Hollywood to hurt Middle Class and export more American Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2013

Week in Review

James Cameron is going to make 3 Avatar sequels.  Three big block buster movies.  Generating a lot of economic activity.  Something the United States can generate a lot of tax revenue from.  To fund all those programs that liberals love so much.  Especially Hollywood liberals.  For those in the movie industry tend to be far left.  Cameron himself was applying for U.S. citizenship.  But when Republican George W. Bush won reelection in 2004 he chose to remain a Canadian.  You just can’t get much further left than that.  But how can you fault him?  Just look at all the taxable income he will create for the IRS with those three Avatar sequels (see James Cameron says he will shoot 3 ‘Avatar’ sequels in New Zealand by the Associated Press posted 12/15/2013 on CP24).

Director James Cameron says he plans to make three sequels to his 2009 sci-fi blockbuster movie “Avatar” in New Zealand…

Cameron says he plans to complete principal shooting on the three movies at one time, perhaps over a period of about nine months.

New Zealand’s government has agreed to a 25 per cent financial rebate. Cameron didn’t disclose an exact budget although he says he expects economies of scale will help the three movies together cost less than $1 billion.

Guess there will be no taxable income generated from filming these movies.  Forcing the IRS to squeeze more from those who don’t export American jobs.

Filming in New Zealand?  Shooting three movies at one time for economies of scale?  A 25% financial rebate?  Amazing, isn’t it?  The left does everything within their power NOT to use costly union labor or work in locations with costly regulations in the United States.  Yet they champion union labor and costly regulatory policies.  They are all for them.  As long as they can escape their costs by filming in a foreign country.  To satiate their greed.  Putting more money into their pockets instead of paying a living wage to an American.

And it’s the Republicans who have a war on the middle class?  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

As Summer approaches in Australia Women risk Great Harm so Men find them Sexy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The left say the Republicans have a war on women.  Because they oppose free birth control.  Oppose abortion on demand.  And prefer women to marry instead of exploring and enjoying their sexuality.  Putting their sexuality out there.  Objectifying themselves.  In other words, Republicans have a war on women because they don’t treat women as sexual objects.  Or actively help them to please men.

It is interesting how the left has gotten women to believe that sexualizing themselves equates to liberation and empowerment.  And it’s not just in America.  In advanced economies throughout the world where women can have careers and liberties like men they still want to be pretty and sexually attractive for men (see Crash and burn bikini warning by Sonia Kohlbacher posted 10/26/2013 on Perth Now).

Experts are warning women against going to extremes chasing “unrealistic” body goals ahead of summer.

Punishing exercise regimes and a diet stripped to the bare essentials could trigger long-term health issues, according to Australian Medical Association state president Richard Choong…

He said the “bombardment” of unrealistic body images in shop windows and the media in the lead-up to summer put a lot of pressure on women…

The Pilates Fitness Institute director Frances Cahill said there is always a bump in new female members heading into summer. She put it down to fears about how they will look in a bikini at the beach.

“Even though we all have the best intentions of keeping up our Miranda Kerr healthy living habits all year round, winter tends to make it harder to stay dedicated to our usual exercise routine,” she said.

Ms Cahill said it was important to remember everyone came in different shapes and sizes.

Once upon a time women did this to snag themselves a rich husband.  Some may still do this.  But a lot do this for no other reason than wanting to be sexy.  Call it the hard-wiring of our DNA to attract the opposite sex.  Or societal decay as we become less religious and more hedonistic.  Whatever the reason women are risking great harm to be sexy.  And it’s not the right that’s trying to get them to do this.  Yet it’s the right that has a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Women Doctors suffer Sexual Harassment thanks to the Left’s Sexualization of Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 12th, 2013

Week in Review

Australia was once part of the British Empire.  Like the United States.  And both were very Christian when they were part of the British Empire.  And they remained religious following their independence.  For a while.  But then we both drifted away from our religious teachings.  And began to lose our civility (see Most female doctors suffer sexual harassment, say researchers by Australian Associated Press posted 10/7/2013 on The Guardian).

Most women GPs suffer sexual harassment from patients during their career, according to researchers, who have written a letter to the Medical Journal of Australia.

The most common concerns are requests for inappropriate examinations, inappropriate exposure of body parts and gender-based remarks.

Touching and grabbing are also problems, according to a questionnaire-based survey by Dr Peter Bratuskins of Monash University in Melbourne.

He and his colleagues report that 54.5% of respondents have been harassed by a patient.

Before the Sexual Revolution, birth control and abortion, before we sexualized women, we treated women like ladies.  The left thinks treating a woman like a lady means inferring she’s the weaker sex and should remain barefoot and pregnant.  To forgo a career so her husband can have one.  That’s what the left thinks.  But the right doesn’t.  They believe treating a woman like a lady means we don’t sexualize her.  And we see more than just her lady parts.

The percentage of people in Australia who have no religion jumped from less than 1% to 6.7% following the Sexual Revolution.  Rising to 18.7% in 2006.  The further we move from religion the easier it is to sexualize women.  Because we believe that there is no judgment of our behavior after we die.  Which turns medical examinations into cheap sexual thrills with women doctors.  Because today we live in a sex-dominated world. Where we use sex to sell everything.  Putting sex foremost on the mind of many men.  Who interpret the women’s movement as the nod of approval to look at women as the sum total of their lady parts.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Skilled Pilots avoid Flying into Parachutists after Picking up their Radio Transmission

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 15th, 2013

Week in Review

Flying has never been safer.  But there is still the very rare crash.  And the occasional incident.  Most of which are attributable to pilot error.  So we have been replacing the skill of a pilot with automated systems.  That do make flying safer.  But they also make pilots less of a pilot.  And more of a systems operator.  Luckily, though, we still have excellent pilots in the cockpit (see Incident: Rex SF34 at Moruya on Sep 12th 2013, parachutists dropped into departure path by Simon Hradecky posted 9/13/2013 on The Aviation Herald).

A REX Regional Saab 340B, registration VH-ZLJ performing flight ZL-117 from Moruya,NS to Merimbula,NS (Australia), had just taken off from Moruya when the crew caught a radio transmission that a parachute drop had been completed. The crew instantly inquired with the Cessna pilot transmitting that announcement about the location of the drop and received information the parachutists had been dropped 0.4nm west of the aerodrome, which the Saab crew determined was right in their departure path. The crew immediately turned to the left towards the sea, then continued for a safe landing in Merimbula.

In the old days of stick and rudder flying cables ran from the yoke to the control surfaces.  A pilot could rest his hand on the yoke while flying on autopilot and be aware of what was happening to the aircraft.  Any bump or shudder of the aircraft, however small, would vibrate that yoke.  Bringing it to the pilot’s attention.  Raising his or her pilot senses that something out of the ordinary was happening.  And they would take over flying the aircraft.  Review all systems.  And identify a problem.  Before it was a problem.  All from just resting a hand on the yoke.

This is something an automated system can’t do.  Feel a barely perceptible bump or shudder that is out of the ordinary.  Focusing the pilot’s attention on it.  Before something catastrophic happened.  Sadly, an automated system would have to wait for something more perceptible to happen to trigger an alarm.  Leaving less time to recover once something catastrophic happened.

The pilots flying this Saab 340B heard something.  Because they were human they processed what they heard.  And because they were good pilots they understood what that radio transmission meant.  And took corrective action.  When an automated system would have detected nothing.

A bird-strike can bring down a large commercial jetliner.  So flying into a parachutist probably would have brought that Saab 340B down.  But that didn’t happen.  Thanks to a pilot.  Though it is tempting to automate as much of flying as possible doing so may end up making flying more dangerous.  Because a pilot can feel and fly an airplane a lot faster than he or she can analyze systems.  Two recent incidents involved planes that descended too rapidly and crashed short of the runway.  These accidents may not have happened if the pilots were flying the planes instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with the automated systems.  They need to fly more.  And depend on automated systems less.  At least when landing and taking off.  When a gray-haired pilot can sense things no computer can.  Because they can fly by the seat of their pants.  For they have seen, felt and experienced just about everything while flying.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

New Zealand Immigration does not allow Fat People into their Country because of Health Care Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

As Obamacare moves closer to full implementation the mass of personal data the government will collect on us is concerning many.  Our medical files will have everything from our Social Security numbers to comments that we may drink too much.  But what harm can come from government having a wealth of private information about us?  It’s not like anyone has ever hacked into a government computer (the Chinese).  Or a branch of government ever violated our Constitutional rights (the IRS).  So really, now, how could a government-run health care system tracking our personal data harm us (see Chef told he’s too fat to live in New Zealand posted 7/27/2013 on CBC News)?

A South African chef has been told by authorities in New Zealand that’s he’s too fat to be permitted to live in the country…

…immigration officials told him he did not have “an acceptable standard of health” and his work visa would not be renewed, Fairfax NZ News reported.

At 5’8″ tall, Albert Buitenhuis has a body mass index of more than 40, which lands him in the medically obese territory.

An immigration spokesman said all applicants with a body mass index of more than 35 are investigated.

The spokesman said the chef had been rejected because his obesity put him at “significant risk” of health complications such as heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and hypertension.

He added that the department’s medical assessors have to consider to “what extent there might be indications of future high-cost and high-need demand for health services…”

New Zealand has the third highest obesity rate among developed countries, behind the United States and Mexico, according to a 2012 report released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Interesting.  Obamacare may track our weight to determine how much to charge us for our Obamacare premium.  But they are doing nothing to secure our border.  Allowing God knows how many obese Mexicans into the country.  Who are as obese as we are.  And are at risk of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and hypertension.  Requiring more costly Obamacare resources.  So they will punish us for our obesity.  But not the Mexicans entering the country illegally.  For they are sacrosanct.  We can’t even ask them for an ID when they try to vote.  But you know that you and I will have to pay an obesity tax under Obamacare.

New Zealand has a mixed health care system.  It was once a national system.  But they have since mixed in a few private sector elements.  To control the out-of-control costs of national health care.  And because the government is footing a portion of the health care bill the government can do pretty much whatever they want when it comes to any health care issue.  In this case immigration is a health care issue.  Because immigrants are people.  And people eventually require health care.

This is the frightening part about Obamacare.  Because it lets the government punish our behavior if they choose.  Or our thoughts.  Overweight?  That’ll cost you.  Especially if you’re an enemy of the state.  Like those Tea Party groups harassed by the IRS.  Something that couldn’t happen if we kept our health care in the private sector.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s Carbon Tax raised the Cost of Living so much that it’s hurting the Left’s Reelection Chances

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2013

Week in Review

The political left says we need to stop global warming RIGHT NOW before it’s too late to save the planet.  And the children.  Of course they’ve been saying that we need to do something RIGHT NOW since the Nineties.  When global warming became all the rage.  Leaving poor old global cooling and the coming ice age it foretold behind in the ash heap of fear mongering.

Why the change?  Simple.  What can you do to prevent global cooling?  Force businesses to emit more carbon into the atmosphere?   To remove carbon scrubbing equipment from power plants?  To produce more of our electric power from coal-fired power plants and less from solar, wind and hydro?  Reduce business taxes to lower the cost of electric power?  Thus lowering electric utility costs to encourage people to use more?

As you can see these are all options that benefit taxpayers.  Not the government.  That’s why the 180-degree change from global cooling to global warming.  Because government can combat global warming.  By forcing businesses to emit less carbon into the atmosphere.  To add carbon-scrubbing equipment to power plants.  Produce more of our electric power from solar, wind and hydro (that the government can subsidize) and less from coal-fired power plants.  Raise the cost of electric power generation to encourage people to use less.  These things benefit the government.  Not the taxpayer.  For the whole purpose of fighting global warming is to transfer more wealth to the government.  So they have more money to spend (see Australia to scrap carbon tax for trading scheme by AFP posted 7/14/2013 on Yahoo! 7 News).

Key greenhouse gas emitter Australia on Sunday announced it will scrap its carbon tax in favour of an emissions trading scheme that puts a limit on pollution from 2014, a year earlier than planned.

The move is set to cost the government billions of dollars but Treasurer Chris Bowen said cuts would be made elsewhere to compensate with the Labor Party sticking to its plan to return the budget to surplus in 2015-2016.

Bowen confirmed media reports that the fixed Aus$24.15 ($21.90) per tonne carbon tax would be dumped in favour of a floating price of between Aus$6 and Aus$10 per tonne from July 1, 2014, to ease cost of living pressures for families and help support the non-mining sectors of the economy.

The political left in Australia implemented a carbon tax to save Australia from global warming.  Yet when they’re making changes in that program what is the BIG problem they have to address?  Billions of dollars of lost tax revenue.  As if they’re spending that money elsewhere.  On government pork.  Not just on subsidizing green energy.  Which makes the carbon tax not about saving the planet.  But about giving the government more money to spend.  As governments everywhere have an insatiable appetite to spend money.  So the carbon tax was a lie.  Surprise, surprise.

And how do you get billions of dollars in additional tax revenue in the first place?  By increasing the cost of living and business with more taxes.  People don’t like paying more taxes.  Politicians on the left understand that.  Which is why they lie during political campaigns.

Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard’s popularity sunk after she announced plans for the carbon tax in early 2011 — after pledging before her 2010 election that it would not be introduced by a government she led.

The policy backflip prompted protests around the country and conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, who opinion polls suggest will narrowly win the 2013 election, has vowed to abolish it.

Abbott on Sunday said the shift to 2014 was “just another Kevin con job”.

“Mr Rudd can change the name but whether it is fixed or floating it is still a carbon tax,” he said, adding that “it’s a bad tax, you’ve just got to get rid of it”.

Wherever you are in the world liberals make up a minority of the population.  So the only way they win elections is by lying.  President Clinton promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class.  But after he won the election he raised taxes on the middle class.  President Obama promised that he wouldn’t nationalize health care.  And within his first 2 years in office he signed the most sweeping health care bill into law.  Obamacare.  Which has put the U.S. onto the path to national health care.  And in Australia Julia Gillard promised she wouldn’t allow a carbon tax happen under her watch.  When she apparently planned to implement a carbon tax all along.  And just lied to the people.  Knowing that they never would have voted for her if she had told the truth.  That she intended to raise the cost of living for everyone.

Politicians lie.  Especially those on the left.  And yet they fool the people time and again.  Getting exactly what they want.  By going out of their way promising that they will never do what they always end up doing.  Clinton.  Obama.  Gillard.  They’re all the same.  They get what they want by saying one thing.  And then doing something completely different.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Australia has a Youth Drug Addiction problem with Children as Young as Twelve

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 29th, 2013

Week in Review

Some in the U.S. say marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol.  And support moves to decriminalize it.  Others say that if it’s legal our children may be more inclined to try it.  And then move on to harder drugs.  Preposterous say the proponents of marijuana.  The same arguments have been made against the repealing of Prohibition.

Of course, once you start drinking hard liquor there are no harder liquors to move on to.  For there is only one ‘drunk’.  And most kids find the taste of hard liquor icky.  Discouraging some from drinking.  Drugs, though, don’t taste icky.  And there are many different ‘highs’.  Where uses often seek out a better high with each drug-induced trip.  So there is a difference between drugs and alcohols.  And the more readily available drugs are the more kids will find a way to use them (see Online drug buys harm children – Gold Coast Bulletin News posted 6/25/2013 on The Australian Hub).

GOLD Coast children as young as 12 have been left crippled with psychotic episodes, paranoia and anxiety after taking synthetic drugs found on the internet…

“Some users end up with minor anxiety issues, while some have complete psychotic breakdowns,” she said.

Ms Morris, who rehabilitates children with drug problems, warned residents the city had a systemic problem with youth addiction.

“The transient nature of the Gold Coast means children are surrounded by party drugs and synthetics at a quite young age,” Ms Morris said.

“While the average age of our patients is around 15 or 16, we occasionally deal with children as young as 12.”

Her warnings come after 17-year-old Henry Kwan died earlier this month when he jumped from the third floor balcony of his family home in Killara, Sydney, while high on synthetic LSD…

“When young developing minds are exposed to the dangerous chemicals, the risk of long-term damage is increased.”

Youth addiction problem?  Children as young as 12?  Because they are surrounded by party drugs?  And can buy them on the Internet?  It would seem the more readily available drugs are the more likely kids will become addicts.  Die from an overdose.  Or jump out of a window while high on a hallucinogenic.  Something that just doesn’t happen with alcohol.  So there is a difference between alcohol and drugs.  And drugs are clearly more harmful to our children.  And truth be told they aren’t all that good for the adults either.

Decriminalizing marijuana won’t make these problems better.  They will only make them worse.  For it is a lot easier for children to get something that isn’t illegal.  Just look at the number of kids smoking cigarettes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Australia’s Carbon Tax kills 1160 Jobs as Ford Stops Making Cars in Australia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 1st, 2013

Week in Review

General Motors and Chrysler required those government bailouts because of the costs of their pensions and health insurance.  Especially for retirees.  Who were living long into retirement consuming a lot of their health care dollars.  It was so bad that the cost of GM’s retirees was greater than the cost of their active workforce.  Which was a big problem.  For they just couldn’t sell cars at high enough prices to cover these crushing costs.

While labor costs are the automotive manufacturers biggest cost they’re not their only big cost.  Another big cost is energy.  For those assembly plants consume a lot of energy.  Especially electric power.  Which is why a carbon tax would be a horrible thing.  As it will only make a big cost bigger.  Perhaps even chasing more manufacturing jobs out of the country.  Like it is doing in Australia (see Ford workers ‘won’t be left behind’ posted 6/2/2013 on Sky News Australia).

Ms Gillard met workers from the Geelong factory on Saturday afternoon and announced an extra 15-million-dollars to help them find new jobs when operations close down.

Earlier on Saturday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott challenged Ms Gillard to apologise to the workers, singling out the carbon tax as a contributing factor.

Last month, the company announced it would stop making cars in Australia, costing 510 jobs at Geelong and 650 at Broadmeadows.

The war on carbon gave Australia a carbon tax.  To punish those big carbon emitters.  In particular their coal-fired power plants.  Giving the government a clever way to transfer more money from the private sector to the bloated public sector.  For a noble reason to boot.  To combat global warming.  As Australia suffers through one of the coldest winters on record.  So to combat this global warming they added a punitive tax on electric power producers.  Which greatly increased the cost of electric power.  Greatly increasing a business’ costs that consumes a lot of electric power.  Like an automobile assembly plant.

The carbon tax is anti-business.  It makes for a less business-friendly environment.  So is it any wonder that a business leaves a place that grew more business unfriendly while they were there?  This is the cost of environmentalism.  And fighting the specter of global warming.  You put people out of a job.  And ruin their lives.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Self-Esteem is out and a Useful Education is in at Schools in Perth, Australia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 26th, 2013

Week in Review

I’ll never forget this classic episode of Gomer Pyle – USMC.  Sergeant Carter was feeling old.  Which depressed him.  Gomer wanted to help him recapture the vigor of his youth.   So on a long march Gomer emptied Sergeant Carter’s pack and filled it with straw.  Late into the march his men were fatigued.  But not Sergeant Carter.  He was fresh as a daisy.  Until he went into his pack and saw it was filled with straw.  Which made him feel old and depressed again.

Gomer’s mistake was making the pack lighter instead of heavier.  For if he completed the march and learned he had carried a heavier pack than everyone else he would have felt strong again like in his youth.  For making it through things when they are hard builds confidence.  Even if you fail once or twice along the way.  This prepares you for whatever the future has in store for you.  But making it through something because you had it easy or never faced criticism or suffered a failure doesn’t really prepare you for anything.  But extreme frustration as you are unable to handle adversity.  Or recover from failure (see Students to learn about failure by Bethany Hiatt posted 5/25/2013 on The West Australian).

One of Perth’s most prestigious and academically successful schools is cutting back on praise and rewards for students.

It has concerns that society’s focus on boosting self-esteem leaves many struggling to cope with failure on leaving school.

St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls wrote to parents explaining why it introduced strategies this year to minimise praise, reduce reward stickers for participation and provide work that was deliberately too difficult so students could experience failure.

Junior school head Julie Quansing-Rowlands said the prevailing wisdom in schools for many years had been that building up children’s self-esteem would lead to high achievement.

But recent research showed this simplistic approach backfired.

Over-praising meant children were less able to cope with disappointments they faced later in life…

Heaping praise on students also gave them a false sense of their ability and led to a sense of entitlement…

“We’re beginning to understand that it actually damages children to constantly praise them, constantly tell them they’re special and build up their self-esteem,” he said.

“New research is demonstrating that it’s not self-esteem but self- respect and self-control that really are the best predictors of how well kids are going to perform in high school…”

WA Primary Principals Association president Stephen Breen said schools and parents had probably gone too far in puffing up children’s self-esteem by praising everything.

“As a consequence, a lot of kids don’t accept criticism,” he said.

This is what liberals did to the American public schools.  Ruined them by trying to build self-esteem instead of preparing our kids for life.  Which has fed into an entitlement mentality where kids today expect life to be handed to them without having to work hard to get ahead.  That’s why so many go to college and get worthless degrees.  Because they just expect to get a good job when they graduate. Even though they learned no marketable skills in college.  But they had a good time.  And have the student loan debt to prove it.  Which they’ll never be able to pay back working a service job that they could have gotten without a college education.

If you’re looking to move and you have kids you may want to consider Perth, Australia.  For I hear if your kids go to school there they’ll learn how to work hard.  They’ll earn good grades.  Maybe a bad one or two.  But they will be able to complete a degree program at a college that will have real market value.  Preparing them for the real world after school.  No matter what life throws at them.  So they won’t be coming back home to live in your basement.  But they will have you move in with them so they can take care of you in your golden years.  Because your parenting and a good Perth education allowed them to achieve more in life than you did.  The way it should be.  Not having future generations achieving less than their parents.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Clinic in Bendigo has had no Doctor to Perform an Abortion for more than a Year

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2013

Week in Review

You can take a horse to water.  But you can’t make it drink.  That’s kind of how it is in Bendigo with abortions.  The state will offer the service.  But they can’t find a doctor to actually do the abortion (see Abortions not performed in Bendigo for more than a year – The Age posted 3/17/2013 on Bendigo Hub).

Bendigo’s abortion clinic has been effectively shut for more than a year because doctors are refusing to offer terminations.

Women in the state’s north-west have been denied local access to publicly funded abortions since the only clinician willing to perform the procedure quit Bendigo Health’s Choices clinic early last year. The hospital has tried to recruit a new obstetrician or gynaecologist, but each doctor has turned down the role because they are ”conscientious objectors”.

Women can access counselling and information at the clinic but are being forced to travel to the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne for abortions…

Marilyn Beaumont, chairperson of the Australian Women’s Health Network, called on Bendigo Health management to show leadership. ”There is a community group that is aligned with Right To Life that exercises a great deal of influence on the health service but that should not stop the proper leadership for the provision of the full range of sexual reproductive services … in that area,” Ms Beaumont said.

An interesting problem.  Abortion is about a woman’s right to choose.  It’s about choice.  But to get that choice some are demanding Bendigo Health management do something about it.  And one wonders if they would go so far as to ask the state to force someone to perform abortions against their conscious.  Giving them no choice.  So these women can get their choice.

Choice is like that line in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  Where the one rule of Animal Farm states, “All animals are equal.  Only some animals are more equal than others.”  And so it is with choice.  For it may appear that some choice is more equal than others.  That a woman’s choice may be more equal than a doctor’s choice.  Or her unborn baby’s choice.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , ,

« Previous Entries