Unconsciousness, Consciousness, Popular Discourse, Race, and the Presidential Election

by B.J. on 10/11/2008 10:28:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

When I think of the word "consciousness", I think of Mos Def's line in his Close to the Edge Freestyle on the Chappelle Show.


So, stop with the nonsense, like he conscious
I'm just awake dawg, I'm doin' great dawg


He was talking about "conscious", meaning a state of knowing what's going on. He says being conscious is not really a state worthy of praise or congratulated for; it's just him simply being awake. By implication, this means he's noticing things.

Consciousness, specifically human consciousness was the main topic in the book the User Illusion by Tor Norretander.

The main thing I got from the book was that 80% of what we do is done unconsciously. Breathing, heart rate, thoughts, especially during sleep. Unconscious. We can sense a billion things a minute, but only a few bits actually enter our stream of thought and movement called our "consciousness."

I'm inclined to say that consciousness is about maintaining and exacting control. Consciousness acts so you don't go crazy processing every bit of information. It acts as yet another filter of information for the world around you.

It simplifies your life, your thought, emotion, movement process, the way that the User Interface on your computer simplifies your life as a computer user. You don't have to enter code just to do anything. You can click on your My Computer icon, the start button, which is nice, but there's so much work involved in making it look that easy. The binary coding, the programming language, the time it took to develop all that. That's all hidden.

Consciousness like that user interface that hides a lot of those details like the binary code and the programming language.

One thing I notice is that what you do become conscious of, you're probably insecure about. Which brings me to self-consciousness.

I'm conscious right now about my math abilities.

Kanye West says he's so self-conscious, but he's the only one to admit it.

It's a bad thing in this socio-cultural milieu to be "self-conscious" because it means you're too worried about what people think. You don't act the way you want to because you're trying to control what people think about you. Or at least limit the bad thoughts.

When you become conscious, it seems like you don't really do anything, but you observe. The "I" part of you becomes active, but you cannot envision that "I" part of you committing to an action.

Basketball players, soccer players are said to be unconscious when they're making quick decisions with their respective balls. In those contexts, where timing is of the essence, you're not supposed to think, you're supposed to act. There is no room for pondering. There is no room for the "I" to perceive, and then decide to act because the moment is already over. Hesitation usually doesn't mean anything good in sports. The solution is to act before you think. Acting unconsciously.

Essentially, the book by Norretander is about how happiness tends to happen more when we are unconsciously acting. Unconsciousness means we act rather than let the consciousness creep in and instill doubt.

Then I thought back to what Mos Def said about consciousness.


So, stop with the nonsense, like he conscious
I'm just awake dawg, I'm doin' great dawg


Even outside of Mos Def's context, we use "consciousness" a lot in youth hip-hop culture here in the US of A to indicate someone who seems to be thoughtful and knows about harsh realities. As opposed to someone who isn't conscious. By implication, a person who isn't conscious isn't thoughtful and skips over harsh realities.

There is even a demarcation of "conscious" hip-hop and non-conscious hip-hop. "Conscious hip-hop" is hip-hop that invokes thoughtfulness and harsh realities.

There seems to be a parallel between consciousness and harsh realities. Consciousness seems to recognize "harsh realities" all the time. With its recognition of harsh realities, it notices limitations as well. Consciousness by proxy notices limitations.

Consciousness. Realities. Limitations. Consciousness knows realities and knows limitations.

Acting unconsciously. Happiness. When you act unconsciously, you're generally happier.

Notice that we don't really care whether or not Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, or Paris Hilton are "conscious." I rarely hear that word used in any Hollywood Infotainment show. "Conscious."

It's probably because there's a kind of happy and upbeat discourse always surrounding them, regardless of what they actually are feeling. They live in an unconscious world where each of their missteps are exposed and judged harshly, yet anything positive they do, including losing 0.5 lbs of weight, is celebrated as an achievement. With the worlds they live in, they can fuck up royally,

When explaining why people are addicted to gossip about Hollywood celebrities, Danielle Fishel, formerly of Boy Meets World and apparently now a gossip host, said something to the effect of: "it's fun to follow their stories because their worlds are limitless." Limitless. Boundless. Unconscious. By implication, they have choices and can act on any whim, which makes their story more intriguing.

They get to act as unconsciously as they want.

Now that's something I wish I could do as a middle-class Filipino kid in America. I'm happy, but it feels like I have to walk on eggshells still. I have to carefully be something. I mean I wish I could just act ridiculous and stupid and then somehow bullshit my way into popularity. Or even something like the US presidency.

Only it feels like I can't. It feels like I can't just walk into a job interview and chum it up with old whitey. No matter the qualifications or knowledge I have, I have to match an employer's "comfortability, fit" factor (or maybe that was just me). The employer is usually somebody white. It feels like I can't just be an Eric Kandel from Vienna who studies literature and history as an undergrad, becomes a psychiatrist in training, and becomes a Noble Prize winning neuroscientists. My point is that it seems like everyone's doing something unconsciously, except me.

I'm just sitting here consciously, and observing.

Now this brings me to a question of whether or not I could act unconsciously on my way into something like the US Presidency?

Would I as a Filipino middle-class kid be able to George W. Bush/Sarah Palin my way through anything en route to the presidency?

It feels like I have to do everything by the book while other people, namely the white folks and asskissers of color get by on a steady diet of bullshit. I feel like I've had to do things at a higher and tighter level, so good just to get something that white people could get with just a minimum of effort.

The same I could say about Barack Obama.

Community organizer from the creme-de-la-creme, professor, organizer, awesome communicator matching up against an old guy who is respectable but is probably going to continue the Bush push, and some lady who came out of nowhere and prides herself on being a hockey mom.

It feels like this presidential "race" shouldn't even be a competition anymore. However, the polls are closee. He still seems to be walking on eggshells and is perpetually in doubt over the Bubba votes and the Bradley effect.

He's still defending against so many things: Reverend Wright, the unfettered linking of his middle name to Saddam's last name, the claims against his links to Islam.

All of these things shouldn't be issues, but have been made so, and he's had to straddle the line delicately to appease voters.

I think it took a lot of consciousness to play his positions the way he has. I do believe in his commitment to ALL working class folks. I really doubt he actually likes to support Israel, that he's actually steadfastly Christian, or that he's all for some kind of border security. Those seems like things in his form, his identity, that he consciously changed to make him palatable to broader demographics.

Not saying that's wrong, but that's how you win in politics --- more form than function. The right form to carry out the function. With the right form, the collective feels that it can unconsciously carry on with their functions.

Labels: , , , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





White Priv and the Presidency

by B.J. on 6/03/2008 08:15:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

"In 2000, journalists didn't incessantly mention that George W. Bush was seeking to become the 43rd white male president of the United States. No one even thinks in those terms. It's implied. It's one of the perks of dominance." - Gregory Rodriguez, LA Times Writer

On Clinton and White Working Class Voters

Labels: , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





My Official View on US Presidential Elections

by B.J. on 5/17/2008 04:10:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

I've been to the rallies. I have the Shepard Fairey HOPE poster. I watched the news with a fury during Big Tuesday. I loved the story of his mother anthropologist. I expanded upon and would defend his views on race. I support the candidate, but he won't be everything we want, but he's in the direction were going.

Mr. People's History of the United States, How Zinn, has an interview speaking about his anarchist views, touches upon the Presidential elections, and the overall democratic system.


I like them.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/85427/?page=entire

Selected quotes:

-"When some people ask me about voting, they would say will you support this candidate or that candidate? I say: "I will support this candidate for one minute that I am in the voting booth. At that moment I will support A versus B, but before I am going to the voting booth, and after I leave the voting booth, I am going to concentrate on organizing people and not organizing electoral campaign."

-Rousseau once said, if I am part of a group of 100 people, do 99 people have the right to sentence me to death, just because they are majority? No, majorities can be wrong, majorities can overrule rights of minorities. If majorities ruled, we could still have slavery. 80% of the population once enslaved 20% of the population. While run by majority rule that is OK. That is very flawed notion of what democracy is. Democracy has to take into account several things -- proportionate requirements of people, not just needs of the majority, but also needs of the minority."

If were actually relying on one guy whose in office for only a max of 8 years to change things, especially in domestic affairs, then things are going to happen in the most flippant of flippant ways.

Labels: ,

 

Read Entire Post...





Elegantly Put, This Is What I Was Trying to Say About Obama's Speech

by B.J. on 4/02/2008 11:27:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

This Is What I Was Trying to Say About Obama's Speech

..."How dishonest it is to portray Obama as the only candidate with a racial inheritance."

[On Hilary Clinton (but should also include McCain)] "One would think she is just any woman, colorless, race-less, past-less, but she is not.

She carries all the history of white womanhood in America in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to attempt to make her innocent of her racial inheritance."

http://www.alternet.org/election08/80898/?page=entire

"Raceless" and "past-less" are the key words, particularly in a context where individuality is put at a premium. Having a race and having a past means that your individuality is not valued. Why does that matter?


"Race-less" means that by virtue of being white, you carry this aura of "naturalness" and "universality." What applies for you as a white person, applies for everyone.

If it is good for the white person or people involved, it's usually good for everyone else. Example: slavery, land-stealing, killing Indians, bombing brown people and all the justifications for that. "Slaves were destined to be slaves. Look at their muscular features, the fact that they don't get sick, and their inferior intellectual abilities. They were manufactured for slavery." "Indians aren't really using their land. Look how many of them died! Its almost as if God is trying to tell us something!" "If we are to apply Darwin's laws, the Indians are a dying race anyway so I might as well get the last of 'em." "Were here to bring democracy!"

Conversely and more destructively for folks of color, if something is bad for the white person or people involved, it's usually bad for everyone else.

Speaking any other language and any other dialect than California Standard American English is frowned upon. Some pundits even argue that diversity has made the country worse. Even in a "progressive" field like feminism, the average white woman in America or Britain is likely to see the hijab and the practice of clitorodectomy as signs of oppression. As a result of their views, they've mobilized actions to ban the hijab and ban the practice of clitorodectomy.

This is the legacy of imperialism at work: 1) What works for me the white individual, works for everyone else. 2) What doesn't work for me, will not work for you, so stop it.

However, things are different for people of color. We don't usually get the opportunity to wield that "universal" or "naturalness" appeal.

What works for my race/ethnicity, only works for my race/ethnicity (unless there is money to be made, see jazz, hip-hop other art forms). African-American vernacular English (AAVE) is something seen as a "broken" version of a language. Lots of people, many white, many black do not think of AAVE as a "legit" language used to communicate with students. The language only works for black people, but not for most white people and select black people who are not linguistic anthropologists.

Conversely, if something doesn't fly for people in my race, it's only my race's opinion, and my race's opinion frankly doesn't matter. For example, the Confederate flag controversies. Most black people might find it offensive because of its racial connotations and symbolism of hatred. However, according to Georgia, the flag is a symbol of historical heritage! Yes, and so is the swastika, but no one holds it up as something to be proud of, unless they get that much a thrill out of hating people.

If you are a person of color or really any other kind of "minority", what applies to you just applies just to you and everyone who is a person of the same ethnicity or race, gender, religion. Especially if what you're dealing with is a problem.

It's "your" problem, you deal with it. "We" the people do not deal with it at all because it's "your" problem. It's something "you" ALONE need to fix. "You" implicating an entire segment of a population that has had its families broken through centuries of slavery, disallowed from living in certain communities, getting into schools, getting jobs, and only relatively recently has been given equal protections in law.

For example, AIDS in its early years was ghetto-ized as a black and gay issue. The logic was: It's "your" problem, you deal with it. "Your" presupposes that this is a problem YOU whether you like it or not "own" as a member of a community. You "own" it in the sense that because you are a certain race, you instantly gain this intrinsic power to fix "your" problem, its "your" responsibility to pick up "your" race.

The word "History-less" simply means that you don't have this baggage of "your" own problems to carry. Hilary and McCain can be seen as individuals and their individual records. They are at more liberty to choose with whom they can associate. Their associations with controversial people aren't as likely to be simplified or strongly associated with them or their race because their race is seen as universal and natural. Universal and natural that they are in power that it's not an issue at all.

McCain can have an endorsing pastor spouting how he thinks blacks and gays caused Hurricane Katrina to come down on them. He can do that quite successfully without being called a white supremacist or being accused of being only interested in advancing the cause of white people.

Being raceless and history-less, Hilary and McCain don't have to be associated with any and everything white. That advantage is something that the Clinton campaign tried to capitalize off of when Bill suggested that Obama's campaign ran parallel to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's bids for the presidency.

It's pretty easy to be history-less if you're white. Just don't say anything against what good ole MLK said, and you're pretty much in the clear.

Conversely, you cannot be history-less if you are a person of color. Obama's had to play a balancing act while seemingly holding onto ideals he seems to have maintained throughout his career: he's had to prove at once that he's black enough and he cares about their empowerment, that he does care about progressive change for young, multiracial voters, and that he's not that black and will have a lot of other priorities. I don't think we've ever really seen a candidate achieve such a balance between differing points of views. Seems like he will have to be fulfilling lots of different people's expectations come January. And all I can say is that I hope he does it, and does it well.

Labels: ,

 

Read Entire Post...





The Conversation on Race and Barack Obama: Point of Engagement

by B.J. on 3/25/2008 07:59:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

The Conversation on Race and Barack Obama: Point of Engagement






It's been a week already and people are still talking about it. Every form of major internet media from Slate to the Christian Science Monitor to the LA Times has kept the speech fresh in our minds.

Some pieces have made me cringe, some have left me confused, most have made me indifferent.

Then there was one that dropped its big red bricks of dumbass on me. And one that got the neurons firing, the white matter connecting, the soul uplifting.

On one corner, a tired LA Times columnist with enough pomposity to fill a hot-air balloon.

The other end, a quick-rising, quick-rhyming Blue Scholar.

Pompous LA Times guy says that we already talk about race so much. After all, we have a Black history month, the movie "Crash", entire majors devoted to race, books about race, corporate diversity consultants. Apparently this is enough to declare that we've already talked to death the conversation about race relations.

He's saying there's no need for a dialogue about race because we've talked about it enough.

Essentially, he wants to cut off engagement and conversation before it even starts because he believes the conversation has already gone on.

In reality, it's been a very unhealthy passive-aggressive relationship between white folk and people of color.

What he doesn't realize is that those mediums have been one-way conversations --- each side doing its own thing. White people shit talk folks of color. Folks of color shit talk white people. Unless they agree to do it and/or happen to understand each others' humor, they just never do it in front of each other --- legacy of segregation, which is only about as old as Michael Jordan.

However, one side, the one that the pompous LA Times guy represents assumes that there isn't anymore race problems. Now that good ole MLK bravely fought against segregation, people of color are now just "creating or re-hashing problems." Talking about race issues in regards are dismissed as deliberate schemes to hustle billions of dollars from the good old American system. If it's a problem, one side, the one with majority people of color, is continually making it so.

In response to those responses, people of color do by and large stick with their own. They make movies like Crash, or do engage in studies like Chicano, Afro-American, Asian American studies to gain a sense of self-knowledge and dignity. If race was used to bring generations of us down, why can't we use it to bring us back up?

However, I do see that being involved too much into these studies can foster this sense of distance from white folks. We might be the experts on what being a person of color is in United States and know all the struggles, but how are we engaging folks not inside the discipline? Do we do just take comfort and refuge in these disciplines? A lot of the stuff that the LA Times guy mentioned was stuff that was FUBU...for us, by us. What do these disciplines, these objects mean if part of their reason in addition to empowering ourselves does not include bridge understandings between different groups? Do they just become academic-ized, new-age segregated fields of study where we completely do things our way however we define it?

So where do the two sides meet?

Prometheus Brown, the eminent Blue Scholar, makes the simple but poignant point: racism is everyone's problem. However, the subject of race is only mentioned in media with people of color, which gives the image that race is a one-street in which only people of color participate. Otherwise it's an issue that ceases to exist.

"Some people point to Obama’s successes as a sure sign that America has taken many steps forward in resolving its racial contradictions. But isn’t the fact that Obama gets singled out for his views on race a big red flag? Where do Clinton and McCain stand on this issue, and why haven’t they weighed in? Why is nobody asking them what they think about racism?"

The point I glean from all this is just that white folks and folks of color need to actually be engaged in conversation together about race, and not so polarized in their own circles discussing things. White folks reach out. Folks of color reach out. It's an easy common sense solution, but not so in reality. The question has been here way before Obama and will probably still be there after him, but the question is will there ever be any political or social will to ensure anything happens towards that dialogue?

Labels: , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





Barack Obama's Mama Was an Anthropologist

by B.J. on 3/15/2008 07:09:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

Barack Obama's Mama Was an Anthropologist

...and I am too.

Article link

I can relate to what she was described as doing:

1) "I think she was not at all personally ambitious, I think she cared about the core issues, and I think she was not afraid to speak truth to power."

2) "A weaver in college, she was fascinated with what Ms. Soetoro-Ng calls “life’s gorgeous minutiae.” That interest inspired her study of village industries, which became the basis of her 1992 doctoral dissertation."

3) "“She loved living in Java,” said Dr. Dewey, who recalled accompanying Ms. Soetoro to a metalworking village. “People said: ‘Hi! How are you?’ She said: ‘How’s your wife? Did your daughter have the baby?’ They were friends. Then she’d whip out her notebook and she’d say: ‘How many of you have electricity? Are you having trouble getting iron?’ ”"

4) "As a mother, Ms. Soetoro was both idealistic and exacting. Friends describe her as variously informal and intense, humorous and hardheaded. She preached to her young son the importance of honesty, straight talk, independent judgment."

If Barack becomes president and stays well-liked, I think I could use my profession or knowlege as a pick-up line. "Make kids with me, an anthropologist like Obama's mama, raise a progressive-thinking Harvard educated kid." I really want to start marketing that.

Hopefully, I won't have to still be spitting pick-up lines 8 years from Barack's time.

Labels: ,

 

Read Entire Post...





Protest! Before the November Election, Silver Lake Style

by B.J. on 1/22/2005 10:58:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

Protest !

Before the November Election in Silver Lake



Would probably be funny if you knew these people.





Elitist Bush supporters. Bastards. Die.


Inauguration Night in Westwood

Bush Parodies



Bush being walked like a dog.



Bush the killer.

I tend to agree with Bush being walked like a dog.

CATCHY POSTERS







Don't support our troops. . .







Expresses my sentiments exactly.

TRUTHFUL COMMENTS









I wonder if a draft is going to be installed. I doubt it, but it is a legitimate concern.



Interesting comment here: Stop the criminalization of dissent. It's aimed towards hammer-headed conservatives and/or Republicans who always call those who don't agree with them "commie criminals" or some other platitude.

But in all these rallies/protests I could see how people in the mainstream, moderates, and apathetics don't like protestors.

I will say that I don't agree with how protestors go about things and that I don't feel like I quite fit in with them. I agree with a lot of what they said, but I honestly don't know what the protesting and being seen would do.

It's expressing anger yeah, but it's not going to stop anything. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish. Maybe they're trying to be seen ? Yeah ? Yeah.

If they're trying to be seen, the image they show was them being all about rebelling and protesting with the punks, the hippies, the emos coming out in full force. Protesting is fine but I believe folks being all about protest in everything they do including style is not going to convince anyone because it's just too different from society. All that difference is too tough to accept all at once for regular folks.

But at any rate, I share these protestors' sentiments on these issues. And of course it's not just us.

The world, and not just the rabidly Anti-American, agrees with their and my opinion that Bush shouldn't be in office and that there are some things in the US of A that could be changed.

Here are some graphics from BBC.com.

Interesting to see who supports the US the most. But that's another post some day. I posted on BBB.net about that --- check my bbb.net posts on the side.








Labels: , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





by B.J. on 10/28/2004 04:07:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

Deceptive But Hilarious

Yes Bush Can Team
to me
2:26pm (1½ hours ago)

A week ago, we sent you an email asking for help debunking anti-Bush documents. After receiving hundreds of responses, it become clear thatall the documents were actually real: the Bush/Cheney DUIs, the Ken Layletters, and even the bin Laden memo. For more information visit thedocuments page:http://www.yesbushcan.com/falsedocs.shtml

We also received hundreds of emails from concerned bloggers thateloquently expressed the problems with the Bush administration. And aswe traveled across America campaigning for Bush, we learned more thanwe wanted to know about Bush's policies. We came to see that thisadministration is a catastrophe for most people.As a result, we are abandoning our support of Bush and officiallyendorsing John Kerry for President. You can read more at the Yes Bush Can web site:http://www.yesbushcan.com/

We deeply regret our misguided support and apologize for our previous email. This will be the last email we will send directly to bloggers.

If you want to join us in supporting Kerry, you can find out more here:http://www.yesbushcan.com/act.shtml

Thank you for your understanding,

Yes Bush Can

Labels:

 

Read Entire Post...





by B.J. on 10/26/2004 08:08:00 PM 1 comments Print this post

The UCLA Vote

Well, election-fever has officially taken over the Los Angeles campus of the University of California.

And to kick it off is Conservative culture "coming out" week. Before this banner was up, there was a "coming out" week for the gay/lesbian community. The conservatives who's motto is "why be politically correct, when you can just be right" claimed in the Daily Bruin that they are not disrespecting anyone.



All 7 of the Bruin Republicans struggling for attention during lunch hour. Today was flag day, and they played these we love America songs, played the banjo to Super Mario Brothers and Mario World, and surprisingly only one anti-foreigner country song.



However, despite their valiant efforts. . .



. . .their efforts spelled like this "L-A-N-D-S-L-I-D-E-F-O-R-K-E-R-R-Y"

This was a little practice vote thing in which passersby were asked to put either a red (Bush) or blue sticker (Kerry) on their choice for president. Kerry was winning by a helluvalot by the time I left for class.

But I was there for a while watching who exactly was putting the red stickers:

- There was one clean-cut Filipino guy. Must be a super-Christian.

- I noted about 10 bitchy, mediocre-looking white girls. They all seem to have this suspicious dark, look in their eyes that forces their eyebrows to arch.

- Clean-cut white guys who think they know better than you.

Pretty much everyone who was Latino, oddly dressed, a professional, older, and generally "light on the eyes" voted for Kerry. I didn't really notice any blacks or Asians voting, but I'm pretty sure the Asians are pretty split on this campus.

Labels: ,

 

Read Entire Post...





Ideology vs. Fact

by B.J. on 9/30/2004 10:14:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

Bush is ideology. Kerry is fact. Ideology is static. Facts are not always so.

A fact, to me, is just some kind of spare part that goes under ideology. Kerry has plenty of those spare parts and demonstrated so.

In the last debate, Kerry chased Bush on his invading of Iraquistan, his unwillingness to work with the whole world to the point where Bush would visibly crumble back to this basic ideology of "I did it for the protection of the American people and that I stand by my decisions because I am a leader" and Kerry would crack a smile and keep on penning and strategizing as if he knew he was winning the debate.

But what matters ultimately is if he wins voters over. People usually don't decide who wins until they hear the after commentary.

As a non-politics follower aside from domestic issues like education and poverty, I really wasn't sure about all these facts that Kerry was throwing out there --- there really wasn't a central thrust to all that ammunition he had (heeee, a lil dirty connotation there). He had the flares but not the canonball. He had enough to defend his own positions --- like he was playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

That central ideology to tie up his campaign is all he needs to win this election because people do want to be able to grab on to something, to TRUST something in what might seem an everchanging United States where things aren't so static as history presents it to be. When anyone is talking in ideological terms, time and place is removed. You have something that is thought to be constantly at work and unchanging. President's Bush's intentions are something that is thought to be constantly at work and unchanging.

For example, in running away from Kerry's facts, the resident would say that he did things because ultimately he wanted to protect Americans. It was as if he always had protecting Americans in the back of his mind all the while do things that pissed people off and enhanced our chances of getting into wars like starting wars with people who weren't enemies, pissing practically the whole world off, just to name a few things.

The sad thing is that Shrubya could get away with this because he always boils it down to intentions and ideologies driving those intentions. He always says his intentions were good (but his plans never work, and he is incompetent for the job) and presents himself as a lovable commodity. Like Mad TV (a most reliable news source) eloquently said, "people love him because he's like loving a retarded child." The Republican trademark has been to attack credibility, distracting listeners with chips on the advocate's off-centerness and how that cannot be trusted. They build trust by telling you that other people cannot be trusted. . .

Labels: ,

 

Read Entire Post...




Home Page