[syndicated profile] loweringthebar_feed

Posted by Kevin

Ganges at Rishikesh

Just days after New Zealand declared the Whanganui River a legal person, the world’s population of river people (not people who live on the river, but rivers who are people) tripled, when a court in India waved its judicial wand and transformed the Ganges and Yamuna rivers:

[T]he Rivers Ganga [Ganges] and Yamuna, all their tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing with flow continuously or intermittently of these rivers, are declared as juristic/legal persons/living entities having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person ….

Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, WP PIL 126-2014 (High Court of Uttarakhand, Mar. 20, 2017) (PDF via LiveLaw.in).

According to The Guardian, unlike the New Zealand dispute, this one arose out of official frustration that the relevant state governments weren’t cooperating with federal efforts to clean up the rivers. The Ganges in particular looks nice in the picture above—that’s why I chose that picture—but much of it is frighteningly nasty. This is despite, and I guess also because of, the fact that it is sacred to Hindus. This increases the number of people who bathe in it and have their ashes scattered on it (if they aren’t just floated down it when the time comes), but because the river is over 2,500 kilometers/1,500 miles long and flows through some of the most heavily populated areas in the world, there would be a lot of people doing that anyway. Add in the runoff from agriculture, the excretions of industry, and just good old sewage (treated and untreated), and let’s just say the further upstream you are, the better.

The Yamuna, which as you can see is a tributary of the Ganges, may be even worse.

map of Ganges basin

A bunch of rivers, but only two people (image: Pfly on Wikipedia)

Whatever Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh have been doing to clean them up is, according to the court, not enough. In fact, the manner in which they have acted has caused the court “serious displeasure” and amounts to “a sign of non-governance,” it said, which isn’t good, since the defendants are governments. The court ordered the states to cooperate with the federal government in “a right earnest manner” by appointing members to the river-management board like they’re supposed to do.

That only takes a few pages, though, and as you know if you’ve been paying attention, Indian courts are not known for being succinct. See, e.g., “Luxuriate in the Octopoid Embrace of These Legal Postulations” (Feb. 15, 2017). This opinion does not compare to the Supreme Court’s supremely elaborate locutions in that case, but the court does launch into a fairly long (and I think unnecessary) explanation of why the situation is so extraordinary that it is about to give birth to two legal people.

Both rivers, it begins, are worshipped by Hindus; they are “very sacred and revered” and have been so since ancient times. So far, so good. Then, this:

In 1969 (1) SCC 555 their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in ‘Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commmission of Income-Tax, Calcutta‘ have held that a Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property and of being taxed through its Shebaits [managers] who are entrusted with the possession and management of its property.

Could have used a transition sentence there, maybe, but clearly the court is starting to lay out the precedent in Indian law for treating a thing as a legal person. Obviously, Hindu idols have been treated that way in the past, and as the court points out, this is basically the same as saying a temple (or, in English law, a church) has corporate status. But it is more fun to think of the idol itself as being the legal person, so I am going to do that. Especially since this sometimes overlaps with the idea that the legal person is actually the deity represented by the idol:

In the first place, the property which is dedicated to the deity vests in an ideal sense in the deity itself as a juristic person and in the second place, the personality of the idol being linked up with [the] natural personality of the [manager] who is entrusted with the custody of the idol and who is responsible otherwise for preservation of the property of the idol.

Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar, 1999 (5) SCC 50 (emphasis added); see also Lord Hanuman Gets Another Court Summons,” Lowering the Bar (Feb. 25, 2016) (noting that—like Americans—Indians occasionally sue their deities but have trouble serving them with process). The court even cites a 1972 case holding that a deity could sue in forma pauperis:

To my mind when an incorporated limited company has been held by this Court capable of suing as a pauper, a fortiori it follows that a deity can also sue as a pauper…. The court below thus was in error in rejecting the application of the deity for that reason.

That is, the trial judge shouldn’t have dismissed the deity’s case just because it couldn’t afford court fees.

But as we discussed when talking about the Whanganui River, the point is that a society can, if it wants, create a legal “person” and give it various legal rights and/or obligations if doing that is convenient for some reason. Could be a church, a statue, an animal, a mountain, the googly-eyed crystal skull over there on my shelf, or even something that doesn’t exist at all, like a corporation. An actual human person still has to act on its behalf, of course, but there’s no reason that can’t be arranged. Same for rivers.

There may be some problems, though, with the sweeping declarations in all three cases that the rivers have “all the rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person.” That can’t literally be true, and when the scope of “rights, duties, and liabilities” aren’t clear, it tends to create litigation.

But I guess that means rivers need lawyers, so I shouldn’t complain.

[syndicated profile] cakewrecks_feed

Posted by Jen

Heidi wanted a pizza cake, and so asked her local bakery to make one. The encounter went something like this:

Heidi: "Hi, I'd like to order a pizza cake, please."

Baker: "A pizza... cake?"

Heidi: "Yes, you know, a cake that looks like a pizza."

Baker: "I'm not following." Heidi: "It's a round cake, decorated like a pizza... but with icing. Lots of places make them."

Baker: "Still not with you."

Heidi: "No, see, it's really simple: it's just a single layer cake, but with icing toppings and sauce and stuff to make it look like a pizza. A pizza cake."

Baker: "Huh. Well, I guess I can make that. But you better bring in a reference photo."

Heidi: "Of a pizza cake?"

Baker: "No, of just the pizza. So I know what kind you want it to look like."

Heidi: "Oh. Well, it can just be a plain cheese pizza, but... sure?"





And for those of you who like to peer down the road not traveled:




Maybe you dodged a bullet, there, Heidi. Thanks to Heidi L., Greg, Leah R., & Kris D. for proving wrecking baked goods is a pizza cake.


Thank you for using our Amazon links to shop! USA, UK, Canada.

[syndicated profile] azurelunatictumblr_feed




When he was 2 years old, he fell out of a second story window and fractured his skull

When he was 6 years old, he mistakenly drank boric acid.

When he was 9 years old, he fell over a small cliff and broke his leg.

When he was 11 years old, he contracted measles and was in a coma for nine days.

When he was 14 years old, he broke his arm when he caught it in a carriage door.

When he was 19 years old, he was struck on the head by a falling brick.

When he was 23 years old, he almost died from the effects of tainted wine.

When he was 29 years old, Adolph Sax invented the saxophone.

clearly someone didn’t want that saxophone invented 

#incompetent time-travelling saxophone haters

[syndicated profile] loweringthebar_feed

Posted by Kevin

“[S]ome people will say it’s pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality,” said New Zealand’s Treaty Negotiations Minister, “but it’s no stranger than family trusts, or companies, or incorporated societies.” Well, it’s a little stranger than that, but I generally agree.

If corporations can have legal rights (and they do, especially the ones I represent), there’s no reason a society can’t give rights to any other non-human thing. It might or might not be a good idea, and people can and do argue about which rights a thing should have, if any. But the basic theory is fine, and not especially new.

So it is okay, in my view, that the Whanganui River in New Zealand is now legally considered a person.

This is the part where I regale you with my extensive knowledge of the historical background to this dispute, knowledge I gained just now on Wikipedia. A Dutch person “discovered” New Zealand in 1642 (it’s named after Zeeland). Turned out there were already people on it—Polynesians called the Māori—although they had “only” been there for maybe four hundred years at the time. If it seems surprising any place on Earth was uninhabited for that long, look at a map and think about how long it’d take you to paddle to New Zealand. (The answer turns out to be “about 3,000 years.”) The next European visitors were James Cook et al., in 1769. Later, after the usual chaos, warfare, and mass death from disease, the British ended up in charge. They did, as usual, sign a treaty with the natives, and, again as usual, “there is no consensus as to exactly what was agreed.” Over the last few decades in particular, there have been a number of disputes and apologies and settlement agreements. This is one of those.

Māori is an official language in New Zealand, which is why if you look at the bill the first thing you see is:

Te Pire o Te Awa Tupua (mō Te Whakataunga o Ngā Kerēme e pā ana ki Te Awa o Whanganui)

which I think just means “The Whanganui River Claims Settlement Act.” It’s longer in Māori, but also sounds significantly more awesome. It looks like the legislation itself is in English only, but the commentary is in both languages. So you could choose, for example, either:

Ka whakaae mātou he huarahi mahi matawhāiti pai tēnei, ā, ka whakatau kia whakaurua atu he rara hou hei whakamana i tēnei.


We agree that this is a prudent course of action, and considered inserting a new clause to this effect.

Take your pick.

Anyway, the Whanganui, on the North Island, is the country’s longest navigable river. Most of it is now in a national park, and wow, is that gorgeous. But for several hundred years, it has been the home and eel-fishing grounds of several Māori tribes. According to the bill, it “has a long history of providing physical and spiritual support to Whanganui iwi,” the people of the area, and they have a long history of wanting more control over it.

The Settlement Act does that in the novel way of making the river a person and assigning it guardians. Sections 12 and 14 make it a legal person called “Te Awa Tupua”—not just the river but “all its physical and metaphysical elements”—and that it “has all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” Of course, a river can’t actually do anything except flow, and so the bill creates the office of “Te Pou Tupua” to act in its behalf.

This has two officials, one nominated by the iwi and one by the government. The only requirement seems to be that any nominee must have the “mana, skills, knowledge, and experience to achieve the purpose and perform the functions” of the office. The bill doesn’t define “mana,” but I guess you know it when you see it. I, at least, would fully support making “mana,” or maybe “mojo,” a requirement for nominees here in the U.S. (and maybe the “necessary mojo” should also be a requirement for presidents?). If senators were debating whether Gorsuch “had the mojo” to serve on the Supreme Court, I’d probably watch those hearings.

Those with sufficient mana etc. to serve are given the power to take legal action in the river’s name. The river (and the office) is an entity for tax purposes. It has trademark rights. To the extent the Crown owned a “fee simple estate” (you too can know what that is, if you go to law school) in the riverbed, it is now vested in Te Awa Tupua—so the river now owns itself again, sort of, except for certain listed rights. It looks like fishing rights aren’t affected, so the river can’t stop people from throwing hooks in it, which seems like an important right for a legal person to have. But again, the actual humans involved in all this can define the rights however they like.

The bill also contains a quite lengthy apology by the Crown for various things, which is nice, and declares that the legislation is a final settlement of all historical claims. We shall see.

Again, while this may be the first time a river has been declared to be a legal person, this is really no different than creating a thing called a “corporation,” giving it certain legal rights, and giving certain humans the right to act on its behalf. To some extent, obviously, there is a symbolic component to this bill, but that’s not a new thing for legislation, either. It appears to be a step forward in relations between the Māori and non-Māori, at least, and that can’t be a bad thing.

The Māori certainly seem happy about it in this parliamentary video, which I love for multiple reasons. First, it starts with a short statement in their language, so you can hear what it sounds like, at least when a white guy speaks it. Second, I love the contrast between the European parliamentary system, where they quietly and formally take care of business, and the response of the Māori in the gallery. The Speaker (who is, sadly, not wearing his feathered cape for this occasion) just says “the ayes have it,” and then, after a pause, “I understand there is to be a waiata.” And then there is a waiata, which is a traditional and in this case very lengthy Māori song. This isn’t the “haka” where warriors make scary faces, but there is a big bald guy waving a club. So that’s cool.

Again, I would watch a lot more Congressional hearings if they concluded with somebody saying, “I understand there is to be a waiata,” and then there was in fact a waiata. It doesn’t have to be ten minutes long, necessarily, but still.

[syndicated profile] evithermique_tumblr_feed




This damn thread!

What can we do to change this? What solutions are there?

The worst part is that it isn’t even true that they were broke at 23 for having a family and a home, etc. They were still perfectly able to afford luxuries like traveling and shit, even WITH big families and a house payment.

[syndicated profile] evithermique_tumblr_feed











No, I’m serious, if women all got together and went into electrical engineering or automotive repair en masse, then ten years later people would be talking about how it was a “soft field” and it would pay proportionately less than other fields.

Likewise, if men moved en masse to bedeck themselves in sparkles and make-up, then suddenly you’d get a bunch of editorials talking about how classy they look.

None of these things are inherently masculine or feminine; none of these things inherently elevate you or drag you down. But whatever women are seen to do is automatically seen as being inherently more frivolous than anything men do. And shaming women for not pigeonholing themselves into a narrow range of acceptable “masculine” behaviours is just going to result in the goalposts getting moved once again.

This is literally what happened to basically every field women have entered. The opposite happens when men enter. Computers used to be a “woman thing” until the guys who did it got really mad about how badly their job was viewed and realized they could fix it by forcing out women.

Also happened/ is happening with the fields of biology and psychology….

I honestly wonder how much of the backlash against public education in the last generation has been due to teaching becoming a woman-dominated profession.

Fashion used to be a men’s thing. Then women got involved in the late 17/1800’s, so men went the other way because it came to be seen as “frivolous” and “anti-intellectual” to care about how you looked. Add in the homophobia that arose around that time, bam, staid bland dress. Ditto leggings/tights, that are now called attention-whoring when on men they were required to show you cared about your figure and had the money to pay for such a fitted item. 

People want to say misogyny doesn’t exist, that male privilege doesn’t exist. Look beyond “living memory” and you’ll find that’s what drives the “inexplicable reversals” society seems to make on many things. Hell, just look beyond your own society, and you’ll find out that what’s considered “for men” elsewhere is held in high esteem while here it’s scoffed at purely because it’s “for women”: 

  • Skinny jeans are the height of masculinity in several east Asian societies, rather than being seen as “gay” in the USA because of their association with femininity. 
  • Medical fields in Russia are valued like kindergarten teachers are here, because it’s women who are the doctors instead of men.
  • Love and romance are highly valued in eastern countries, because men are interested in it too—of course they would be, surely you want to share your life with someone? Here, it’s strictly a women’s subject.

The field of anthropology as a whole illustrates this.

Significantly higher proportions of females compared to males are currently entering the fields of archaeology and biological anthropology, and as this occurs, the prestige, funding, acceptance as valid kinds of science, etc, are fading quickly.

This has already occurred with linguistic anthropology and cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropology in particular went VERY quickly from being seen as a manly, scientific discipline (e.g., Franz Boas, Bronisław Malinowski) to being seen as a touchy-feely female thing.

Let’s examine a traditionally male-dominated role that is very well-respected, and well-paid, in many parts of the world — that of a doctor. In the UK, it is listed as one of the top ten lucrative careers, and the average annual income of a family doctor in the US is well into six figures. It also confers on you significant social status, and a common stereotype in Asian communities is of parents encouraging their children to become doctors.

One of my lecturers at university once presented us with this thought exercise: why are doctors so highly paid, and so well-respected? Our answers were predictable. Because they save lives, their skills are extremely important, and it takes years and years of education to become one. All sound, logical reasons. But these traits that doctors possess are universal. So why is it, she asked, that doctors in Russia are so lowly paid? Making less than £7,500 a year, it is one of the lowest paid professions in Russia, and poorly respected at that. Why is this?

The answer is crushingly, breathtakingly simple. In Russia, the majority of doctors are women. Here’s a quote from Carol Schmidt, a geriatric nurse practitioner who toured medical facilities in Moscow: “Their status and pay are more like our blue-collar workers, even though they require about the same amount of training as the American doctor… medical practice is stereotyped as a caring vocation ‘naturally suited‘ to women, [which puts it at] a second-class level in the Soviet psyche.”

What this illustrates perfectly is this — women are not devalued in the job market because women’s work is seen to have little value. It is the other way round. Women’s work is devalued in the job market because women are seen to have little value. This means that anything a woman does, be it childcare, teaching, or doctoring, or rocket science, will be seen to be of less value simply because it is done mainly by women. It isn’t that women choose jobs that are in lower-paid industries, it is that any industry that women dominate automatically becomes less respected and less well-paid.


“Men may cook or weave, or dress dolls or hunt humming birds, but if such activities are appropriate occupations of men, then the whole society, men and women alike, votes them as important. When the same occupations are performed by women, they are regarded as less important (Mead, 1949, p. 159).”

“The wage gap is a myth”

The entire field of veterinary medicine says hello.

[syndicated profile] evithermique_tumblr_feed



Sophie Scholl’s last words: 

“How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause? Such a fine sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?”


Quote from Traudl Junge, Hitler’s private secretary from 1942-45:

Of course, the terrible things I heard from the Nuremberg Trials, about the six million Jews and the people from other races who were killed, were facts that shocked me deeply. But I wasn’t able to see the connection with my own past. I was satisfied that I wasn’t personally to blame and that I hadn’t known about those things. I wasn’t aware of the extent. But one day I went past the memorial plaque which had been put up for Sophie Scholl in Franz Josef Strasse, and I saw that she was born the same year as me, and she was executed the same year I started working for Hitler. And at that moment I actually sensed that it was no excuse to be young, and that it would have been possible to find things out. 

[syndicated profile] evithermique_tumblr_feed



writers: how are we gonna top ourselves! we got tons of exciting stuff in store!! at least eleven big bads this season!!!! whos gonna survive who won’t????!! 3 love triangles and 2 quadrangles!!!! 

me: I’ll Pay You 5$ To Let The Characters Just Simply Talk To Each Other For Once

#i will pay u just to have them deal with the emotional repercussions of what happened last season

[syndicated profile] cakewrecks_feed

Posted by Jen

I'm pretty sure most one-year-olds will never remember their first birthday cakes, which is why I'm here to provide an invaluable service: reminding little E.J. that her (yes, her) parents got her this:

Any guesses on what EJ will be getting for her 12th birthday?


Correct me if I'm wrong, parents, but I think age one is a little young for boys to be discovering their bananas, IF you know what I mean.

And if you don't, just look at this:

Don't worry, George, all monkeys get curious eventually.


Things I'm Pretty Sure One-Year-Olds Like:
- Cheerful colors
- Cute animals
- Putting things in their mouths
- Pooping

Thing I'm Pretty Sure One-Year-Olds Do NOT Like:
- Guys with guns
- Who are shooting cute animals


This next one isn't a first birthday cake; it's a christening cake. So little John was, what? A couple of days old maybe? Right. SOMEONE GET THAT KID A GUINNESS.

Honestly I don't know what all is happening here, or what in that mess is considered edible. And I think I spied a tiny plastic poodle in a Santa hat in front of that tree stump with a face before my brain broke.


John: [seeing cake] "What is THAT? Hahaha! He must be Irish, huh?"
Me: "What?! That is a terrible stereotype! How dare you!"
John: "There's a pot of gold and a shamrock."
Me: [looking] "Oh. Right. Ok, maybe they're Irish.")


"But you look good for your age, Levi. Really. And hey, one is the new six months! I read it in Vogue!"


Something here just doesn't add up.


And finally...

Please let his last name be Johnson. Please let his last name be Johnson. PleaselethislastnamebeJohnson.


Thanks to Anita T., Amy N., Jill B., Amber, D'arcy, Vinny A., & Melissa M. for the memorable first impressions.


Thank you for using our Amazon links to shop! USA, UK, Canada.

surgery note

21/3/17 16:08
[syndicated profile] lois_mcmaster_bujold_feed
Hand surgery yesterday...


Will be offline for a couple of weeks. See, I did bring a note from my doctor...

Ta,L. Ow.

posted by Lois McMaster Bujold on March, 21
[syndicated profile] pepper_and_carrot_feed

Posted by David Revoy

Did you see the new little green padlock on the address bar of your web-browser? It's because I decided to invest time into increasing the security of the website. With this protocol, I'm sure that your browsing experience is both safe and reliable on Pepper&Carrot now.

"Transport Layer Security (TLS) and its predecessor, Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), both frequently referred to as "SSL", are cryptographic protocols that provide communications security over a computer network. [...] The Transport Layer Security protocol aims primarily to provide privacy and data integrity between two communicating computer applications." - Wikipedia.

Thank you to the team of contributors on the IRC channel for the quick test this morning.
If you find more issues, let me know in the comments.
[syndicated profile] azurelunatictumblr_feed





I think what probably gets me deeply into my feelings about this “JKR should have just made her students Of Color to start with, she can’t ret-con and pretend she did it right the first time” is that I grew up with Anne Rice and Anne McCaffery, two female fantasy writers who hated headcanons and fandom and sued people for deviating from their original vision or doing any kinds of derivative works without their express contractual permission.

I feel like people who get irritated with her about defending black!Hermione don’t appreciate how much healthier JKR’s attitude toward the inclusivity movement in her fandom is than theirs was. Or Moffat’s is. Or Gatiss’s. Or Whedon’s. Or Green’s. Or even, until very recently, Lucas’s.

She’s not a PCR, but goddamn, at least she’s passing us the milk rather than pissing in our cornflakes.

Jo is actually almost entirely responsible for fanfiction being what it is today.

BUT WAIT, I hear older fandomers cry. X-Files, Star Trek, Xena, how dare you. And yes, I say to those fandomers, you held those banners first! Be proud of the paths you forged. But Jo–

Jo did something no author or creator had ever done before.

She was a household name who encouraged fanfiction.

When I first began writing fanfiction in 1998, it was common practice to preface your fic with this massive disclaimer about how you weren’t selling it, and it was for fun, sometimes quoting the Fair Use part of the Creative Commons act, and even begging authors not to sue. Because in those days, that was a very real danger. Eleven-year-old me had reams of fanfiction on floppy disks I didn’t dare send to archives because I might get arrested and taken to Plagiarism Jail.

And then there was Jo. And no, Jo said, this is not a private amusement park at which you may stare longingly from the other side of wrought-iron gates. It is a giant sandbox. Here are my pails, here are my toys. Come sit and play with me. Eventually you may decide you like some other sandbox better, and all I ask is that you leave my toys here for others to play with, and not try to take them with you. But why should I lock you out of my sandbox? It is, after all, far more fun to play in a sandbox with many people than by yourself.

People were boggled. They didn’t get it. They thought she was crazy. And the fans? They kept loving, and writing, and drawing, and creating, and Jo kept loving them back. Potter Puppet Pals, A Very Potter Musical, Potter!, Remus and the Lupins, all stuff Jo just kind of went “whatever, they’re having fun.”

And attitudes began to change. And then someone else threw her lot in with Jo, someone who doesn’t get a lot of credit for contributing something massive to fandom culture and should:

Stephenie Meyer.

Yeah, you read that right. The goddamn author of Twilight, who refused to sue teenage girls who just wanted Bella to end up with Jacob. (And who is way more gracious than I would be about Fifty Shades.) She actually has a fanfiction archive right on her website! I’m serious: Smeyer has links to a personally-curated list of Twilight fanfiction she personally enjoyed or found interesting. Whatever you may think of her writing, that loving attitude of “we’re all here to have fun, I love that you love my world and my characters, please enjoy” was such a departure from the days of C&D letters and page-long disclaimers.

These two women changed the face of how fandom works forever. Yes, their work is flawed. They are products of their time and upbringing. But just the fact that they embrace the concepts of “my world as I see it and my world as you see it are not the same, and that’s not just okay, that’s good” is something to be celebrated.

I have a lot of issues with Meyer, but her treatment of fans is not one of them.

This is fascinating and all credit to Meyer and Rowling for being so instrumental in changing the culture. I do just want to add that the producers of Xena actually hired a fanfic writer to scriptwrite on their final season. As it often did (with a female TV action hero, with a musical episode), Xena helped to point the way.

[syndicated profile] cakewrecks_feed

Posted by Jen

Be honest, minions: am I taking this Moana obsession too far? The constant singing, the aggressive YOU'RE WELCOME-ing, the unrequited mooning over a cross-eyed rooster?



Then check this out:

Brandy ordered this Moana cake for her 9-year old, and I think we can all agree it was a wise move. Not only because MOANA, but because it's a printed edible image. That means no guesswork! No drawing! No instructions to fowl up! (HEY HEY ROOSTER SHOUT-OUT)

And yet, as it turns out,

Every turn we take
Every trail we track
Every ordered cake
Every road leads back
to a place we know:

Specifically, the place where a baker insists this is exactly what you ordered and you should totally pay for it.


My thoughts exactly.


Thanks to Brandy L. for providing all the wreckage that's fit to print.


Thank you for using our Amazon links to shop! USA, UK, Canada.


azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)
Azure Jane Lunatic (Azz) 🌺

March 2017

    1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 202122232425
Page generated 23/3/17 22:09

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags