i read a survey where somebody indicated that watching cheaters is a guilty pleasure. feel no guilt - i think cheaters is (at least in concept) great, and if i suspected i was being cheated on, i might hire a couple camera guys, a body guard, and a journalism student for the confrontation.
Today, people get married later in life than ever. Since that is the case, the importance of the non-marital relationship has grown, at least with regards to the emotional investment people put into them. When a pouse cheats, there are divorce proceeding to (at least attempt) to equalize the situation. But in a dating relationship?
The problem is, if a sig other cheats on you, and you confront them, your just as likely to make a fool of yourself or get your ass kicked than anything else. think about it - if the other chooses the cheatee, the cheated is just a big sucker no matter how effectively he can malign him or her. plus, who can keep their composure well enough to be an effective talker in that circumstance?
enter cehaters.
cheaters send you to the scene with a camera crew, a couple body gaurds to make sure it doesn't get too out of hand, and an investigative journalist to pose the hard questions. and the cheater doesn't get off the hook simply by choosing the cheatee: his or her treachery is on camera for the world to see.
so - high brow types may consider it just another springer - but I actually like it.
now - of course the criticism is still there that cheaters exploits poor people. and i do detest that. i used to watch springer and note that it was all these desperate white trash people living the most humiliating moments of their lives in front of cheering upper middle class collge students. how much more gladitorial can it get?
but thats all that springer was, despite his final though. his value was only in his further erosion of high brow culture. cheaters - i just think its a good approach to dealing with a cheater.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
My first oral experience - just happened yesterday!
Oral argument that is. An oral argument is a presentation to a judge, who gets to ask you very hard questions regarding your position. At an appellate oral argument, you argue to three judges - all of whom are exceptional legal thinkers, and all of whom get to hit you with questions. I had my first real oral argument, it was in front ofthe appellate division (crazy as that sounds for a first argument), my appearance was objected to, the judges let me argue anyway, and I proceeded to kick ass.
And just to toot my own horn - it is highly unusual for an attorney that has been practicing less than six months to argue at that level. In fact, there is probably a good number of attorneys who have never argued in front of the appellate division.
Basically, I argued along side Don (the partner on the case). The case involved a coupon settlement of a class action, and we represented an objector who successfully argued that the settlement was flawed until it was modified to include a money refund redeemable by claim form. Don argued that trial judges should have the authority to aportion a lead plaintiff's incentive stipend to provide a stipend for the objector, and I argued that a successful objector is entitled toattorney's fees under the Consumer Fraud Act. Don's issue, whatever the decision, will set a nationwide precedent. My issue was one on which no New Jersey court has ruled (although federal courts have awarded objectors fees pursuant to other fee shifting statutes).
Before the substantive argument began, defence counsel argued thatI should not be allowed to participate because I had no prior involvement in the case and it was unclear what my qualificiations were. Don vouched for my competence and told the Court that even though I'm relatively new attorney, I had spent a year clerking in Atlantic County. Ultimately, the Court allowed me to argue on the basis that I was an admitted attorney associated with the firm of record.
I wasn't too nervous at first, but once Don started arguing (his issue was first), I started to wig out: it was as if the clock had begun to tick backwards, as my time to argue was minuites away. I calmed myself down, focusing on the arguments, and then the judges told Don they wanted to hear about the fee issue.
The pressure was on. The Judges asked me tough questions- - - - and I had responsive answers. Towards the end, it became almost conversational, and I made the key points I needed to make. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the other partner of the firm came to watch me argue, and I'm glad he did.
This all seems like a brag fest - but in the end, its just because that was the best time I've had being a lawyer yet. With everything else I've done so far - by large legal research and writing - I've had some element of a safety net. With this, it was real time. I went one on three with the judges, on an issue of consequence. And the best part is, I had fun with it and realized I'm pretty lucky because I love to argue and I get paid to do it.
but enough of that . . . back to the grind . . .
And just to toot my own horn - it is highly unusual for an attorney that has been practicing less than six months to argue at that level. In fact, there is probably a good number of attorneys who have never argued in front of the appellate division.
Basically, I argued along side Don (the partner on the case). The case involved a coupon settlement of a class action, and we represented an objector who successfully argued that the settlement was flawed until it was modified to include a money refund redeemable by claim form. Don argued that trial judges should have the authority to aportion a lead plaintiff's incentive stipend to provide a stipend for the objector, and I argued that a successful objector is entitled toattorney's fees under the Consumer Fraud Act. Don's issue, whatever the decision, will set a nationwide precedent. My issue was one on which no New Jersey court has ruled (although federal courts have awarded objectors fees pursuant to other fee shifting statutes).
Before the substantive argument began, defence counsel argued thatI should not be allowed to participate because I had no prior involvement in the case and it was unclear what my qualificiations were. Don vouched for my competence and told the Court that even though I'm relatively new attorney, I had spent a year clerking in Atlantic County. Ultimately, the Court allowed me to argue on the basis that I was an admitted attorney associated with the firm of record.
I wasn't too nervous at first, but once Don started arguing (his issue was first), I started to wig out: it was as if the clock had begun to tick backwards, as my time to argue was minuites away. I calmed myself down, focusing on the arguments, and then the judges told Don they wanted to hear about the fee issue.
The pressure was on. The Judges asked me tough questions- - - - and I had responsive answers. Towards the end, it became almost conversational, and I made the key points I needed to make. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the other partner of the firm came to watch me argue, and I'm glad he did.
This all seems like a brag fest - but in the end, its just because that was the best time I've had being a lawyer yet. With everything else I've done so far - by large legal research and writing - I've had some element of a safety net. With this, it was real time. I went one on three with the judges, on an issue of consequence. And the best part is, I had fun with it and realized I'm pretty lucky because I love to argue and I get paid to do it.
but enough of that . . . back to the grind . . .
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
support the troops - republican style
but, hey - they've all got yellow ribbons on their suv, so who am i to talk . . .
from http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13660.html
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
now that's classy!
from http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13660.html
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
now that's classy!
Monday, November 19, 2007
This may well be the scariest article i've read in a while
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/11/freedoms-watch-iran.html
Freedom's Watch Focus Groups War with Iran
Washington Dispatch: The hawkish advocacy group recently rolled out a multi-million dollar ad blitz in support of the troop surge in Iraq. It's now test marketing language that could be used to sell a war with Iran.
By Laura Rozen
November 19, 2007
Laura Sonnenmark is a focus group regular. "I've been asked to talk about orange juice, cell phone service, furniture," the Fairfax County, Virginia-based children's book author and Democratic Party volunteer says. But when she was called by a focus group organizer for a prospective assignment earlier this month, she was told the questions this time would be about something "political."
On the appointed day, she drove to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she found, to her surprise, that she had been called in to help some of the country's most prominent hawks test-market language that could be used to sell a war against Iran to the American public. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it,'" Sonnenmark, 49, tells Mother Jones.
The client paying for the focus group session, according to Sonnemark, was Freedom's Watch, a high-powered, well-connected advocacy group that launched a $15 million ad campaign this summer in support of the surge of American troops in Iraq. Among the group's leadership: former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Bradley A. Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. The focus group session suggests that Freedom's Watch may be looking beyond Iraq and expanding its mission to building support for military action against Iran.
Sonnemark says she only learned of the organization's involvement after members of her politically mixed group were handed a flier bearing a bald headed eagle—its insignia. "I saw Freedom's Watch's logo on the bottom of the flier," Sonnenmark recalls. She says she vaguely knew Freedom's Watch was a pro-war organization at the time of the focus group and was aware of its recent pro-surge television ads. But as the leader of the group began the discussion, she found that his main focus was not Iraq. "He was asking questions about [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad going to speak at Columbia University, how terrible it was that he was able to go to Columbia and was invited," Sonnemark says. "And he used lots of catch phrases, like 'victory' and 'failure is not an option.'"
"Of all the focus groups I've ever been to," Sonnenmark wrote in an email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants."(Webb, for his part, is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without direct congressional approval; see here and here.)
The upshot of the November focus group? "After two hours, [the leader] asked three final questions," Sonnemark recalls: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?" Sonnenmark says she responded, "It would depend on the circumstances.... What is the situation in Iraq? Do we have international support?"
When Mother Jones contacted Martin Focus Groups, an employee at its Alexandria offices who identified himself as Steve declined to comment on whether the organization had conducted a focus group for Freedom's Watch. (In 2003, Steve Weachter, the manager of the firm's Alexandria offices, told a local Virginia newspaper, "We help whoever calls. It could be about cigarette smoking, drinking, whatever. We could even have a group to evaluate Pepsi one day and Coke the next." In the same article Donna Carter, the assistant manager at Martin, recalled the time the outfit was conducting a Republican focus group in one room and a Democratic group in another.) Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David declined to confirm the November focus group session, saying, "As a general policy we won't comment on our internal strategy."
Freedom's Watch can certainly afford to fund public opinion analysis about a potential war with Iran. Its top donors include Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, a philanthropist for pro-Israel causes, and, according to Forbes, the third wealthiest man in the United States; John Templeton, a conservative philanthropist; Mel Sembler, a shopping mall developer from Florida, former U.S. ambassador to Italy, and a board member of the American Enterprise Institute; Matthew Brooks and Richard Fox, co-founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Kevin Moley, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and past U.S. ambassador to international organizations. One of group's financial backers told the New York Times that Freedom's Watch easily expected to raise $200 million in donations by November 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," said the anonymous benefactor, who added "that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million."
Sonnenmark believes that the group's strategists were probably not encouraged by the results of the focus group she took part in. "I got the general feeling that George Bush didn't have a shot in hell" of winning public support for an Iran attack. Some members of her group suggested that should Hillary Clinton be elected president she might have more domestic credibility to make such a controversial decision. As for the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Sonnenmark's fellow focusees seemed to indicate that they did not believe the legitimacy of such an action was necessarily up to them to decide.
Sonnemark only took part in one test marketing session. Another, comprised only of men, entered the room after her group left. But one purpose of focus groups is to provide advocates with information they can use to best craft a pitch or an argument. And even if Sonnenmark and the other members of her group were not persuaded by the language used during their focus group session, their responses could help Freedom's Watch to hone its message. Still, Sonnenmark was not overly worried she had assisted Freedom's Watch to devise rhetoric for a new military campaign. "It is not going to be so easy this time around," she says.
Freedom's Watch Focus Groups War with Iran
Washington Dispatch: The hawkish advocacy group recently rolled out a multi-million dollar ad blitz in support of the troop surge in Iraq. It's now test marketing language that could be used to sell a war with Iran.
By Laura Rozen
November 19, 2007
Laura Sonnenmark is a focus group regular. "I've been asked to talk about orange juice, cell phone service, furniture," the Fairfax County, Virginia-based children's book author and Democratic Party volunteer says. But when she was called by a focus group organizer for a prospective assignment earlier this month, she was told the questions this time would be about something "political."
On the appointed day, she drove to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she found, to her surprise, that she had been called in to help some of the country's most prominent hawks test-market language that could be used to sell a war against Iran to the American public. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it,'" Sonnenmark, 49, tells Mother Jones.
The client paying for the focus group session, according to Sonnemark, was Freedom's Watch, a high-powered, well-connected advocacy group that launched a $15 million ad campaign this summer in support of the surge of American troops in Iraq. Among the group's leadership: former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Bradley A. Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. The focus group session suggests that Freedom's Watch may be looking beyond Iraq and expanding its mission to building support for military action against Iran.
Sonnemark says she only learned of the organization's involvement after members of her politically mixed group were handed a flier bearing a bald headed eagle—its insignia. "I saw Freedom's Watch's logo on the bottom of the flier," Sonnenmark recalls. She says she vaguely knew Freedom's Watch was a pro-war organization at the time of the focus group and was aware of its recent pro-surge television ads. But as the leader of the group began the discussion, she found that his main focus was not Iraq. "He was asking questions about [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad going to speak at Columbia University, how terrible it was that he was able to go to Columbia and was invited," Sonnemark says. "And he used lots of catch phrases, like 'victory' and 'failure is not an option.'"
"Of all the focus groups I've ever been to," Sonnenmark wrote in an email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants."(Webb, for his part, is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without direct congressional approval; see here and here.)
The upshot of the November focus group? "After two hours, [the leader] asked three final questions," Sonnemark recalls: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?" Sonnenmark says she responded, "It would depend on the circumstances.... What is the situation in Iraq? Do we have international support?"
When Mother Jones contacted Martin Focus Groups, an employee at its Alexandria offices who identified himself as Steve declined to comment on whether the organization had conducted a focus group for Freedom's Watch. (In 2003, Steve Weachter, the manager of the firm's Alexandria offices, told a local Virginia newspaper, "We help whoever calls. It could be about cigarette smoking, drinking, whatever. We could even have a group to evaluate Pepsi one day and Coke the next." In the same article Donna Carter, the assistant manager at Martin, recalled the time the outfit was conducting a Republican focus group in one room and a Democratic group in another.) Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David declined to confirm the November focus group session, saying, "As a general policy we won't comment on our internal strategy."
Freedom's Watch can certainly afford to fund public opinion analysis about a potential war with Iran. Its top donors include Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, a philanthropist for pro-Israel causes, and, according to Forbes, the third wealthiest man in the United States; John Templeton, a conservative philanthropist; Mel Sembler, a shopping mall developer from Florida, former U.S. ambassador to Italy, and a board member of the American Enterprise Institute; Matthew Brooks and Richard Fox, co-founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Kevin Moley, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and past U.S. ambassador to international organizations. One of group's financial backers told the New York Times that Freedom's Watch easily expected to raise $200 million in donations by November 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," said the anonymous benefactor, who added "that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million."
Sonnenmark believes that the group's strategists were probably not encouraged by the results of the focus group she took part in. "I got the general feeling that George Bush didn't have a shot in hell" of winning public support for an Iran attack. Some members of her group suggested that should Hillary Clinton be elected president she might have more domestic credibility to make such a controversial decision. As for the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Sonnenmark's fellow focusees seemed to indicate that they did not believe the legitimacy of such an action was necessarily up to them to decide.
Sonnemark only took part in one test marketing session. Another, comprised only of men, entered the room after her group left. But one purpose of focus groups is to provide advocates with information they can use to best craft a pitch or an argument. And even if Sonnenmark and the other members of her group were not persuaded by the language used during their focus group session, their responses could help Freedom's Watch to hone its message. Still, Sonnenmark was not overly worried she had assisted Freedom's Watch to devise rhetoric for a new military campaign. "It is not going to be so easy this time around," she says.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Idealistic elitism, a dialogue
The above photo, saved from a posting of a friend of mine at a band's website, was captioned "idealistic." I see elitism in th above picture. I think it should be caption "misguided". Here's why:
Question: Do you agree that there are "ugly" people
Answer: Idealism aside (e.g. everyone is beautiful in their own way, a fact that may be true, but), the fact is there are people who are widely considered unattractive by a large number of people. So, for clarification, when I say ugly I don't mean "ugly" in the sense of "truly ugly" or "ugly i the eyes of god." what i mean is, people who have physical traits that makes them unattractive to the general population, exceptions aside. Defined like that, as a social phenomenon, its hard to deny the existence of ugly people.
Question: Do you agree that ugly people can't help it?
Answer: By and large this is undeniable. I mean, its true that some people's weight may technically be a self inflicted condition, but nobody want to be obese. And as for all the other things that go into it - symmetry, distance of the eyes from each other, hair line, height, breast size, build, cheek bones . . . these are all genetics.
Question: Do you agree that ugly people face real disadvantages in life?
Answer: This one is hard to deny. Taller men get earn more money than shorter men. Thinner women get more opportunities than thicker ones. Good looking people get more free drinks, faster taxis, out of tickets, and most obviously, more opportunities to date good looking people. Studies show that people are far more sympathetic to and trusting of good looking people than ugly people.
Question: Can you tell an ugly person when you see one?
Answer: Honestly, sometimes I can't. Particularly when it comes to people of my own sex, sometimes I can't tell where somebody stands on the attractiveness scale. Even when it comes to people of the opposite sex, I sometimes don't know if what makes somebody unattractive to me a matter of personal taste. However, there are certainly people I can say without a doubt are unattractive people.
Question: If you had an undeniably ugly child, would you tell them?
Answer: This is where people think I'm nuts. they say no child is ugly. But if we define ugly as a social phenomenon, its undeniable that some children are ugly at least with regards to their peers. if ugliness is an undeniable phenomenon, and there are some people you can tell are ugly upon casual observation, than there must be a point where you can look at a child and say - they're going to be ugly. In fact, people do it to other people's children all the time. So if there came a point where you could look at your own kid and say to yourself, "they sure arn't a looker," don't you owe it to them to tell them?
let me illustrate why
Question: Do you agree that a black child in Jim Crow south faced real disadvantages in life?
Answer: Only a pitiful racist would answer no. Less opportunities wee available for black children, and people were openly hostile to them.
Question: If you had a black child, would you tell them that they were being treated the way they were because they were black?
Answer: It would be ridiculous not to.
Question: So what's the difference?
Answer: Although the practical difference is enormous, the rhetorical difference is nil. Just as ugliness is described above as a social phenomenon based on a physical condition (rather than merely a physical condition), Blackness in this context is less about the color of a person's skin than about the social phenomenon of being an obvious member of a persecuted class. And just a black child is a member of a disadvantaged class by birth, a child with obvious asymetrical features or a poor build has done nothing to invite the disadvantages associated with being ugly. And just as for the black person, there is no denying that the ugly person is disadvantaged (although not nearly to the same degree).
My point is, if there are people who are objectively ugly and there is nothing they can do about it, the disadvantages of being ugly must be done away with. However, this can never happen so long people remain in denial about their ugliness. A person needs to be able to say, "I am ugly, and that doesn't make me a bad person. I deserve to be treated the same as everyone else." Until that happens, the lot of the ugly person will never improve.
Imagine, if you will, a black woman looking into a mirror and seeing a white woman, with a caption reading idealistic. The racism would be obvious: the implication is that it is better to be a white woman than to be a black woman. Perhaps that is true, as the world we live in is far from color blind. But it would be "idealistic" for that black woman to look in the mirror and see herself - but with all of the opportunities and privileges of the white woman.
Thus, th caption of the above picture should be MISGUIDED. It misguided for a heavy woman to look in the mirror and see a pretty woman as her ideal. She should see herself. And she see that self in a world that loves her as much as anyone else.
Friends, I am an ugly person. By looks perhaps, but certainly by spirit. When I look in the mirror I like who I see. Of course, I am weak from time to time. I sometimes wish that I was a little bit taller, or had better jawline, or whatever. But I know, those insecurities are not a result of my flaws, but a result of a flaw in the world: elitism. I want no part of it, and I'd like to expose it wherever I see it.
And I see elitism in the above picture.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
another old myspace blog
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
 | it never ends the lovely handiwork of american mercenaries, er, contractors . . . Foreign security guards killed two women when they opened fire on a car in the centre of the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, witnesses and Iraqi security officials said. The shooting in Karrada came two days after Iraq vowed to punish US security firm Blackwater after a probe found that its guards were not provoked when they opened "deliberate" fire in Baghdad three weeks ago, killing 17 Iraqis. It was not clear which security company was involved in Tuesday's shooting... Shopkeeper Ammar Fallah, a witness to the shooting, told AFP the guards, who were escorting a civilian convoy through the streets, signalled for a woman driving a car to pull over as they passed. "When she failed to do so they opened fire, killing her and the woman next to her," he said. "There were two children in the back seat but they were not harmed. The women were both shot in the head."
|
another myspace blog - one i'm a little proud of
Friday, October 05, 2007
| Using the disgrace associated with neo conservatism
I've never cared to learn the finer underpinnings of neo-conservatism. I learned all I needed to know from the actions of the neo-con junta that bullied its way into the white house. To me, it's an ideology of foreign aggression, corporate profits, domestic control, and dis-investment in the civilian infrastructure. However, I have a conservative friend who takes issue with the neo cons - a so called paleo con - and he explained to me some of the theoretical underpinnings of neo conservatism. In the end, it sounded like Trotsky style Leninism: global communism through Russian communist intervention. Just change communism with democracy (or "liberal democratic principals") and you have it. Whether theory and practice lined up, neo conservatism is now a disgraced ideology. The Iraq war is a quagmire. Iran is a regional powerhouse. We lost a city to a storm. Bin Laden is still making tapes. The housing market went pop. As a nation, we're deep in the red. My initial thought was that the vilification of neo conservatism was not necessarily a good thing. In my opinion, the real problem is that Washington politicians - those currently in office and almost every legitimate contender for president in both parties - don't share the widely held belief that (1) globalism in it current form is bad for Americans and just about anyone else who isn't moving capital for a living and (2) America's military should be used primarily, and near exclusively, to protect America from those who would do us harm (and not, say, forward the economic interests of oil companies, force America's version of freedom on people who don't want it, or intervene if some other country's wars when they're unlikely to affect us directly). Thus, if we were to fix the blame on the current sorry state of the affairs narrowly on "neo cons", we're letting a horde of globalists and interventionists off the hook. A recent article on digbysblog makes me rethink that. It seems that the term neo-con is being used interchangeably with the term interventionist. And because neo-con has the stain of failure attached to it, it sticks. Apparantly, its bumming out some non neo con war mongers! AWWWWWWW! See - here is how it works. Back in the day there was a country called the soviet union, and it tried to implement communism and mucked the whole thing up. Between their mistakes and hostility from the outside world, the entire affair concluded in undeniable failure. Part of what the communists did was implement social programs like universal healthcare. Never mind the fact that every other industrialized country in the world has successfully implemented a universal healthcare system, universal healthcare supporters are tarred as "communists" and are reminded "that's been tried and it didn't work." Logically flawed, but rhetorically effective, the association of social programs with communism has helped ensure that America's poor will be among the worst off in the industrialized world! So why not fight fire with fire? Anytime any politician or pundit talks about sending in our military to achieve some objective outside the scope of protecting American lives, call them a neo con. Say, "hey neo con, that idea's been tried before and it didn't work." I love it! Here is the article. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/dear-roger-cohen-by-tristero-dear-roger.html |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
