Connect with us

Editorials

Drinking The Kool-Aid

Published

on

With the advent of the 2020 elections we sit at the threshold of a fully realized possibility, a change in direction that could provide the citizens of this great nation personal security and financial stability with economic growth for years to come.  For the middle class, it would lessen our burden and for the impoverished it would open the pathway to opportunity. At the core are fundamental principles, ideas about healthcare, education and the environment, public safety, human rights and the dignity of equality. What keeps us from enacting a lasting solution is the fear draped upon us that this is not possible.  It’s too costly.  It’s too complicated.  It’s socialism.  What are we, a nation of sissy-pants and wusses?  Cannot we affect our own future by taking control?  Are we not our brother’s keeper or is that socialism? Lincoln said that the purpose of government was to provide for its citizens that which they could not otherwise provide for themselves.  Is that not socialism?  What the hell’s wrong with socialism that we should fear it so? It is not an exclusive philosophy or governing principle.  It’s an idea with merit and has a proper place in a balanced society, democratic, capitalist or otherwise.

To that end, there is no shortage of ideas in the Democratic party, ideas on how to make our government work for people, to solve our everyday problems and prevent future ones.  These are all good ideas, ideas almost anyone can agree will benefit everyone.  And to that end there is no shortage of candidates, all gathered around the same principles, all with variant diverse solutions.  If there is a problem in any Democrat’s candidacy during this primary season, it is the manufactured objection to the idea itself, over the difference between a fundamentally correct principle and the execution of policy to enact it. Only if we can first identify the problem and agree on the rightness of the principle, can we move forward to developing a solution. But if we first decry a problem because no satisfactory solution is at hand, then we are doomed to live out our past.

The core issues are always economic.  Our leaders would have us believe that to spend money on ourselves is an extravagance. We must not allocate money for social programs because it would increase the burden on the wealthy, cripple corporate interests and deny our troops.  Rather, we should support the upper class in the hope that it will trickle down.  But there is another approach.  What if minimum wage was a living wage?  And what if childcare was provided as a right? Imagine what that would do to the economy.  The average cost of child care for a pre-schooler is $7,000 per year.  Minimum wage provides an income of roughly $15,000 per year.  After taxes and childcare that would leave about $4,000 to live on.  Working makes no sense in that equation.  No wonder our welfare rolls are so inflated.  Now what would happen if we could reduce the welfare rolls and get people working?  Hmmmm… now there’s an idea.

And what if a secondary, college education was provided?  We have to realize in this changing time that the standard 12-year high-school education is failing us. China is taking the lead on innovation and we are lacking the expertise to grow our economy through a quality trained workforce. As the father of five daughters, I know the crippling expense of a college education, expenses shared by my own ability to pay and my children’s capacity to borrow. A college education is minimally between $20,000 and $100,000 per year and in many cases upward of that. Typically, kids graduate into a stagnant job market with debts in excess of $50,000 and no job, only to move in with mom and dad and work a shit job outside of their field of study.  Where’s the future in that?

But what if the burden of providing healthcare was removed from employers?  Profitability increases and employment is encouraged. Currently the workaround is to fill jobs with part-time hourly employees to avoid providing insurance. Hire someone for less than 40 hours per week and “poof” forget about insurance overhead.  There’s always a loophole, a path to channel money back to the source. Is this our perfect world?

What if healthcare was a right, Medicare for all, universal healthcare was enacted? We could be free from the worry of the financial ruin of devastating medical outcomes.  Regular medical care can be preventative rather than remedial.  Overall medical costs would be reduced.  But the arguments against this are that it would end private insurance, or that the government is ill-equipped to handle the management of this system and costs would skyrocket.  Really?  Another argument is that you would not be able to choose your own doctor. Huh?  Who really believes this crap?  I am on Medicare and I get to choose my own doctor and while Medicare exists, so does private insurance.  Cannot the two co-exist?  Off course they can.  Let’s take the Post office as an example.  Who else can deliver daily mail at an amount roughly 47 cents or so. Opponents who favor privatization complain that it loses money, but that is a false narrative.  Profits made by the postal system are siphoned off by Congress to make it run at a loss. Furthermore, the success of the postal system did nothing to restrict or inhibit the growth of private delivery services like FedEx, UPS, DHL and the many smaller regional services. So I say, let private insurance compete for its market share against a base system that guarantees full service medical care for all. Who are we protecting, our families or an industry that makes the rules to benefit itself?

Amy Klobuchar recently appeared in a CNN Town hall.  She was great… smart, well spoken, reasonable, measured, likable, with a record of policy successes and toughness and most importantly moderate…  progressive, but not too far left, all the earmarks that say, “I have what it takes to win.  I am electable.”  Yeah, but is that enough?  Why are we to believe that our dreams are not possible and we should settle before winning, take the deal and plead out, rather than take the risk and get what we fully deserve.  Compromise before you lose all, that is the play with Amy.  So, let’s not categorize the other candidates’ ideas as looney, impractical or impossible. Let’s not admit defeat at the start.

Take Elizabeth Warren’s ideas for childcare as an example.    Here are the key points:

 

Guarantee care from birth until entering school.

Create a federal program that establishes a network of centers.

Free for families with incomes less than 200% of the poverty level.

No household would pay more than 7% of income

Partly funded by a proposed “wealth tax.”

 

This is a reasonable approach to stabilizing the workforce and promoting the economy.  It just has to be made a priority and managed as part of a balanced budget.  We need to look at all the other areas where we spend needlessly, areas like the cost of operating Air Force One as the private plane for weekly flights to Mara-Lago or the cost of a border wall that 68% of Americans don’t want.  We can’t keep losing this battle because “He” has the right, when we have the will. What we don’t have is the support of our congress, but that is changing and we need to maximize the change in 2020 enough so to support a newly elected progressive, democratic-socialist that can bring ideas into policy. The last phrase of the Gettysburg Address is: “…that a government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” The key phrase is “for the people.”  Let’s not forget that, for fear of being called a Socialist.

Also, let us realize that while our problems are complicated they seem vicious because they are intertwined. In reality, they are self-inflicted and interact chaotically in the most turbulent way.  To survive, we must guarantee an adequate food supply, sustainable energy and security through peace with other nations and our own respect for each other.  At the heart of this series of interactive issues is the weather.  Climate determines so much: crop outcomes, a food supply of fish in warming oceans, natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, draughts and floods. Economic success depends on energy supplies and the battle over oil supply is at the heart of conflict the world over.  Fossil fuel is killing the environment and clean energy is required to sustain life on this planet.  Virtually every scientist and informed politician understands this, yet we languish in the past.  Looking backward is death.  Driving full speed on the interstate using only the rearview mirror will eventually result in a head-on. We have the technology and the means to avert the disaster that merely wearing seatbelts cannot protect us from but we need only exercise the will. Climate change is real and immediate action is required. We must demand the development of clean energy infrastructure, policy and outcome in every possible form and we must transition aggressively to vehicles that do not run on forms of fossil fuel.  We need to cut the crippling shackles of oil policy that dictate political policy and be freed to openly stand for truth, justice and human rights.  We cannot allow dictators, murderers and thugs to define our path and inform our decisions.  Saying otherwise does not make it so.

As our physical world continually changes all around us, as relationships shift and power stolen, as technology redefines the possible, we cannot “Make America Great Again” by solving new problems in an old way. What made us great was hard work, respect for our international relationships, innovation, the ability to adapt and change, and an ever vigilant watch on the integrity of our system with an eye towards compassion and tolerance.  None of these qualities reside in our current President. With 60% executive time and his disdain for reading intel briefs, his lack of prep for treaties and negotiations, he has shown his inability to apply himself to hard work.. He has also displayed nothing but disrespect for our long-time international relationships including NATO.  He despises green energy innovation and rejects climate science.  He cannot change his ways–lying, bullying and narcissistic self-serving action.  He wants all oversight on himself, his organizations and administration to cease and has demonstrated a complete lack of compassion as exemplified by his treatment of children, taken from their immigrant parents and transferred thousands of miles away to be held, many never to be returned.  This man is a leader, yes, but just what and who is he leading?  Can it be us or is it them?  Them, yes that 30%, the deplorables, as Hillary would so aptly say, those who will willingly follow him off the cliff wearing a red MAGA hat, while Trump, the divider, has a mock-bliss teenage, romantic encounter with the American Flag. Is it time yet to break out the Kool-aid?

 

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!

Editorials

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Published

on

 

Something interesting is happening in Hollywood. People are walking away from the Golden Globe Awards.

And for good reason.

Anyone who has ever worked in the filthy abyss of Hollywood, New York, or any major entertainment city will know first hand how these systems work. Sycophants, parasites and moguls and talent agents willing to step all over each other just for the sake of another prize. Some will even kill for a shot at the brass ring.  And industry divided cannot succeed.

The only good thing I found in the Golden Globes was watching Ricky Gervais lampoon the stars and their handlers from the stage. Bravo to Gervais, it doesn’t make a difference what you think of him, afterall, he had something that most of Hollywood doesn’t have. Balls. Guts. And a way of delivering amusing reality dosed insults to their face only to find he’s been re-instated as the show host for the next years showing.

 

The annual Golden Globes ceremony has been unable to find a broadcasting partner or any celebrities willing to present or collect its awards after a Hollywood boycott over its diversity and ethics scandal, resulting in a pared-down event with the emphasis on philanthropy.

According to Variety, the Globes’ talent bookers have failed to persuade any big Hollywood figures to attend the 2022 edition of the awards ceremony, a hitherto glittering annual event that traditionally kicked off the lucrative awards season. In March 2021 more than 100 public relations firms announced they would withdraw cooperation with the Globes, a series of high-profile Hollywood figures, including Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson, made stinging public criticisms, and TV network NBC cancelled its broadcast of the 2022 edition. (-The Guardian)

 
eguardian.com/film/2022/jan/09/golden-globes-lose-their-shine-as-a-listers-shun-unethical-ceremony

But this years showing not only lacked the luster of Hollywood today, but doesn’t even have a Network or Livestream to cover it.  I guess we’ll have to rely on celeb Twitter Feeds.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Arts

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Published

on

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, January 5, 2022

Propaganda is most impactful when people don’t think it’s propaganda, and most decisive when it’s censorship you never knew happened.

 

When we imagine that the U.S. military only occasionally and slightly influences U.S. movies, we are extremely badly deceived. The actual impact is on thousands of movies made, and thousands of others never made. And television shows of every variety.

The military guests and celebrations of the U.S. military on game shows and cooking shows are no more spontaneous or civilian in origin than the ceremonies glorifying members of the U.S. military at professional sports games — ceremonies that have been paid for and choreographed by U.S. tax dollars and the U.S. military. The “entertainment” content carefully shaped by the “entertainment” offices of the Pentagon and the CIA doesn’t just insidiously prepare people to react differently to news about war and peace in the world. To a huge extent it substitutes a different reality for people who learn very little actual news about the world at all.

The U.S. military knows that few people watch boring and non-credible news programs, much less read boring and non-credible newspapers, but that great masses will eagerly watch long movies and TV shows without too much worrying about whether anything makes sense. We know that the Pentagon knows this, and what military officials scheme and plot as a result of knowing this, because of the work of relentless researchers making use of the Freedom of Information Act. These researchers have obtained many thousands of pages of memos, notes, and script re-writes. I don’t know whether they’ve put all of these documents online — I certainly hope they do and that they make the link widely available. I wish such a link were in giant font at the end of a fantastic new film. The film is called Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood. The Director, Editor, and Narrator is Roger Stahl. The Co-Producers are Matthew Alford, Tom Secker, Sebastian Kaempf. They’ve provided an important public service.

In the film we see copies of and hear quotations from and analysis of much of what has been uncovered, and learn that thousands of pages exist that nobody has yet seen because the military has refused to produce them. Film producers sign contracts with the U.S. military or CIA. They agree to “weave in key talking points.” While unknown quantities of this sort of thing remain unknown, we do know that nearly 3,000 films and many thousands of TV episodes have been given the Pentagon treatment, and many others have been handled by the CIA. In many film productions, the military effectively becomes a co-producer with veto power, in exchange for allowing the use of military bases, weapons, experts, and troops. The alternative is the denial of those things.

But the military is not as passive as this might suggest. It actively pitches new story ideas to movie and TV producers. It seeks out new ideas and new collaborators who might bring them to a theater or laptop near you. Act of Valor actually began life as a recruitment advertisement.

Of course, many movies are made without military assistance. Many of the best never wanted it. Many that wanted it and were denied, managed to get made anyway, sometimes at much greater expense without the U.S. tax dollars paying for the props. But a huge number of movies are made with the military. Sometimes the initial movie in a series is made with the military, and the remaining episodes voluntarily follow the military’s line. Practices are normalized. The military sees huge value in this work, including for recruitment purposes.

The alliance between the military and Hollywood is the main reason that we have lots of big blockbuster movies on certain topics and few if any on others. Studios have written scripts and hired top actors for movies on things like Iran-Contra that have never seen the light of day because of a Pentagon rejection. So, nobody watches Iran-Contra movies for fun the way they might watch a Watergate movie for fun. So, very few people have any notions about Iran-Contra.

But with the reality of what the U.S. military does being so awful, what, you might wonder, are the good topics that do get lots of movies made about them? A lot are fantasy or distortion. Black Hawk Down turned reality (and a book it was “based on”) on its head, as did Clear and Present Danger. Some, like Argo, hunt for small stories within large ones. Scripts explicitly tell audiences that it doesn’t matter who started a war for what, that the only thing that matters is the heroism of troops trying to survive or to rescue a soldier.

Yet, actual U.S. military veterans are often shut out and not consulted They often find movies rejected by the Pentagon as “unrealistic” to be very realistic, and those created with Pentagon collaboration to be highly unrealistic. Of course, a huge number of military-influenced films are made about the U.S. military fighting space aliens and magical creatures — not, clearly, because it’s believable but because it avoids reality. On the other hand, other military-influenced films shape people’s views of targeted nations and dehumanize the humans living in certain places.

Don’t Look Up is not mentioned in Theaters of War, and presumably had no military involvement (who knows?, certainly not the movie-watching public), yet it uses a standard military-culture idea (the need to blow up something coming from outerspace, which in reality the U.S. government would simply love to do and you could hardly stop them) as an analogy for the need to stop destroying the planet’s climate (which you cannot easily get the U.S. government to remotely consider) and not one reviewer notices that the film is an equally good or bad analogy for the need to stop building nuclear weapons — because U.S. culture has had that need effectively excised.

The military has written policies on what it approves and disapproves. It disapproves depictions of failures and crimes, which eliminates much of reality. It rejects films about veteran suicide, racism in the military, sexual harassment and assault in the military. But it pretends to refuse to collaborate on films because they’re not “realistic.”

Yet, if you watch enough of what is produced with military involvement you’ll imagine that using and surviving nuclear war is perfectly plausible. This goes back to the original Pentagon-Hollywood invention of myths about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and runs right up through military influence on The Day After, not to mention the transformation — paid for by people who throw a fit if their tax dollars help prevent someone freezing on the street — of Godzilla from a nuclear warning to the reverse. In the original script for the first Iron Man movie, the hero went up against the evil weapons dealers. The U.S. military rewrote it so that he was a heroic weapons dealer who explicitly argued for more military funding. Sequels stuck with that theme. The U.S. military advertised its weapons of choice in Hulk, Superman, Fast and Furious, and Transformers, the U.S. public effectively paying to push itself to support paying thousands of times more — for weapons it would otherwise have no interest in.

“Documentaries” on the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels are military-made commercials for weapons. “Inside Combat Rescue” on National Geographic is recruitment propaganda. Captain Marvel exists to sell the Air Force to women. Actress Jennifer Garner has made recruitment ads to accompany movies she’s made that are themselves more effective recruitment ads. A movie called The Recruit was largely written by the head of the CIA’s entertainment office. Shows like NCIS push out the military’s line. But so do shows you wouldn’t expect: “reality” TV shows, game shows, talk shows (with endless reunifications of family members), cooking shows, competition shows, etc.

I’ve written before about how Eye in the Sky was openly and proudly both completely unrealistic nonsense and influenced by the U.S. military to shape people’s ideas about drone murders. A lot of people have some small idea of what goes on. But Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood helps us to grasp the scale of it. And once we’ve done that, we may gain some possible insights into why polling finds much of the world fearing the U.S. military as a threat to peace, but much of the U.S. public believing that U.S. wars benefit people who are grateful for them. We may begin to form some guesses as to how it is that people in the United States tolerate and even glorify endless mass-killing and destruction, support threatening to use or even using nuclear weapons, and suppose the U.S. to have major enemies out there threatening its “freedoms.” Viewers of Theaters of War may not all immediately react with “Holy shit! The world must think we’re lunatics!” But a few may ask themselves whether it’s possible that wars don’t look like they do in movies — and that would be a great start.

Theaters of War ends with a recommendation, that movies be required to disclose at the start any military or CIA collaboration. The film also notes that the United States has laws against propagandizing the U.S. public, which might make such a disclosure a confession of a crime. I would add that since 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has required that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

To learn more about this film, view it, or host a screening of it, go here.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

Published

on

Back in the mid 70’s as my wife and I were starting our photography business Wally Miller, a successful local businessman, invited us to his office to offer help in the form of business advice. He asked only that we bring a financial statement and of course we complied.  The business startup process was new to us and after two years we were still losing money, and there it was in plain sight on the financial statement.  Wally welcomed us warmly and after a few minutes of careful study of our financials offered this observation, “You have no bad debts.”

Naturally I took this as a compliment.  I was proud that we had no bad debts, but that is not what Wally meant.  He elaborated, “If you have no bad debts that means that your credit is too tight and that translates into lost business.” His meaning was clear.  To be successful, really successful, you have to accept reasonable losses.  It’s the very nature of business.  If you want 100% certainty there can be no risk and without risk there can be no profits.

There’s a lesson in this thinking for Joe “McFuqwad” Manchin, the tight-ass, penny-pinching Grinch ruining Christmas for every American under the cover of “fiscal responsibility.”  His staffers gave us a look into his rationale, revealing two of the real reasons behind Joe’s decision to be the big NO.

Apparently Manchin believes that giving money to the poor in the form of a child tax credit is unwise because in his view, many will spend the extra dollars on drugs.  Likewise he is opposed to paid leave, stating that people will just call in sick and then go off deer hunting.

Now let’s all agree that in a free society, there are good and bad actors.  No law can legislate what is in the hearts of men.  No law can dictate integrity or honor.  If that were the case, there would be no GOP, no Jim Jordan, no Ted Cruz, no Matt Gaetz, No Marjorie Taylor Green, no Lauren Boebert. You get my drift, but I digress.

Once you agree to recognize that the actions of individuals are beyond your control, you must the adjust your decisions and subsequent actions to affect the greatest good for the majority.  Charity benefits the worthy and unworthy alike, without discrimination.  To withhold benefits from the worthy because there will always be unworthy recipients is to succumb to the devil’s play, a game of reduction that punishes all for the few.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Translate:

We are One

Mobilized TV

Mobilized TV on Free Speech TV  takes a deep look at our world, the consequences of human activity on our planet, and how we can reverse and prevent existing and future crises from occurring. Mobilized reveals life on our planet as a system of systems which all work together for the optimal health of the whole. The show delves into deep conversations with change-makers so people can clearly take concerted actions.

Produced by Steven Jay and hosted by Jeff Van Treese.

Mobilized’s TV series Mobilized TV  premieres on Free Speech TV on Friday, October 15, 2021. All episodes appear:

Fridays 9:30 PM Eastern (USA/Canada)

Saturdays:  6:30 PM (Eastern USA/Canada)

Sundays:  8:30 AM Eastern (USA/Canada)

January 7, 8, 9, 2022

Leading Environmental Justice Attorney, Thomas Linzey of the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights is a leading force helping communities implement successful rights of nature laws. Find out how your community could take on big business to serve the health of all.

 

INTERVIEWS2 days ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

INTERVIEWS2 days ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS2 days ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

The Web of Life5 days ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Editorials7 days ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured1 week ago

How Are Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Arts1 week ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Food3 weeks ago

How Climate Change Narratives are Used Against Us

Editorials4 weeks ago

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

Editorials4 weeks ago

bell hooks on feminism, race, violence and dealing with rage

Food1 month ago

Moving beyond the Moo– A Post Cow World

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

The Case for Rights of Nature in Practice

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

We are One

Mobilized TV1 month ago

How we can eradicate heart Disease

Mobilized TV2 months ago

Howard Bloom: Imagination Takes You Everywhere

Featured2 months ago

From Punk to Planet: Slam Dunk the Junk with Dave Street

Uncapped2 months ago

The Hoodless Hoodie and No-Wax Floors

Editorials2 months ago

The Decisive Role of Conscience: Clues for Non Violence

Asia2 months ago

The Love for All Animals

Featured2 months ago

Community and World Health: Protecting Native Seeds

An Empowered World2 months ago

In Chile, A different and courageous alternative with new ideas and proposals for leadership

Editorials2 months ago

Celebrating Food Sovereignty | Highlights of Solidarity Actions in October

Editorials2 months ago

Food Sovereignty, a Manifesto for the Future of Our Planet | La Via Campesina

Editorials2 months ago

Good Needs Better Distribution: We Already Have the Tools We Need to Solve Climate Change

Chuck W.2 months ago

The United Nations system: What’s Gone Wrong? What’s Gone Right?

Mobilized TV2 months ago

A Moral Responsibility: Jean Su, Ctr. for Biological Diversity

Editorials2 months ago

OPINION COLUMN: No presidential program raises paradigm shift in education

Mobilized TV2 months ago

On Free Speech TV: Rethinking Humanity with James Arbib of RethinkX

International3 months ago

Anti-mining resistance repressed in El Estor

International3 months ago

Coronacrisis, neoliberalism, democracy: what’s next

Asia3 months ago

Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina’s recent meeting with Pakistani envoy has a message for India

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Sustainable Architecture, Design and Building for a Sustainable Planet

Mobilized TV3 months ago

A better understanding of lawn care for Climate Care featuring Dr. Rob Moir of the Ocean River Institute

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Stories from the Reservation: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials3 months ago

Understanding the global neglect of indigenous peoples

Editorials3 months ago

Diabetes And Net Zero

Editorials3 months ago

Land Workers of the World Unite: Food Sovereignty for Climate Justice Now!

Featured3 months ago

A Primer on Climate Security

Editorials3 months ago

A Finger In The Dam

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Free Speech TV: Episode 001: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials3 months ago

The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators

Editorials3 months ago

Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act

Editorials3 months ago

Rebranding Public Service

Editorials3 months ago

More than 65 groups call to fundamentally reorient its approach to global policy development on food and agriculture issues.

Chuck W.3 months ago

“We hold” this truth “to be Self-evident.”

Editorials3 months ago

The Monsters Go for a Walk in Chile

Editorials3 months ago

Sharing Surplus: An Ethic of Care

Editorials3 months ago

“If there is gas collusion in Chile, then distribution should be done by a public company”: Sector workers

Africa3 months ago

Eurasian Women’s Forum Seeks Answers to Significant Questions in Women’s World

Editorials3 months ago

Modifying the Organic Statutes at the University of Santiago de Chile

Categories

Trending

Translate »
Skip to toolbar