?

Log in

It is the mark of an educated mind [entries|friends|calendar]
The Intellects

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

"What They Saved: Pieces of a Jewish Past" published today [01 Sep 2011|07:34pm]

davidfcooper

In my New York Journal of Books review I quote Ms. Miller, "Every new piece of information keeps me on the road to the ever-expanding possibility of the quest, a quest that in the end will still yield only partial knowledge--and will never give me, return to me, those past lives." Ms. Miller, a retired CUNY Graduate Center English and Comparative Literature professor, is an appealing prose stylist, but because of its focus on the genalogical search process this book will mostly appeal to genealogy buffs in general and Jewish genealogy buffs in particular.

Continue reading on Examiner.com 

comment

Ardency: A Chronicle of the Amistad Rebels | New York Journal of Books [25 Jan 2011|11:14am]

davidfcooper

 

My latest NYJB review is of an epic work of poetry and great humanity that may appeal to history buffs as well as poetry readers.

 

Posted via email from davidfcooper's posterous

comment

Oppurtunist - The Future Sex / Love Show [09 Jan 2008|11:29am]

tonight_23
 

UAE will remain hub, says His Highness Shaikh Mohammad ( Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai ).

Every time I read through the syndicate journal of mindhacks.com, I have to bite my lips, the thirst of nectar… How One can be so concisely comprehensive, well-centered, and maneuvered? I need to squeeze the succus of my brain to be that of thee; all I found is a pea. And. So to the welcoming WWF news of  US Bush visiting the Gulf and Emirates shortly, as part of a week-long Middle East trip starting in Israel on the January 9th; a direct overture since Justin Timberlake concert, also, the likes of Las Vegas turning up on events -okay, not quite- to that of Hollywood veterans for the 4th Dubai International Film Festival, and not to outshine, the very vintage piece of  Dita Von Teese that grace the red carpet daze... It's like; seeing my Momma. Oh, smolder me, smolder me, could that be like a’ one hacking "showbiz" strategic plan? Marilyn Manson, I expect you to come and visit us here, but a Bush that block the way. What rock.

 

No. I don’t buy concert tickets, and, and, make a go on stardusts...

I so thought, if I really want to be in function with the daily speed of the world today; I might as well be in the news. Well. Pink and Yellow highlights are all I could trace, while this pea of a brain scribble to analyse, there... How sad. Though, re-quench, re-quench! Cited, the parable joke for today :

 

The US leader said in his weekly radio address on Saturday that the trip aimed to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians and curtail the "aggressive ambitions" of Iran, which according to a US intelligence report made public in December halted a secret nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
                                            

Kitty20Laugh.jpg picture by ai_tigerlily

Time’s up. My lunch is over.

comment

Healthcare and the Social Security Non-Crisis [23 Jul 2006|03:49am]

netninja1
The rapidly escalating costs of health care are threatening a serious fiscal crisis, along with immeasurable human costs. Infant Mortality in the U.S. is one major index. The UN Human Development Report 2005 reveals that "since 2000 a half century of sustained decline in infant death rates [in the United States] first slowed then reversed." By 2005 the rates had risen to the level of Malaysia, a country where the average income is one-quarter that in the United States. The report also reviews the effects of government programs. In the United Kingdom, for example, the rate of child poverty rose sharply during the Margaret Thatcher years, then reversed after the Labour government adopted policies to halve child poverty by 2010. "fiscal redistribution has played a central role in strategies for meeting the target," the report concludes: "Large increases in financial support for families with children," as well as other fiscal programs, "boosted the incomes of low-income working families with children," with significant effects on child poverty.

The financial crisis is surely is no secret. The press report that 30 percent of health care costs go for administration, a proportion vastly higher than in government-run systems including those within the United States, which are far from the most efficient. These estimates are seriously understated because of the ideological decision not to count the costs for individuals- for doctors who waste their own time or are forced to misuse it, or patients who "enter a world of paperwork so surreal that it belongs in one of Kafka's tales of the triumph of faceless bureaucracies." The complexities of billing have become so outlandish that the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, the president's senior adviser, says when he gets a bill for his four-year-old child, he "can't figure out what happened, or what I'm supposed to do." Those who want to see government bureaucracy reaching levels that even Kafka might not have imagined should look at the official ninety-eight-page government handbook on the Medicare prescription drug plan, provided to Medicare participants to inform them of their options under the bill passed by Congress in June 2004, with the help of an army of lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The idea, the Wall Street Journal informs its affluent readers, "is that patients will be encouraged to bargain-hunt for medical care" and may even save money, if they can hire enough research assistants to work through the many private options available, and make lucky guesses. Health Savings Accounts, also welcomed by the editors, have similar properties. For the wealthy and the corporate beneficiaries the exciting new programs will be just fine, like health care in general. The rest will get what the deserve for not having ascended to these heights.

The Bush administration response to the health care crisis has been to reduce services to the poor (Medicaid). The timing was again impeccable. "As Republican leaders in Congress move to trim billions of dollars from the Medicaid health program," the Washington Post reported, "they are simultaneously intervening to save the life of possibly the highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri Schiavo." Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, while proclaiming his deep concern forSchiavo and his dedication to ensure that she has the chance "we all deserve," simultaneously shepherded through the House a budget resolution to cut $15 billion to $20 billion from Medicaid for the next five years. As if the exploitation of the tragedy of this poor woman for partisan gain were not disgraceful enough, DeLay and others like him were depriving her, and who knows how many others, of the means of moral values and concern for the sanctity of life.

The primary method devised to divert attention from the health care crisis was to organize a major PR campaign to "reform" Social Security--meaning dismantle it--in the pretext that it is facing an awesome fiscal crisis. There is no need to review the remarkable deceit of the administration propaganda, and the falsifications and misrepresentations repeated without comment by much of the media commentary, which cooperated in making it the "hot topic" in Washington. Exposure has been carried out more than adequately eslewhere. The steady drumbeat of deceit has been so extreme as to drive frustrated analysts to words rarely voiced in restrained journals: that Bush "repeatedly lied about the current [Social Security] system," making claims that were demonstrably false and that his staff must have known were false(New York Times, Paul Krugman, 15 Aug, 2005)."

It is not that the system has no flaws. It surly does. The highly regressive payroll tax is an illustration. More generally, an OECD study found that the US system "is one of the least generous public pension systems in advanced countries," consistent with the comparative weakness of benefits in the United States.

The alleged crisis of Social Security is rooted in demographic facts: the ratio of working people to retired people is declining. The data are accurate, but partial. The relevant figure is the ratio of working people to those they support. According to official statistics, the ratio of working people to dependents (under twenty, over sixty-five) hit its lowest point in 1965 and is not expected to reach that level through the projected period (to 2080). The Propaganda image is that the retirement of the "baby boomers" is going to crash the system; as repeatedly pointed out, their retirement has already been financed by the Greenspan-led increase in payroll taxes in 1983. That aside, the boomers were once children, and had to be cared for then as well. And we find that during those years there was a sharp increase in spending for education and other child care needs. There was no crisis. If American society was able to take care of the boomers from ages zero to twenty, then there can be no fundamental reason why a much richer society, with far higher output per worker, cannot take care of them from ages sixty-five to ninety. At most, some technical fixes might be needed, but no major crisis looms in the foreseeable future.

Critics of Bush's efforts to chip away at Social Security by various "ownership society" schemes have proclaimed success because public opposition was too high to ram the legislation through. But the celebration is premature. The campaign of deceit achieved a great deal, laying the basis for the next assault on the system. Reacting to the PR campaign, the Gallup poll, for the first time, included Social Security among the choices for "top concerns." Gallup found that only "the availability and affordability of healthcare" is a larger concern for the public than Social Security. About half of Americans worry "a great deal" about it, and another quarter a "fair amount," more than are concerned about such issues as terrorism or oil prices. A Zogby poll found that 61 percent believe the system faces "serious problems" and 14 percent think it's "in crisis," though in fact it is "financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its history, according to the Trustees' [President Bush's] numbers," economist Mark Weisbrot observes. The campaign has been particularly effective among the young. Among students, 70 percent are "concerned that the pension system may not be there when they retire."

These are major victories for those who hope to destroy Social Security, revealing once again the effectiveness of a flood of carefully contrived propaganda amplified by the media in a business-run-society where institutionalized deceit has been refined to a high art. The propaganda success compares well with that of the government-media campaign to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to their survival, driving them completly off the spectrum of world opinion.

There has been some discussion of the curious fact that the need to reform Social Security became the "hot topic" of the day, while reforming the health care system in accord with public opinion is not even on the agenda, an apparent paradox: the very serious fiscal crisis of the remarkably inefficient and poorly performing health care systems not a crisis, while urgent action is needed to undermine the efficient system that is quite sound for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, to the extent that Social Security might face a crisis some time in the distant future, it would result primarily from exploding health care costs. Government projections predict a sharp increase in total benefits relative to GDP, from under 10 percent in 2000 to almost 25 percent in 2080, which is as far as the projections reach. Through this period Social Security costs are barley expected to increase beyond the 2000 level of 5 percent. A slightly larger increase is predicted for Medicaid, and a huge increase for Medicare, traceable primarily to extreme inefficiency of the privatized health care system.

Sensible people will seek differences between the Social Security and Health care systems that might explain the paradox. And they will quickly find critical differences, which are quite familiar in other domains: the paradox mirrors closely the "schizophrenia" of all administrations that underlies the "strong line of continuity" with regard to "democracy promotion," to take one example. Social Security is of little value for the rich, but it is crucial for the survival for the working people, the poor, their dependents, and the disabled. For the wealthy, it is the "major source" of retirement income, and the most secure. Furthermore, as a government program, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. Social Security helps only the underlying population, not the substantial people. It is therefore natural that it should be dispatched to the flames. The medical system, in contrast, works very well for the substantial people, with health care effectively rationed by wealth, while enormous profits flow to private power for superfluous bureaucracy and supervision, overpriced drugs, and other useful inefficiencies. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

There are other sound reasons to destroy the Social Security system. It is based on the principles that are deeply offensive to the moral values of the political leadership and the sectors they represent--not those who vote for them, a different category of the population. Social security is based on the idea that it is a community responsibility to ensure that the disabled widow on the other side of town has food to eat, or that the child across the street should be able to go to a decent school. Such evil ideas have to be driven from the mind. They stand in the way of the "New Spirit of the Age" of the 1850s: "Gain Wealth, forgetting all but Self." According to the right thinking, it isn't my fault if the widow married the wrong person or if the child's parents made bad investment decisions, so why should I contribute a few cents to a public fund to take care of them? the "ownership society," in contrast, suffers from none of these moral defects.

Returning to the November 2004 elections, we learn a little of the significance from them about popular attitudes and opinions, though we can learn a lot from these studies that are kept in the shadows. And the whole affair adds more to our understanding of the current state of American democracy--with most of the industrial world trailing not too far behind, as privileged and powerful sectors learn and apply the lessons taught by their leader.
comment

The Empire [19 Jul 2006|03:39am]

netninja1
Despite what you hear, U.S. interventionism has nothing to do with resisting the spread of " Terrorism," or "Communism," it's INDEPENDENCE we've always been opposed to everywhere... and for quite a good reason. If a country begins to pay attention to its own population, it's not going to be paying adequate attention to the overriding needs of U.S. investors. Well, those are unacceptable priorities, so that government's just going to have to go.

And the effects of this commitment throughout the Third World are dramatically clear: it takes only a moment's thought to realize that the areas that have been the most under U.S. control are some of the most horrible regions in the world. For instance, why is Central America such a horror-chamber? I mean, if a peasant in Guatemala woke up in Poland [i.e. under Soviet occupation], he'd think he was in heaven by comparison... and Guatemala's an area where we've had a hundred years of influence. Well, that tells you something. Or look at Brazil: potentially an extremely rich country with tremendous resources, except it had the curse of being part of the Western system of subordination. So in northeast Brazil, for example, which is rather fertile area with plenty of rich land, just it's all owned by plantations, Brazilian medical researchers now identify the population as a new species with about 40 percent the brain size of human beings, as a result of generations of profound malnutrition and neglect... and this may be unremediable except after generations, because of lingering effects of malnutrition on one's offspring. Alright, that's a good example of the legacy of our commitments, and the same kind of pattern runs throughout the former Western colonies.

In fact, if you look at the countries that have developed in the world, there's a little simple fact which should be obvious to anyone on five minutes' observation, but which you never find anyone saying in the United States: the countries that have developed economically are those which were not colonized by the west; every country that was colonized by the West is a TOTAL WRECK. I mean, Japan was the one country that managed to resist European colonization, and it's the one part of the traditional Third World that developed. What does that tell you? Historians of Africa have actually pointed out that if you look at Japan when it began its industrialization process [in the 1870's], it was about the same developmental level as the Asante kingdom in West Africa in terms of resources available, level of state formation, degree of technological development, and so on. Well, just compare those two areas today. It's true there were a number of differences between them historically, but the crucial one is that Japan wasn't conquered by the West and the Asante kingdom was, by the British-so now West Africa is West Africa economically, and Japan is Japan.

Japan had its own colonial system too, incidentally- but its colonies developed, and they developed because Japan didn't treat them the way the Western powers treated their colonies. The Japanese were very brutal colonizers. they weren't nice guys, but they nonetheless developed their colonies economically; the West just robbed theirs. So if you look at the growth rate through the early part of this century-they were getting industrialized, developing infrastructure, educational levels were going up, agricultural production was increasing. In fact, by the 1930s, Formosa (now Taiwan) was one of the commercial centers of Asia. Well, just compare Taiwan with the Philippines, an American colony right next door: the Philippines is a total basket-case, a Latin American-style basket-case. Again, that tells you something.

With World War 2, the Japanese colonial system got smashed up. But by the 1960s, Korea and Taiwan were again developing at their former growth rate-and that's because in the post-war period, they've been able to follow the Japanese model of development: they're pretty closed off to foreign exploitation, quite egalitarian by international standards, they devote pretty extensive resources to things like education and health care. Okay, that's a successful model for development. I mean, these Asian countries aren't pretty; I can't stand them myself-they're extremely authoritarian, the role of women you can't even talk about, and so on, so there are plenty of unpleasant things about them. But they have been able to pursue economic development measures that are successful: the state coordinates industrial policies that are IMPOSSIBLE in Latin America, because the U.S. insists that those governments keep their economies open to international markets-so capital from Latin America is constantly flowing to the West. Alright, that's not a problem in South Korea: they have the death penalty for capital export. Solves that difficulty pretty fast.

But the point is, the Japanese-style development model works-in fact, it's how every country in the world that's developed has done it: by imposing high levels of protectionism, and by extracting its economy from free market discipline. And that's precisely what the Western powers have been preventing the Third World from doing, right up to this moment.
1 comment

California Court Decision Blog [13 May 2006|06:08pm]
tyty573
I am cross-posting this, so you might see it several times. Sorry.

For ease (or complication?) and collection of discussion, I am going to link to my blog on this issue.

It is a long, angry, Maddox-inspired post on the recent California court decision barring the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as unconstitutional.

Please comment on that page, if you can. If this is against this group's rules, I apologize, and please delete it.

So if you want to see what I think, click here, and have fun!

- Tyler
1 comment

A Rant For The Masses [12 May 2006|06:41pm]

lai_lai_ranma
[ mood | depressed ]

How many times in someone's normal life, whether they have any history of mental illness or not, do you think they have considered killing themselves? Just a passing thought can count. If they were to die the first time they thought it, what would the world look like then?

2 comment

Am I not a genius??!)) [08 May 2006|02:20am]

bluesly
[ mood | amused ]

Hello,Hola, Hallo)))

Im Valentina, Val, Bluesly or whatever you prefer))

Well, bout my intelligence and intellect?
2 small memos:

When I was about 5 years old it was my sister's birthday. she was 15. The house was full of guests, friends, fun and everything you know.And my sister was of course the centre of everyone's attantion. Everyone was sitting at the table,chatting, eating, laughing when the door opened..and a small little girl (me:))) appeared saying : here I am!!!

this was about my intelligence, curiosity and acitvism))


Now about my genious and self-assureness)))

At the age of 6-7 (i guess) I was taken to the exhibition of a famous russia painter Rerikh with my parents. Of course I was too young to understand anything..but!
we came home. Mom went to the kitchen to make a dinner. I locked in my room. Took all my pencils and paints...By the time my mom called me to dinner I made a dozen of pictures imitating the works of rerikh..My parents were stunned)))

1 comment

Intro [28 Apr 2006|06:50pm]

lai_lai_ranma
[ mood | drained ]

Sorry, I meant to post sooner, but I had some problems to take care of.
Anyway, my name's Ariane, age 16, living in California. I've considered myself an intellectual since I was fairly young. I always had something to say and part of the time, I'd end up saying something that confused people but that I understood perfectly. I'm always thinking, whether it was just something random or questioning the existance of a divine being.
I write poetry and stories, just now working on screenplays. I like to mess with peoples' heads. ^-^ I love talking to intelligent people and debating politics, religion, any sort of topic that catches my interest. I don't want to sound haughty or proud, but I do consider myself at a higher level mentally than most people my age. I hope to become an active member.

2 comment

How to Fight Terrorists [16 Feb 2006|02:28am]

netninja1
In the case of crimes, the first steps are (1) determining who was probably guilty, apprehending them, and bringing them to a fair trial; and (2) attending to the background circumstances, and where there are legitimate grievances in the background, addressing them, as should be done quite apart from the crimes.

It's the same whether the crime is a street robbery or large-scale international terrorism. In the latter case, there is a virtual consensus on this among specialists and intelligence agencies (including former heads of Israeli intelligence). Furthermore, the evidence shows that these are the most effective courses to take, including contemporary Islamic terrorism (the only case we are allowed to talk about). In contrast, Cheney's preferred method has consistently increased the threat of terrorism, which is quite natural: violence tends to increase violence and support for it in response. The current Iraq war is an illustration. It was undertaken with the expectation that it would probably lead to an increase in terrorism, as it did. That's just another of the many indications that reducing the threat of terror is not a high priority for planners, and another reason...

Hysterical intellectuals who prefer to shriek rather than reduce the threat of terror choose to interpret (2) as "appeasement" or "submission to terror" or "rationalization of terror," etc. In sharp contrast, specialists in terror and intelligence agencies typically take the opposite stand. Comment is hardly necessary, apart from questions of intellectual history.

Police investigation and action might, under some circumstances, involve military force. There cannot be any general answer to the question. As for "pre-emptive strike," there has been a formal consensus on this since the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Tribunal. The formal consensus, the supreme law of the land in the US, bans the resort to force with narrow exceptions: when authorized by

the Security Council, or in response to armed attack until the Security Council acts, in the latter case when “the necessity for action is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” These principles were established because of explicit international rejection, led by the US, of doctrine that now prevails: that resort to force is legitimate if we "know" -- that is, have some reason to believe -- that someone has the intention of attacking us. That doctrine would, for example, justify Japan's attack on US military bases in Pearl Harbor and Manila. The Japanese could read the US press, with its lurid discussion of how US bombing could exterminate this inferior and vicious race by burning down Japan's wooden cities, and they knew that flying fortresses capable of bombing Japan from Pearl Harbor and Manila were coming off the Boeing Assembly line, so they "knew" that there was a serious threat of extermination, not just terror. Therefore, according to the "Bush doctrine," shared by Kerry and elites generally, Japan had every right to bomb Pearl Harbor and Manila. In fact, they had a far stronger case than the one enunciated by Colin Powell, etc.: that "intent and ability" suffice to allow the US to attack a country, committing the "supreme crime" of Nuremberg, which encompasses all the evil that follows -- the crime for which any participants, such as the German foreign minister, were hanged.

In 1945 the US was not willing to tolerate principles that would justify the Pearl Harbor attack. Today, it insists on principles that permit far more freedom to resort to violence and aggression, though of course there is a reservation, usually tacit but sometimes made explicit by the more honest commentators, like Henry Kissinger. He approves of the doctrine, but adds that it must not be

"universalized": the right to commit the supreme crime for which Nazi leaders were hanged must be reserved to the United States, perhaps delegated to its clients.
comment

My first intellectual post [13 Jan 2006|04:40pm]

juris
It is January and people make resolutions for themselves for the rest of the year. Do you have any intellectual ambitions for this year? What are they and why are they important to you?
3 comment

Happiness. [04 Oct 2005|08:24pm]
logical787
What is happiness? Is happiness just a single variable going from happy to sad, or is it something deeper?

Here is a very interesting article related to happiness:
http://www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT02/04/02/03/ALT02040203-02.html
3 comment

Be aware, be very aware... [16 Sep 2005|02:43pm]

underdelusion
http://blogsearch.google.com/
2 comment

The nature of complexity. [04 Sep 2005|03:19pm]
logical787
Hi all, I joined this group because I am looking for people who would be interested in intelligence, and a large group of intellects is probably a good place to start.

I'm interested in smoothing out the spaghetti-mess language that us humans use to try to logically formulate exactly what is really being said. Not as in a logic class, where language is converted to logic symbols, but to understand certain words better. Words with extremely ambiguous meaning: love, empathy, and respect for example. In this case, the word "complexity". There are instances where "complexity" would not work in a sentence but "difficulty" would work. So there is a segregation there. In other instances, "complexity" and "difficulty" are interchangeable.

I use the word "complexity" all the time, and so at some level I do understand it, yet logically I cannot give an exact definition of "complexity". Dictionary.com says that "complex" is something consisting of "interwoven parts". "Interwoven" is used as a metaphor there. No definition can be accurately defined using metaphors. Complexity is not made of any type of fabric, so it therefore cannot literally consist of "interwoven parts". The definition also says that complexity is interconnected parts. What is the difference between "interconnected parts" and "connected parts"? There is no difference that I know of. The word "interconnected" seems like nothing more than a longer version of "connected". So I believe the dictionary means that complexity is only "connected parts". But if complexity is "connected parts", then how are some things more complicated than others? Either something is connected to another thing or it isn't, right? Or maybe there is more than one connection with two given parts, so it is more complicated? Surely "connected parts" satisfies many uses of the word "complex", but I don't see how it satisfies all uses. You havn't defined a word until you satisfy all of the common usage for the word. A lot of people would think of "math" when they think of "complicated"... I do. I suppose you could refer to each step in a math problem as a part. And I suppose the more steps there are in a math problem, the more complex the problem is. So maybe the definition does really apply to nearly every instance of the word usage. I believe "complex" and "complicated" are the same thing. However, I don't believe complex and difficult is the same thing.

Is a problem with four steps twice as complicated as a math problem with two steps? I would guess so. In that way, complexity can be mathematically calculated. How complex something is would be a counting problem. It would be interesting if that were the case, as if someone asked you: "how complicated is the problem", perhaps you could respond: The problem is 8 complexity. Perhaps you can mathematically calculate exactly how complex something is by counting the number of connections of one part to another.
8 comment

[23 Aug 2005|10:16pm]

aquiescense
[ mood | excited ]

I was vastly impressed with the quality of literature that was seemingly regularly posted on this page, so I decided to join the ranks. A man named Howard Garnder of Harvard University divided intelligence into seven groups, or types:

1. Logical-mathematical intelligence: the ability to detect patterns, think logically, reason and analyze, and compute mathematical equations.
2. Linguistic intelligence: the mastery of oral and written language in self-expression and memory.
3. Spatial intelligence: the ability to recognize and manipulate patterns (large or small) in spatial relationships (e.g., pilots, sculptors, architects).
4. Musical intelligence: the ability to recognize and compose musical quality (pitches, tones), and content (rhythms, patterns) for production and performance.
5. Kinesthetic intelligence: the ability to use the body, or parts of the body to create products or solve problems (e.g., athletes, dancers, surgeons).
6. Interpersonal intelligence: the ability to recognize another's intentions, and feelings.
7. Intrapersonal intelligence: the ability to understand oneself and use the information to self-manage.

Then there is also Intelligence Quotient, better known as IQ. Surprisingly, IQ can tell a lot about a person's intelligence, contrary to what you may think. People with certain IQs fit into different tiers of intelligence. There is a table at this website http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html I highly recommend it. Anyway, I hope everyone accepts me even though I just threw out simple facts. Ask me what I think about religion, you're likely to hear a lot of good theory of mine.

1 comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]