Oh look, it's Dr. Jared Bell clutching the pearls -- or maybe just the ben wa beeds with his anus.
A big F**K YOU to BLACK POWER MEDIA's Jared and Gee Chee Yaw and Kenyatta.
When you put three Nancies together -- men who try to present straight but are pure femme -- you get homophobia.
Gee Chee, let me be the one to break it to you, you're not Pebbles Flinstone. Lose the Patti LaBelle hair. Especially while spouting homophobia. I guess if I was a man sporting a queen's hair style, I'd need to resort to homophobia to present as straight as well.
So what got the girls all upset? RUSTIN. The film, they say, is well acted and well directed but, damn it, it centers Bayard Rustin's gay life.
They're so ticked off.
Jared is bothered by the "love story" between Bayard and the White guy (Tom).
It tried to center it. First off, that's a really not a love story. Bayard's picking up men. He's running around with a married man that he seems to be in love with. To the point that he continues exhibiting his affection for the man when Tom walks in on them.
I don't know what kind of F**KED UP life Jared's living but that wasn't a love story.
And I'm getting damn tired of prissy ass Black men trashing gay men.
Their bulls**t on parade in their segment "Rustin: Why Do The Obamas Keep Messing With Us?" (I'm not reposting it)?
I lived with that in Atlanta growing up. More to the point, my brother -- who is gay -- lived with it. It's why all of my family lives there still except my brother and his husband. That was decades ago.
Atlanta has grown up a bit.
Clearly "Dr" Jared Ball hasn't.
I'm going to drop back to November 5, 2005 for THIRD's "Five Books, Five Minutes:"
Jim: Okay, so we'll move on. We have a book dealing
with the media, but I found Cedric's pick to be interesting and I think
we can shake things up by selecting it next.
Cedric: I was at the library looking for a book we did last time and saw Time On Two Crosses: The Collected Writings of Bayard Rustin
which is edited by Devon W. Carbado and Donald Weise. I didn't know
anything about Rustin which is always something we look for when picking
out books, going with something other than what's on the top ten list
this week. What I learned was that Rustin was part of the civil rights
movement, a big part of it, in fact. "Time on Two Crosses" refers to the
fact that Rustin was both African-American and gay.
Betty:
And so he's got two crosses to bear at a time when Blacks aren't
recognized as equals and when gays and lesbians seem as worthy of less
than equal rights.
Wally: The book included his debate with Malcolm X.
Rebecca: Right, it's not just a collection of writings, but also includes interviews and in that case, a transcription.
C.I.:
I'm staying silent for this discussion due to having eaten up so much
time being the "defender of TV" before. But it needs to be noted that
the discussion was done for WBAI radio which is a Pacifica Radio
station.
Mike: I didn't know that.
Elaine: So let me do the plug C.I. wants to do but is biting the tongue on. If you saw the coverage of Rosa Parks on Democracy Now!
or heard it on Pacifica stations, you realize that their archives are
very rich. That's due to things like airing this discussion between two
leaders that the mainstream media wasn't interested in.
Ava:
Because years from now when someone like Medea Benjamin or Arundhati
Roy or Tariq Ali or anyone like that passes away, a tribute's going to
be hard for the mainstream media to put together. They'll have plenty of
clips of Tim Russert speaking to John McCain yet again. But people who
are truly leaders, not "powerful" because they were elected, are not
covered. You saw that with Rosa Park's passing. Mainstream media working
overtime to get some sort of tribute together for a woman that they
were largely uninterested in hearing from.
Kat: In fact, Amy Goodman issued a challenge or made an offer during their coverage of Rosa Parks on Democracy Now!
Cedric:
Right. I think she noted that they were airing excerpts from a Pacifica
interview done in the fifties, shortly after Ms. Parks had sparked a
movement, and Amy Goodman noted that you wouldn't see footage like that
on TV and offered that if any networks wanted to use it for a tribute,
they'd allow them to, this wasn't an open offer this was for that time
period, free of charge, but it was doubtful anyone would take them up on
it. And to the best of my knowledge, no one did.
C.I.: Jumping in again. Dallas can't find the link. Rebecca, do you know what we're talking about?
Rebecca: I know the interview, but not the offer. Maybe I was running to the kitchen for another cup of coffee that morning?
C.I.:
The people who've cited that, and I remember it too, listen to the
show. The Rosa Parks coverage occurred during the tail end of Pacifica's
pledge drive. Something could have been left out of the transcript but Dallas found the link to the interview
and I'm thinking that, if the transcript didn't leave something out,
this was actually an offer/challenge Amy Goodman made outside of the Democracy Now! broadcast. I know she mentioned it after Democracy Now! the day after the interview had aired. Kat, Cedric and Ava listen. Rebecca watches Democracy Now!
on TV. I think, and I could be wrong, you had to be listening to
Pacifica during that [pledge drive] to have heard it. She may have made
it during Democracy Now!'s airing but if so, it was in what
would be the musical breaks between segments if you weren't listening
via a Pacifica station.
Cedric: One thing that
puzzled me was why the host of the discussion between Malcolm X and
Rustin wasn't identified except as "HOST"? I'm also wondering who you
found yourself siding with in the discussion?
Jess:
For me, it was Malcolm. I know his writing and his story, so I may have
been filling in details that I wasn't able to with Rustin but I got the
impression that Rustin grew more cautious with age.
Betty:
I'd agree with that except for the issue of sexuality. That reads
cautious today but for the time period, that is a big deal. And I'll add
that he was known within the civil rights movment as gay and, in fact,
within the nation since an arrest was used by a White senator to force
Rustin out of the movement. But in terms of discussing his sexuality
publicly, that's in the eighties. And it was a big deal.
Cedric:
And you can say it still is a big deal because Rustin is one of the
civil rights pioneer, very essential to the movement, and he's not
someone that is stressed when you hear of the civil rights movement.
Betty:
I'd agree with that. I'd add that it's part of our community's, I'm
speaking of the Black community and directing the "our" to Cedric,
refusal or reluctance to address the issue of sexuality and orientation.
I think it's embarrassing. Of course some do address it. But we've
allowed it to be a something that can turn against each other. Bully
Boy's been able to use it with some Black churches, sexual orientation,
to turn them against their own interests. In my church we had to deal
with it, we had too many members and families of members who were
dealing with AIDS. It's one of the healthiest things we've done. With
the empahis on family in the Black community, I look skeptical at any
Black person that tells me they've never met a gay or lesbian. They are
in our families, they are in our churches and it distresses that a White
Bully Boy has been allowed by some "Black leaders" to turn us against
each other. There's some idiot. and I use that term by choice, Cedric's
also heard him, his "sermons" get passed around in e-mails. And for
someone so supposedly opposed to gays and lesbians, he sure knows a lot
about gay sex and he sure seems to enjoy talking about it in terms that I
can't imagine sex being talked about in my church.
Cedric:
Yeah, that guy is an idiot. And every month or so, it'll pop up in an
e-mail forward to someone in the office and they'll be giggling at it.
They say, if you ask them, they're laughing at how stupid he is. Well
that doesn't help the race either, flaunting ignorance. I really do not
have respect for people who pass that around, either out of their own
beliefs or to giggle over.
Ty: And this goes to
what erases Rustin for history and how a race whose leaders want to fuss
and fret over language don't want to address serious issues. I mean,
where is Bill Cosby on this issue? Where his speech on the need for us
to embrace one another?
Betty: Exactly, you can
list the leaders who've addressed this topic in any form and it's a
small list. Coretta Scott King and Julian Bond would be on the list but a
lot of other so-called "brave" voices wouldn't be. I like Jesse Jackson
but I don't respect his opinions on this issue.
Rebecca: Which is interesting that you cite him when Rustin cites him as one of the people working to turn MLK against him.
Ty: And it's forty years later and he still hasn't changed his tune.
Cedric: I don't know if Dona wants to call time or not, I know we've got Betty's pick still to do.
Dona: No, this has been an interesting discussion and we can extend. We actually have two more books.
Cedric:
Well I'll make my comment and try to be brief about it. Some
African-Americans are offended when sexual orientation is likened to
race. And it's not just that. You heard some nonsense about "Cindy
Sheehan is no Rosa Parks!" As though allowing someone else to build on a
very powerful movement will erase Ms. Parks. It won't. It will only
extend her reach and future generations' knowlege of her. I hear,
everyone hears, modern day comparisons to George Washington or Thomas
Jefferson or whomever. They become points of reference. I can understand
the fear here because any minority group risks being stripped of
whatever place in history they've earned. But while realizing that, we
should realize that part of what makes Whites such a point of history,
besides who got to draw it up, is that it is a short hand. Most people
couldn't tell you where Thomas Jefferson was born. But they can use him
as a point of reference. When the civil rights movement is used as a
point of reference, I think it extends the movement, keeps it alive in
history and increases knowledge. Otherwise it's going to be confined to
one time, one period, one group and it will be ghetto-ized in terms of
how history is taught. I'm thrilled that we have our African-American
heroes but I want to see them be heroes for all.
They fought as hard
as anyone else and they are a part of American history. I was thrilled
to hear some people calling Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the peace
movement. I see it as a huge improvement over years of someone being
"the Black __" who ever. We have heroic figures and their struggles are
heroic. If they inspire people that's a great thing, regardless of race.
The point of teaching Black History is to get it back into our
understanding of history. It's a part of American history and hopefully
it will be worked into American history more and more with each
generation. I'm done.
Ty: I'll add that I agree
with Cedric. I've attended predominately African-American schools and
predominatley White ones. And I've seen a "Oh, it's Black history" type
collective groan at some of the White schools. In standing up for her
race, Rosa Parks stood up for a better nation.
I didn't always hear that point in made in school.
I don't need the homophobia of the men or 'men' of BLACK POWER MEDIA.
Two crosses, get it? And you can't tell his story without including him being gay. That's why he and Dr. King had the split. A photo was being pushed around trying to suggest that he was the love of Dr. King and this leads to Bayard offering to quit thinking that Dr. King will say no. Instead he accepts Bayard's resignation. And that's it. Bayard then drifts, active in other causes but pretty much sidelined from the Civil Rights Movement. When it's time for The March on Washington, you have people trying to keep him out. Like Adam Clayton Powell. Then you have White people trying to push him out because he's gay.
You three little homophobes, what are you trying to over compensate for? Jared, for you, it's usually that you have a White mommy -- like Melissa Lieface Parry Harris Whatever, you tend to try really hard to play Blacker Than Thou because you're mixed.
F**k the three of you.
I spent my early life -- back in childhood -- defending my brother. The world fortunately progressed. I will always love and defend my brother. But I'm not in the mood for Three Black Nancies or Two Black Nancies and A-Half-And-Half trying to prove their questionable manhood by attacking a film about a gay Black man for including the fact that he was gay. It's a key part of Bayard's story. Sorry it sent you three into a homosexual panic. Be advised, I'm no longer a fan of your platform. I'm going to think about it over the weekend but I may get you pulled from THE COMMON ILLS as well. We all have the ability to blackball. Right now, I want to use it. But I'm going to try to calm down. If I still feel as outraged on Monday; however, I will be blackballing you.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
The rhetoric of ‘humanitarian pause’ is illustrative of a media disinformation campaign designed to affirm certain attitudes and stigmatize others. For instance, the Israeli pledge to resume the war after this brief interlude of relative calm rarely includes critical comments on the sinister nature of this commitment to reengage Hamas by recourse to genocidal warfare. In contrast, when released hostages report humane treatment by their captors this is either belittled or altogether ignored, whereas if released Palestinian prisoners were to make analogous comments about how they enjoyed Israeli prisons their words would be highlighted. We can only imagine the harsh response of Western media outlets to Russia’s participation in a comparable pause in the Ukraine War, dismissing any humanitarian pretensions by Moscow as cynical state propaganda.
Unless properly addressed the whole provenance of ‘humanitarian pause’ is misunderstood. Remember that Israel’s political leaders went ahead with such an alternative only when it was made clear that Israel had no intention of converting the pause into a longer-range ceasefire, to be followed by ‘day after’ negotiations as to the viability of continuing occupation and a new agreement as to governance arrangements for Hamas. Rather than sustaining their nationalist cult by dismissing Hamas as ‘terrorists’ the security of Israel might be enhanced by treating Hamas as a legitimate political entity, which although guilty of violations of international law, is far less guilty than Israel if a fair evaluation is made, and some account is taken of Hamas’ long-term ceasefire diplomacy is considered as a preferable security alternative.
In retrospect, I understand better the rationale behind this apparently genuine Hamas efforts, which I received first-hand evidence of due to extended conversations with Hamas leaders living in Doha and Cairo while I was UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories a decade ago. Israel could not take seriously what appeared to be beneficial from its security perspective of such Hamas initiatives or the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal issued in Mecca. Both Hamas and the Arab proposal conditioned peace on withdrawal from the Occupied Territory of the West Bank, which has long been in the gun sights of the settler wing of the Zionist Project, and consistently given priority over Israeli security by its leaders, long before Netanyahu’s Coalition made this unmistakably clear when it took over in January of 2023. Israel never accepted the internationally presumed notion that a Palestinian state would include the West Bank and have its capital in East Jerusalem.
It is this unwillingness to take account of the master/slave structure of prolonged occupation that gives a specious plausibility to both sides’ narratives embodying the delusion that Israel and Occupied Palestine are formally and existentially equal. Such narratives equate, or invert, the Hamas attack with the Israeli genocidal onslaught that followed, regarding the former as ‘barbaric’ while the latter is generally sympathetically described as Israel’s reasonable and necessary entitlement to defend itself. Variations of such themes are integral to the apologetics of former US mediating officials such as Dennis Roth or liberal Zionist casuists such as Thomas Friedman.
The Nation this week published a piece about Israel's genocidal war on the Gaza Strip that the Harvard Law Review
commissioned from a Palestinian scholar but then refused to run after
several days of internal debate, a nearly six-hour meeting, and a board
vote.
The essay—"The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine," by Rabea Eghbariah, a human rights attorney and doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School—begins: "Genocide is a crime. It is a legal framework. It is unfolding in Gaza. And yet, the inertia of legal academia, especially in the United States, has been chilling."
The controversy over Eghbariah's own piece helps prove his point. In an email to Eghbariah and Harvard Law Review president Apsara Iyer, online chair Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, one of the editors who commissioned the blog article, called the bid to kill it an "unprecedented decision" by the academic journal's leadership.
The Interceptreported on that email and others from those involved:
"As online chairs, we have always had full discretion to solicit pieces for publication," Shahriari-Parsa wrote, informing Eghbariah that his piece would not be published despite following the agreed-upon procedure for blog essays. Shahriari-Parsa wrote that concerns had arisen about staffers being offended or harassed, but "a deliberate decision to censor your voice out of fear of backlash would be contrary to the values of academic freedom and uplifting marginalized voices in legal academia that our institution stands for."
Both Shahriari-Parsa and the other top online editor, Sabrina Ochoa, told The Intercept that they had never seen a piece face this level of scrutiny at the Law Review. Shahriari-Parsa could find no previous examples of other pieces pulled from publication after going through the standard editorial process.
In a statement, the Harvard Law Review said that it "has rigorous editorial processes governing how it solicits, evaluates, and determines when and whether to publish a piece. An intrinsic feature of these internal processes is the confidentiality of our 104 editors' perspectives and deliberations. Last week, the full body met and deliberated over whether to publish a particular blog piece that had been solicited by two editors. A substantial majority voted not to proceed with publication."
According to The Nation, 63% of editors who participated in the anonymous vote opposed publication.
"At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal's leadership intervened to stop publication," 25 editors said in a statement shared with The Nation and The Intercept. "The body of editors—none of whom are Palestinian—voted to sustain that decision."
"We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way," they added. "This unprecedented decision threatens academic freedom and perpetuates the suppression of Palestinian voices. We dissent."
Eghbariah wrote in an email to an editor: "This is discrimination. Let's not dance around it—this is also outright censorship. It is dangerous and alarming."
It is also part of a broader trend identified by more than 1,700 lawyers and law students. In a letter to the American Bar Association last week, they noted "increasing instances of discrimination and censorship faced by Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, South Asian, Black, Indigenous, immigrant, and other communities within law schools, universities, law firms, and other corporate entities, particularly due to their expression of support for the Palestinian people."
In a post on X, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus welcomed the start of the humanitarian pause and the entry of aid into Gaza, calling it a “step in the right direction”.
“But much more is needed,” he warned.
“We continue to call for a sustainable ceasefire to end further civilian suffering.”
Pro-Palestinian rallies have been going on for weeks across the country. The protests are dominated by young people.
That's not a surprise for Associate Professor Tanya Notley, who leads the Advancing Media Literacy research program at Western Sydney University.
"Young people who are really highly engaged with news are also more likely to be taking a range of civic actions in their communities, and on the issues that matter to them," the media academic said.
Once again, it is our western governments that have endorsed and supported Israel’s war of annihilation. And like the invasion of Iraq 20 years before, millions have taken to the streets to protest against a war launched in their name.
Gaza is also a war of narratives, of governments against their people, with western corporate media attempting to hold a line in favour of Israel’s legitimacy while millions in western countries are increasingly seeing the scales fall from their eyes.
Last week, a group of 50 people drove onto the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge during the morning rush hour and stopped their cars, throwing their car keys into the bay and blocking traffic for hours. “Fifteen protesters covered themselves in shrouds and laid down in front of vehicles to represent dead bodies in Gaza,” the New York Times reported.
Meanwhile, in Washington State on 7 November, hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators rallied at the Port of Tacoma to block a military supply vessel they believe was carrying weapons from the United States to Israel.
“We want a ceasefire now. We want people to stop getting murdered now. We want a real examination and action on US foreign policy and US funding to Israel,” said Wassim Hage, community outreach coordinator with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, an organiser of the Tacoma rally.
Other groups have blocked ports to prevent weapons shipments being loaded onto ships for Israel, in California, Belgium, Australia, and at a BAE arms factory in Kent, UK. This kind of direct action protest to block weapons shipments is spreading.
As our political elites give carte blanche support to Israel’s total war on the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinians, global protests, including direct actions and sit-ins at major rail terminals from New York to London, are sweeping European and American cities.
The brief lull in Israel’s savage onslaught on the defenceless civilian population of Gaza scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. local time Thursday is widely being presented as a “ceasefire,” or at least a “humanitarian pause.”
Assuming the agreement is fulfilled, which is by no means assured, it will amount to little more than an operational pause in Israel’s military offensive to ethnically cleanse Gaza by carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people.
The terms of the agreement, mediated by Qatar and the United States, include the release by Hamas of 50 women and children among the approximately 240 Israelis captured by Hamas fighters during the October 7 incursion into Israel. In return, Israel will release 150 Palestinian detainees, halt fighting in the Gaza Strip for four days, and permit 200 trucks carrying aid to enter the enclave each day. The number of Palestinian detainees being released is minuscule compared to the over 10,000 Palestinians held in detention by Israel under the most brutal conditions, including routine torture.
The agreement remains highly unstable, illustrated by the announcement late Wednesday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security adviser that the release of the first hostages would be delayed by up to 24 hours and only take place Friday. During the four-day pause, Israel will refrain from operating aircraft and drones over southern Gaza, but in the north they will only do so during a short window between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. each day.
All Israeli ground forces will remain in place, ready to resume battle at a moment’s notice. As Netanyahu put it at a press conference Wednesday evening, “When the pause is done, we resume the war. It may be that we are forced to do so much earlier.” He also rejected any suggestion that the pause applied to Israel’s northern border, where the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have been striking Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon. Underlining the point, War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz told the same press conference, “What’s happening now in northern Gaza can also happen in southern Lebanon and Beirut.”
The Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fuad Hussein, confirmed on Wednesday that the recent US escalation is dangerous and violates the sovereignty of Iraq.
Hussein’s statements took place during his meeting with the US Ambassador to Iraq, Alina Romanowski, according to a statement cited by the Iraqi News Agency (INA).
The Iraqi Foreign Minister conveyed the government’s disapproval of the recent US strikes against sites belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces in the Babylon governorate’s Jurf Al-Nasr, without the Iraqi government’s knowledge.
Earlier on Wednesday, the spokesperson of the Iraqi government, Basem Al-Awadi, mentioned in a statement that the Iraqi government considers the recent escalation a dangerous step involving an unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
At least five people were killed in the early hours of Wednesday after PMF sites southwest of Baghdad were targeted by air strikes carried out by US forces.
The US press -- and US think tanks -- can lie all they want but the reality is that on Wednesday, the US government physically attacked the Iraqi military. And that's not just how the Iraqis see it -- which would be bad enough -- that's how it actually is. Tom O'Connor (NEWSWEEK) notes, "Iraq, considered by the United States to be a regional security partner, has strongly condemned President Joe Biden's decision to conduct airstrikes against militias accused of attacking U.S. forces in the country, warning that a cycle of unrest threatens to destabilize the nation." Julian Benocha (RUDAW) reports:
“We vehemently condemn the attack on Jurf al-Nasr, executed without the knowledge of Iraqi government agencies. This action is a blatant violation of sovereignty and an attempt to destabilize the security situation,” Basem al-Awadi, spokesperson for the Iraqi government, said in a statement.
The statement came hours after US warplanes struck pro-Iran fighters in Jurf al-Nasr (formerly Jurf al-Sakhar) in northern Babil province, around 60 kilometers southwest of Baghdad. Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF, or Hashd al-Shaabi) confirmed to AFP that the strikes left eight fighters dead.
Wednesday’s strike came hours after the US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced its first retaliatory strike targeting Iran-backed groups in Iraq since the start of the attacks on American personnel in Iraq and Syria over Washington’s support for Israel in its war against Gaza. The first retaliatory strike resulted in “several enemy casualties,” according to CENTCOM.
“The Iraqi government is solely dedicated to enforcing the law and holding violators accountable, a prerogative exclusively within its purview. No party or foreign agency has the right to assume this role, as it contradicts Iraqi constitutional sovereignty and international law,” the government statement said, labeling the recent escalations as “a dangerous development.”
He further criticized the US-led global coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS) for steering away from its intended mission of supporting Iraqi armed forces in the fight against the jihadist group.
“The recent incident represents a clear violation of the coalition’s mission to combat [Arabic acronym for ISIS] on Iraqi soil,” the statement added.
Iraq? As we focus on the assault on Gaza, we mention Iraq, we do not focus on it. Cilia e-mailed asking if there was anything I felt we missed re: Iraq?
Yeah, Speaker of the House Mohammed al-Halbousi was removed from his post. By the country's Supreme Court. He was removed from office over an accusation that he forged the signature of MP Laith al-Dulaimi. The court removed al-Dulaimi from office as well.
The story we didn't have time for. I read over the Iraqi Constitution and there's nothing in there that gives the Federal Court the power to remove any MP from office. The Council of Representatives has the power to remove one of its members. But the Court has no say in that at all. They can't even arrest for a felony (in Iraq, forgery is a felony) without the permission of the Council of Representatives.
They've created a power for themselves that does not exist.
By removing both the accuser and the accused (al-Dulaimi and al-Halbousi), they've also made clear that they didn't determine guilt in the matter. Now they would have had to have had permission to do that from the Council. That's in the Constitution. So removing both the accuser and the accused? That makes no sense. One was telling the truth, one wasn't. I have no idea which.
But the Supreme Court has no power to remove a member from the Council -- Speaker or otherwise. This should could cause an outcry in Iraq for that reason. It should also alarm legal observers around the world.
The Supreme Court in Iraq now believes it can remove any member of Parliament. And no one got convicted, by the way. Grasp that as well. So anytime the Court doesn't like a member of Parliament or that members politics, it's now claiming it can remove the member. That is not how the government and its checks and balances are structured in the country's Constitution.
-
-
By Right of Discovery3 hours ago
-
-
-
Never make a Nepo Baby your governor8 hours ago
-
-
Sarah Big and Stupid8 hours ago
-
-
-
It was sixty years ago today . . .10 hours ago
-
-
-
