fighting hard to join existing institutions that are fucked up at their core. We’re fighting to be part of the mainstream, to be seen as normal when it shouldn’t matter whether we’re normal or not. The quest to join in on marriage and the military — two institutions that many leftists are deeply skeptical of — is a betrayal of earlier, better, more radical aims.

    And this isn’t an accident — it’s a direct function of our movement being run by the most privileged section of our community. Affluent white cis gay dudes nearly have it all and they want one last piece of the pie. In addition to betraying our radical queer foreparents and the hope of creating a viable counterculture, the quest for marriage (and the military) means we’re shoving aside the priorities of queer folks who are much more vulnerable — people of color, trans people, poor people — and hogging valuable time, energy and money for a cause that doesn’t affect them.

If you’re someone who’s critiqued the fight for marriage equality from the left, does that seem like a fair regurgitation of that argument? If not, hit me up in comments. I honestly don’t want to act like an asshole. When I first read this critique, I found it provocative, fascinating, kind of… okay, “sexy” isn’t the word, but I liked it.

I was sympathetic to it. I’m skeptical of marriage and the military, too, have been for a long time. I got a thrill from seeing a whole new way to look at things, from being forced to question a status quo that I didn’t even realize could be questioned — despite my skepticism, it was still this deeply ingrained norm, like wallpaper I’d passed all my life but never noticed until someone pointed it out.

But even though I was sympathetic, thrilled, etc., I also couldn’t embrace it. Now that we’re possibly, possibly on the cusp of having same-sex marriage being legalized by SCOTUS (DON’T LET ME DOWN, KENNEDY), here’s why I argue that this entire thing hasn’t been a waste of our time or a ~betrayal of our ~radical queerness. Or that maybe it has been a betrayal and that that’s okay.

What I really can’t argue with: we white affluent queer folks have long shoved aside the concerns of our more marginalized queer brothers and sisters. It’s not okay. It’s never been okay. It makes sense for people to be really, really mad about it. What I will argue: that the fight for same sex marriage, in and of itself, has aspects to it that go directly to the heart of our struggle as a community against homophobia, which means it’s been a net good for our entire community, key word “entire.”

How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love Dirty, Dirty Assimilation:

1. The one you’ve all heard before, or: I can’t wait til the Revolution for my hospital visitation rights. There are people right now that need the benefits and privileges that go along with marriage.

2. It’s not only affluent, white, cis GLB folk that want to get married. Enough said.

3. Not everyone is radical. And that’s okay. For as long as there have been GLBT folks that have said, “I’m a weirdo, I hate the mainstream, I wanna be part of something completely different, and that’s awesome,” there have also been GLBT folks that have said, “I’m just like everybody else, my sexuality is as unremarkable as left-handedness or green eyes, I’m just waiting for everyone else to recognize that.” Those people are never going away. Those people — I know this is shocking — are, I’d argue, the majority. Otherwise us fringe weirdos wouldn’t be so fucking weird.

I’m not even talking politics, necessarily. I’m talking innate personality differences, and the desires those inspire. It’s not only lack of privilege that forces people outside of the mainstream. Sometimes it’s just how we’re wired. And we’re not all wired the same. My webcomic partner in crime has blue hair and wants to build a house out of dirt. Did being queer play a part in those things? I’m sure. But I’d also bet that even if she were born straight, she’d still have blue hair and wanna build a dirt-house.

Basically: some people are going to want to assimilate, and it’s not just down to “false consciousness” or groupthink, but because their desires and conceptions of themselves are different than yours. I mean, this is obvious, right? When discussing That’s Revolting! and the Gay Shame movement and the like, a friend and I had a shorthand that went: “Not everybody wants to fuck in the streets, guys.”

(Sidebar: I shouldn’t be claiming political fringe-i-ness. To a centrist or a mainstream liberal Democrat, I’m a Commie. To an anarchist, I’m a dirty reformist liberal. I’m fringe-adjacent. Fringe-curious. A tourist to be spat on whoops, nothing to see here.)

4. We’re not going to destroy the institution of marriage anytime soon. And unlike institutions we dismantled — slavery, child labor — this one has people trying to, you know, get in on it, because it’s got a lot of pluses. And if we want to extend those pluses to other people, well…

4b. It’s more practical to build on what’s there than to tear it all down and start from scratch. Less emotionally satisfying, but more practical. In The Shock Doctrine (not exactly a right-wing or centrist manifesto), Naomi Klein returns again and again to the idea that a blank slate is impossible — that whether you want to break down an entire regime or a single human mind, you’ll never achieve a blank canvass that you can start afresh with. All you’ll leave is charred ruins, with battered survivors picking amongst the rubble and using what remains to rebuild. And because they’re using what was already there, the old system will get patched together again… just in worse shape.

Which is a really dramatic way of saying: we have a system. It has gross origins. But we can make patches.

Basically, I’m arguing against the Revolution. (Dirty liberal! Dirty liberal!)

5. Same-sex couples fighting for the right to get married exposes the ugly core of why homophobes have been fucking us over for centuries. Why do homophobes kick their queer kids out of the house, rendering them homeless? Why are homeless shelters for queer youth denied adequate funding? (To grab two issues that are often held up as higher priorities for marginalized queer folks.)

Because homophobes don’t want to see men being in love with men. Or women being in love with women. Plus the whole “thou shalt not defy traditional gender roles” thing. Demanding not only that our relationships, our love, be recognized, but that it must be treated equal to heterosexual love, goes right to the heart of their entire objection to us.

How can that not change minds? How can that not lead to less queer kids becoming homeless in the first place? How can that not lead to more straight people donating to queer youth homeless shelters? Or to AIDS-related causes (to pick another fight that’s often cited as one higher on the priority list for the marginalized members in our community)?

If your issue isn’t straight homophobes, but instead the white cis gay dudes running the GayTM… if your issue is the idea that white cis gay dudes want to climb up the ladder, then pull it up after them, then… their racism and classism is going to have to be fought regardless. The next cause celebre, if the racism and classism isn’t tackled, is still going to be white/cis/rich-centric. Saying “Ditch marriage equality” when marriage equality could help a whole host of GLBT people isn’t going to get rid of the racism and the classism. Relatedly…

6. Intersectionality doesn’t mean “ignore that axis of oppression you’re dealing with and fight on this other one instead.” I realize this seems rich coming from me, arguing what I’m arguing. Bear with me. Here’s what I’m saying: Ignoring the concerns of queer POC and queer low-income people is wrong, and surely we can find a way to make sure that all the money and all the energy isn’t being spent on marriage equality, that money and time and energy are going to issues that more marginalized queer people prioritize more highly.

But Beyond Marriage basically says, again and again, “Fight the class war instead. It affects us all! Gay and straight!” If classism is fucking you over harder than homophobia and you want to make that your priority, then that’s cool, but dude, don’t act like those of us who are affected primarily by homophobia can’t prioritize fighting homophobia.

I get that it isn’t often that cut and dried, that different aspects of our identity don’t just separate out like they’re arranged on a school lunch tray.

But we’re not talking about a white woman going, “I’m tired of dudes thinking that women don’t get horny and we don’t like sex and we just use it as a bargaining chip,” and a black woman going, “Um, actually, for me, it’s more like white dudes expecting me to be some jezebel 24/7*,” where these two identities intersect and so does the sexism and the racism and it causes this whole separate kind of oppression.

We’re talking about Beyond Marriage going, “Winning marriage equality in order to access our partners’ benefits makes little sense if the benefits that we seek are being shredded.” Fight austerity, not homophobia.

Or: “For example, an estimated 70-80% of LGBT elders live as single people, yet they need many of the health care, disability, and survivorship benefits now provided through partnerships only when the partners are legally married.” Yes, we should be more expansive and generous when it comes to government benefits. But (1) couldn’t expanding the definition of marriage lead to another expansion? That’s what the right-wingers have been screaming about, right? OMG, slippery slope! Doesn’t it make more sense to try and expand the definition now and give people benefits now, rather than torch the whole thing because it’s not perfect? And (2) why are they single? A lot of queer elderly people feel they have to be closeted or at least not super-open about who they are… which comes down to homophobia. Fighting to make sure elderly people are financially secure is, of course, an important goal, but doesn’t it also make sense to attack homophobia?

I get, “Don’t fight this because I don’t agree with the goal itself, which is assimilationist.” I disagree, but I get it. I get, “Don’t hog all the movement’s time, energy and money with this, some of us want the movement to focus on other important issues.” But when those are conflated and mutate into, “Homophobia doesn’t really matter, drop that fight, fight racism and classism instead,” that’s… not helpful.

To sum up: Money and energy and time are finite. Those of us pushing for progressive goals are always going to fight over what gets prioritized. I think that’s the unfortunate reality. But there are times when activists have fought on more than one front. Equality Maryland allied with the Maryland DREAM Act campaign, working to get both pieces of legislation passed. They succeeded. After marriage equality passed in Maryland, Equality MD tried (again) to get a trans-enclusive state ENDA passed. They failed (again), but they tried. We can connect our causes together and share resources and win things. It doesn’t just have to be the rich-white-cis-dude-concerns-only model, and it doesn’t have to be “no war but the class war,” either. It’s hard, but we can fight on multiple fronts.

 

 

*I hope you enjoyed this week’s installment of, “Conversations That Would Never Be Phrased This Way!” Next week: “I dunno, I’m just tired of people appropriating my anger,” said a random teenager playing DDR.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

podcast rec + ray kelly is a douchebag, news at 11

1. Way to be really late to the party, self: I finally started listening to This Week In Blackness (aka TWIB!), and it is so, so awesome. Funny, liberal, awesome. Dacia, Aaron and Elon enlighten me and crack my shit up. It’s feminist, it’s gay-affirming, it’s good times.

2. And also, via TWIB!:

State Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) is a former police captain himself who spoke out on racial issues as founder of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement.

But Monday, he testified that police commissioner Ray Kelly is using stop-and-frisk tactics in a discriminatory manner designed to put fear of being stopped by cops into young blacks and Hispanics.

“I believe that in his heart, he has the best intention of New Yorkers. I believe all of us are traumatized after September 11th, all of us are traumatized by the number of guns in the street. I think he’s used the wrong method,” Adams told reporters including WCBS 880′s Irene Cornell.

[...]

Adams said he asked Kelly why a “disproportionate” number of blacks and Hispanics were stopped. Kelly said that officers focused on that group of people “because he wanted to instill fear in them that every time they left home they could be targeted by police,” according to Adams.

“First of all I was amazed that he was comfortable enough to say that,” Adams said Monday. “I told him that was illegal and that was not what stop and frisk was supposed to be used for.”

Kelly said Monday it was “ludicrous” to think he would tell lawmakers that police were making stops based on race.

“I categorically and absolutely deny ever making such a statement,” he said. “It defies anyone’s logic.”

Kelly suggested Adams’ account was a ploy to goad him into testifying. He again said that he has no intention of taking the stand.

Yep.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

But how much is their CEO getting paid?

With health law looming, one large insurer wants a 25 percent premium hike

Maryland’s biggest health insurer proposed raising premiums for individual policies by an average of 25 percent next year, saying that President Obama’s health law would require it to accept even the sickest applicants, driving up costs.

The CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield plan must be approved by the state, and officials immediately indicated that there would be close scrutiny of the double-digit boost.

[...]

“The biggest driver of the increase is opening up the market to all comers,” said CareFirst CEO Chet Burrell. “The premiums reflect that.”

Health law supporters have called foul, contending that the proposed increase overestimates the cost of new enrollees.

SOURCE

One thing that often isn’t asked, and needs to be asked, any time a story like this is reported:

“Carefirst CEO, how much is your salary? And could you afford to take a pay cut?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

oh, men.

In an Atlantic piece headlined, “Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s trial should be a front page story,” Conor Friedersdorf admits, “Until Thursday, I wasn’t aware of this story … Had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would’ve been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet.” Slate’s Dave Weigel congratulated the tweeters for getting his attention and then filed a piece sympathetic to the coverup claim, lecturing pro-choice people that “You really should read that grand jury report,” and concluding, “Social conservatives are largely right about the Gosnell story.”

It’s so nice when men decide it’s not important to read things women write. :)

No, they aren’t right about the Gosnell story. If you’ve never heard of the Gosnell story, it’s not because of a coverup by the liberal mainstream media. It’s probably because you failed to pay attention to the copious coverage among pro-choice and feminist journalists, as well as the big news organizations, when the news first broke in 2011. There would be something rich, if it weren’t so infuriating, about these (almost uniformly male, as it happens) reporters and commentators scrambling to break open this shocking untold story. You know, the one that was written about here, here and here, to name some disparate sources.

All quotes above are from Irin Carmon’s piece. Read the whole thing.

Jill Fillipovic: If dozens of women write about a topic but men don’t notice, do they make a sound? #Gosnell

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

And Now, A Shirt Featuring Link, On The Millenium Falcon, Chained To A Sewing Machine

Threadless! Teefury! Geeky t-shirts! I’m a fan! Except. Threadless stopped using American Apparel back in 2011. The good: my shirts no longer bear the stench of Dov Charney’s pubes and my money isn’t going to a guy that sexually harasses his employees.

The bad: The average American Apparel factory worker brings home about $2,500 a month*. To contrast: garment workers in Bangladesh can make as low as $37 a month.

Workers getting paid more means stuff’s going to cost more, which means companies like Threadless are going to have to shell out more in order to buy those non-sweatshop-made t-shirts, and probably charge more as well to recoup that cost and still profit, since there currently exist no non-profits devoted to the cause that is Comfy Fun Geek T-Shirts.

But Threadless must not have wanted to shell out more, or didn’t want its customers to shell out more, or both, so they’ve decided to switch from American Apparel to Anvil. Anvil uses an organization called Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) to monitor the factories that make their clothing. However Clean Clothes and the Maquila Solidarity Network (anti-sweatshop groups) both criticized WRAP, essentially saying their monitoring is weaksauce and doesn’t do what it sets out to do.

As for Teefury: their site won’t even say who makes their shirts. So I emailed them! I’ll update when or if I hear back.

I don’t want to make the perfect the enemy of the somewhat-less-shitty, but in this case, where we’re talking about designer t-shirts… if you’re not impoverished, if you’re not living paycheck to paycheck, if you’ve got the dough, then before you grab that Farting Sperm Whale or Dr. Who-Super Mario-Firefly mash-up shirt you’ve got your eye on, take a minute out to email Threadless (or, if applicable, Teefury) and tell them that you’d be willing to cough up the extra five bucks per shirt if they’d go back to American Apparel, or even better, one of the other few sweatshop-free, sexual-harassment-free** wholesalers that haven’t shuttered since it’s hard to be a person who can keep a profit-making enterprise going if you’re not a douche. See: Dov Charney. There’s a list below. Tell them you’re willing to spend a little more if it ensures your shirt wasn’t made by a slave.

Until then, have your cake and eat it, too, by buying it used on eBay. Higher prices for the Teefury stuff, unfortunately, but, hey, you haven’t required anything new to be created, so I guess that’s something?

*Unless you work at American Apparel’s factory in China.

**At least, I hope.

Threadless Contact Info
Contact Page – requires registration
service@threadless.com
Twitter: @Threadless, @ThreadHelp

Sweat-Free Clothing Wholesalers

Alta Gracia Apparel – According to EthixMerch, the only company in its entire database that pays a living wage. A “living wage” in the Dominican Republic is $2.83 an hour. Alta Gracia actually pays less than that — $2.27 an hour. This is the motherfucking world we’re living in, people. Good times.
Esperanza Threads
EthixMerch – Fantastic, helpful site.
No Sweat Apparel
SOS From Texas
TS Designs

More on WRAP and Similar Auditing Services
Looking For A Quick Fix: How Weak Social Auditing Is Keeping Workers In Sweatshops, by the Clean Clothes Campaign

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment