Bend party ends in suit for fraternity
WOW. Just wow.
Quote from article: Williams, the Sigma Alpha Epsilon adviser, said the fraternity doesn't deserve to be sued for the incident.
``It was a bunch of guys that went up with their dates in Bend to blow off steam after their midterms,'' he said.
witz.org has posted the Olsen twins' senior portraits. Geez, when I graduated way back in 1985, they made us girls don formal off-the-shoulder tops, and the guys had to wear tuxedo tops. Very 1950's. Things have changed!
Wow, have I been neglecting my blog or what?
My mind has been occupied with my new job, which is alternately rewarding and frustrating. I'm working as a dog bather for very little money at a large pet supply chain store. It's a sweatshop with an oppressive atmosphere, but I love working with the animals.
Alex's band is kicking butt. They're gigging a lot and they're sounding great.
I've done some more painting, a small abstract diptych and a new series of still lifes. Will post them eventually.
Later.
Until yesterday it hadn't occurred to me that I haven't updated in over ten days, so thanks for the wake-up call, Izzard.
The Effexor withdrawal is coming along better than we could have hoped although there have been some rough spots and I'm not completely out of the woods yet. I've been fighting back some fairly serious migraines for the past two weeks, which has been getting in the way of Alex and my work to get our old loft repainted and clean by 2pm Friday.
I start a new job on Monday, but I am hestitant to write more about what it is and what my hopes are for fear of jinxing myself, if such a thing is possible. All I know is, when I write about potential employment, things go bad. So I'm not going to write about the new job unless I get reasonably settled in and confident in what the future may hold.
I am working with a couple of other folks to establish a new ADF protogrove; that's kind of exciting. We actually have plans for Beltaine and for the summer solstice as well.
More later. I guess.
My old post criticizing Noam Chomsky's dense writing style has been garnering more attention, currently from a person calling himself (herself? itself?) "Izzard."
Izzard goes to great lengths to slam me for taking an "us vs. them" position - not saying a word, of course, about the initial Chomskyite who lit into me calling me a "moron" an an "idiot" even though I did nothing more than to note (in a very cursory manner) that Chomsky's clumsy overuse of rehtoric makes a lot of his writing dense and manipulative, especially for someone so revered as a great thinker. Then Izzard furiously types out a huge screed furthering the same "us vs. them" position - making assertions so incredibly uninformed as to be something out of Monty Python in their sheer randomness. Even in his initial posting here, Izzard was mostly polite, but then managed to heave a couple of really nasty insults in amongst it all. Basically, Izzard is trying to bait me. It's all very interesting, and funny too.
Izzard's MO lies in trying to be like Chomsky himself (whether consciously or unconciously), but like most fans of Chomsky he fails because he lacks Chomsky's truly fanatical convictions. Chomsky handles himself as a messiah on a mission - I suspect, part of what makes him so attractive to angry young men, who are in awe of someone who can channel his arrogant self-absorbtion so skillfully.
I'll grant Izzard this - my initial post was lazy, and what he said earlier about "preaching to the choir" was somewhat true. I used to be much more thorough in my political postings, but life has caught up with me in the past eight months and now, when I do post something political, it's more of an afterthought.
But at the same time, I don't keep this blog as a way to enlighten anyone or to change anyone's mind. This is a project for pure personal enjoyment. I'm no Noam Chomsky, setting myself out there as an intellectual messiah who is going to edutain the ignorant masses with pearls of wisdom from on high. I'm just a person who is looking for creative outlets and who happens to like blogging as one of those outlets. I've got a small number of regular readers, many of whom are close friends or acquaintances, and I have no desire to become the most widely-read blogger in the world. This blog is for me, period.
But on to Izzard's main points - he does have a few, amongst the angry ranting ...
He takes great pains to go over and over a "rogue's gallery" of absolute thugs like Hussein, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Ceaucescu, and on and on, and what villians they are/were, before then going on to point out that these very criminals probably wouldn't have enjoyed the nice long abusive run they each did had the US, at the very LEAST, just left well enough alone and not supported, in numerous shady ways, these very dictators ...
We see here Chomsky's main premise - one stated over and over and over again for the past 35+ years by the kindly Prof. I've had this explained to me a trillion times over the years by people defending Chomsky ("See, you just don't understand what he's saying. He's saying ...") and by people who have never heard of him but who have heard the premise, and because it offers a simple solution to a bewildering world ("You obviously don't understand what's going on in the world. What's really going on is ...") they latch onto it and don't let go.
Let's talk a little more about "the morality of intervention", OK? In my view, there is no overriding "morality of intervention." There are situations, and then there are any number of actions that can be taken in response to and because of those situations. The world is one big, interconnected chain of action-->reaction. Basically, everything you do is some kind of intervention into something.
Now, most events/actions can be grouped, such as "this is good" or "this is bad" (the most base, simplest form) and the criteria used to establish this can be as complicated - or more complicated - as the chain of events themselves.
So a person can react two basic ways to this problem. They can establish a set of principles by which to judge each situation individually, and then draw on those principles to guide them in their reaction. They can establish a set of principles by which to judge every situation, and then draw on those principles to guide them in their reaction. Chomsky, and his supporters, do the latter. For them, whatever the western democracies do is bad, period, and that what other nations may do in response can be excused or at least rationalized.
I do the former - at least, I try to be consistent in doing the former; I try to be mindful that what might be beneficial in one situation may be catastrophic in another situation. I try to remember that what is "bad" for one person may be "good" for another; that the world is a complex place. That even though Mussolini made the trains run on time he also killed and tortured; that even though Bill Clinton is a sexual predator in his personal life, he actually was a decent President especially on the domestic side.
Now Izzard, you yourself stated that "you have to be on your toes historically" when dealing with Chomsky. To me, that's an admission that you understand that Chomsky lies. Not spins, not interprets, but lies. You may be fine with this. I am not. When I read an analysis of anything - not just world affairs - I like to feel that the commentator is being honest with me. Chomsky is manipulative, and transparently so. It distresses me that his manipulativeness isn't obvious to a lot of people - and that some people are aware of it but are fine with it.
As for the Monbiot article - the specific content is really irrelvent. It's the same old scenario re-enacted. Chomsky makes statements, waits for people to interpret them in the only possible way, then comes back and employes mindfucking doublespeak to try and discredit the person. It's an endless cycle of "Your interpretation is wrong. That's certainly not what I'm saying" leaving the impression that he is the misunderstood messiah. Yet, he never offers a real, solid, practical explanation of what he thinks the solution to all this is. This is the crucial reason for Chomsky's dishonesty and manipulation: what he's really getting at. He can't say it out loud, because he's trying to reach the mainstream, and he's shrewd enough to know that his ultimate message, if stated plainly, would immediately discredit him.
He's your basic utopianist of Marxist descent ("no he's not! he's an anarchist (or whatever)" who sees the world as a big class stuggle, unchanged since the 18th and 19th centuries ("no way! he's totally tuned in to the world as no one else is!"). The fact that technology and the rise of mass communications have broken down the age-old class system far more efficiently than anything Marx could have ever imagined is, in fact, an annoyance to Chomsky and those who think like him; because in their world, the "smart" folks, the ones who all agree with each other, need to be on top, with all the access to information and making the decisions for everyone else. A place for everyone and everyone in their places. All this silly stuff about republics and constitutions and freedom, it just can't work, these people believe; to them, their own superior intelligence puts them at the top of society's heap by default and they would like nothing more than to see a new class system established - one where the so-called "intellectuals" (their definition) places them as a new aristocracy.
The problem is, their worldview is a closed system, and if they state it out loud, people know it. So they work within this relatively open, scalable, controlled-capitalist constitutional republic to get their messages out using subterfuge and manipulation.
Now let's get to this part ...
This last bit always seems to stick in the craw of the aggressors, the flag-wavers, and the hawks. Sure, it's a slightly unsatisfying position to reiterate due to its lack of a "here's what we should do now..." bit at the end, as anyone watching the debacle in Iraq would now love to hear, but its a damn sight better than the jingoistic, intellectually vapid "dissent-is-treason" bullshit that Windschuttle is in grave danger of falling into by the end of the article.
Izzard admits that Chomsky and his followers won't openly outline a solution to the world's problems, and states that he finds it preferable to simply point out the problems rather than to actually do anything about them. To want to do something about the world's problems is "jingoistic" and makes you an "aggressor," a "flag-waver," and a "hawk." To disagree with Chomsky (and Izzard) is "intellectually vapid". There you have it in a nutshell, folks.
And what exactly is "treason"? It's a concept that is horribly offensive to one-world/one-people advocates - that is, utopianists. They're terribly sensitive about it, probably because the betrayal of honor and of one's neighbor that it represents causes cognitive dissonance when compared to starry-eyed dreams of a perfect society.
Reality is hard to face sometimes, isn't it, Izzard?
The English are apparently just figuring something out that the rest of the world has known for ... centuries. Bravo, Oxford intellectual dudes!
Andrew Sullivan, one of my heroes, has posted an excellent review of the new liberal talk-radio network, Talk America. It's most notable for its on-target analysis of left-right behavioral patterns. Bits from the article that I love:
Educated liberals, after all, decry populism. A large part of their self-esteem is bound up in believing themselves better educated and more enlightened than the average person, certainly smarter than, say, George W. Bush. So actually getting on the air and engaging in irresponsible, shameless spin and ideology goes against the grain. Conservatives, in general, are happy to confess their biases. Liberals like to think their biases are actually reality. That's why they are much happier on, say, the BBC or, in America, on National Public Radio, which bores and uplifts the average listener into eventual submission to centre-left orthodoxy. And they're objective, of course. There is no bias at the BBC or NPR. Just professionalism!
...
Alas, the other missing ingredient for liberal media is intellectual firepower. On this, the left has actually gone soft. In academia, left-liberalism is so entrenched its advocates' debating skills have gone rusty. When you've been talking to yourself for decades and imposing speech codes on everyone else, your ability to argue coherently - let alone entertainingly - inevitably wanes. And when you look at the political parties today, it's only the Republicans who are really still fighting over ideas. Only conservatives are battling each other over fiscal policy, or on abortion, or on gay marriage. The Democrats are only arguing over how to get back into power. Internal debates are almost non-existent.
Read the whole thing, as Dr. Reynolds is so fond of saying!
Alex and I moved into our new Virginia-Highlands pad on Saturday with the help of a couple of Alex's fellow band members, and later on by his mom and her boyfriend. We've now spent three nights here and while there are still some things to be moved from the old place and boxes are still strewn about the place, I'm really lovin' it. The living room is already shaping up to be something homey and comfortable; my art space is going to be ultra-nice; I have a tray of bedding plants sitting outside waiting to be put into containers for the patio, along with a nice new birdfeeder and seed; and all in all, I'm very happy.
I started my Effexor withhdrawal yesterday. I could feel the reduced dosage pretty much right away but it wasn't too bad. The worst of it, if it happens, should hit me towards the end of the week. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it won't happen!
When I posted my little criticism of Noam Chomsky's writing a bit back, I wondered how long it would take for some child to stumble on it annd have a tantrum. It took a while, probably because my blog is nowadays kind of obscure. But here it is, along with my irritated response - I've been declared a moron for suggesting that Chomsky is a crap writer. Life's so amazing!
Here's a site that is just so spiffy for a history freak like myself: Early British Kingdoms. This site concerns itself with the little-known history of the indigenous Celtic population of Britain between the time of the withdrawal of the Romans (around 400, more or less) and the time of Anglo-Saxon domination of the island after about 650. In other words, the time period generally known as the early Dark Ages. It's comprehensive, extremely well-researched and organized, and a sure time-sink for me in the next few days (following our move, of course ...) It also includes an excellent section on historical Arthuriana.
Geneaological research has strongly suggested that at least one line of my descent comes down from the Welsh aristocracy and part of my enthusiasm for reading this kind of stuff is the possibility that I may be reading my own ancestors' histories. In any case, many of "my people" came from England, Wales and Scotland so some of my ancestors (at least) lived in this place, at this time. Perhaps my imagination is childishly overactive, but reading these histories I feel a real connection, as opposed to reading, say, Japanese history. Which is very interesting by itself, but I read with detachment because it is a culture whose connection to my own is very recent, very little understood and therefore too shallow for me to explore to greater depths. It's largely this greater-than-normal connection I feel with what I understand to be my ancestors that has meant that I embrace pagan religion.
This is a post that is going to be very difficult to write - painful even. It's intensely personal. But it involves something that is currently afflicting a great number of people, and threatens to affect many more if something isn't done. I have to make a hard choice and that choice is to honestly tell my story so that maybe others will speak up as well.
I have been on an anti-depression/anti-anxiety medication called Effexor since April of 2000. I was prescribed it to get my migraines (which were severe at the time) under control, and my doctors have continued to keep me on it to keep those same migraines under control. When I went into alcohol counseling last year, the psychiatrist in charge greatly increased my dosage from 125mg a day to 225mg a day. I really haven't been "myself" since. As the months have passed, I have gotten more and more anxious and nervous, and unable to concentrate. In the past four months, it has gotten so bad that I apparently can't even keep a job. That's right - I am once again unemployed. The job I had that I liked so much, took a turn for the worst when I was given full responsibility and my mind couldn't handle all that it was asked to do. That was actually the last straw.
I have been hesitant to blame all this on Effexor even though I knew the drug's notoriety. It had not been harmful to me at lower doses. But after doing some serious research and looking at the testimony of others, I am starting to be certain Effexor has played a major role in the decline of my quality of life, as well as my ability to work, over the past year or so.
I made an attempt yesterday to engage my prescribing psychiatrist in a discussion about this drug, but being the professional, he kept away from discussing specifics. However, I feel I got my message across. I described in great detail all that has been happening to me, and finally adding that my husband feels I am over-medicated. The doctor first told me that what I was telling him could justify an increase in the dosage of Effexor. My reaction was to just laugh, and then, for whatever reason, he annouced he would take me off the drug for good.
I'm both thrilled and terrified.
Why am I terrified? Because in addition to having all sorts of possible weird side effects, Effexor is notoriously difficult to discontinue for some - many - MOST? - people. Some case studies describing the experiences of many patients can be read here. More personal descriptions of but one notable withdrawal symptom (slangily termed "brain shivers") can be read here.
I have personal experience with these symptoms and more. In the early days of my treatment with this drug, I was sloppy about getting prescriptions refilled and about taking the pills on time every day. Two or three times of missing doses taught me a harsh lesson that Effexor is NOT a drug to be trifled with. The worst thing is that my emotions go absolutely haywire. I am not in control of anything that I feel or how I react. Physiologically, my body gets flu-like symptoms (aches, tingling, etc.) and neurologically, it's like an acid trip gone terribly wrong: hallucinations both aural and visual, weird colors and distortions coming and going and the disquieting sensation of voices whispering nonsensically in my ears. On top of all this is the phenomenon called "Brain Shivers" which is detailed in the last link in the paragraph above. All in all, it's an unbelievably nasty experience, and I apparently am one of the "lucky" ones who gets more than a few of the symptoms at once.
The worst experience wasn't really my fault. It happened two nights after my gastric bypass surgery. The nurses at the hospital did not give me my dose, even though both I and my mother asked them. They were busily running around, and apparently not having had much experience with this drug, didn't give our requests much thought. It eventually hit me like a ton of bricks, and it was a terrible experience which I don't wish to recount here in detail. It set my recovery back at least two days.
That leads into the main point of my posting this: the appalling lack of education among healthcare professionals about how dangerous Effexor is. And this is the fault of its manufacturer, Wyeth Ayerst. Wyeth has been ridiculously hesitant to admit to the many downsides of their panacea goldmine and has been pushing its use for a variety of uses that I and many others consider to be frivolous. The FDA has been on Wyeth for some time, but many feel that the FDA hasn't been tough enough. It looks as though a groundswell is developing as more and more people become aware of the situation with the abuse of Effexor and other anti-depressants by uninformed doctors.
But groundswell or no, I have a tough road ahead of me. I know all too well how my body and mind reacts to reduced dosages of Effexor, and so I know in advance my withdrawal is going to be difficult. I do consider myself lucky in that my psychiatrist does seem relatively clueful; he's prescribed a careful "tapering off" regimen which includes administration of another drug to theoretically offset the effects of withdrawal. Many of the first-hand accounts you'll read in the links I've provided are horror stories of doctors having their patients go "cold turkey" with no warning of what to expect and no support once withdrawal took hold.
I think I've said enough here. Again, I feel it is extremely important that awareness of Effexor's dangers be given serious consideration by the public. I can only hope "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" or better yet, PBS' "Frontline" will eventually get ahold of this story. Wyeth needs to be held accountable.
One more thing: I'm not anti-drug company. I realize the drug companies do a lot of good work. Nor am I anti-capitalist (just the opposite!) But in a free market of ideas everyone must be held accountable for their actions. It's great to make money; but making money off of deliberate misrepresentation of a product needs to be punished. And after reading extensively about all this, I am reasonably certain Wyeth has deliberately misrepresented Effexor, thinking that the instance of side effects would be low enough for them to get away with it.
We'll see.
I have to go take my drug now - I feel the shakes coming on.
A lot of bloggers have been having fun with Noam Chomsky's new blog; so much so that his comments sections were absolutely flooded and they've already been turned off. I wasn't one of those harrassing the man - I've got a lot more on my mind these days - but I just popped in there and the first post I saw was from yesterday (his archives appear to be hosed, but the date would be March 26 2004.) And in the first three sentences, he belched up a perfect illustration of why his writing makes my brain bleed. Putting aside his unbelievably incoherent and morally indefensible semblences of political thought, the man is just flat-out a terrible writer. Check this out, the second and third sentences from his March 26, 2004 entry:
Monbiot radically misinterprets the Hippocratic principle, "First, do no harm." According to Monbiot's interpretation, a doctor violates the Hippocratic oath by giving someone an injection, because the puncture harms the skin. No one has ever interpreted the Hippocratic oath that way.
No one has ever interpreted the Hippocratic oath that way, except for MONBIOT, as Chomsky himself stated just before he managed to contradict himself.
Maybe it's silly to get wound up about a case of sloppy writing. Goddens know my own writing can be terribly sloppy - but then, I'm not revered the world over by thousands of undergrads who are desperately looking for a way to piss off their parents. The point is, Chomsky's writing, wherever it is encountered, is overflowing with this kind of poorly constructed language - usually in support of a poorly (or worse) constructed argument. Why is this man worshipped by so many people?
The past six months have been a veritable feth-ti-bal (said with a mincing lisp) of illness for Alex and myself. Both of us developed recurring colds and sore throats starting in mid-October, and both of us have been subjected to periodic flare-ups of same that include low-grade fever (you know - temperature elevated just enough to make you feel like crap, but not enough to justify missing work to get much-needed rest) and severe head congestion. We're both dealing with just such flare-ups right now. I'm truly miserable as I sit here writing. The misery is somewhat offset by my excitement at the fact that we take possession of our new Virginia-Highlands apartment this afternoon, but I'm also irritated that I feel just crummy enough to spoil the normal new-home-decorating buzz I've been looking forward to. Oh don't get me wrong. I'm still going to tackle the new place with tape measure and sketch pad, figuring out creative ways to position our furniture and configure my new studio space. But the sore throat, the fever, the extreme head congestion all take a lot of the fun out of it. Meh.
As the Stingster said on "Saturday Night Live" a few years ago, "Boobies, boobies, boobies!"
...wtf is this?
Georgia House Bans Genital Piercings
Now, I can understand banning involuntary mutilation (and in fact, I am glad they're even addressing that issue), but voluntary body modification? It's been going on forever and it's certainly one of those things that the government needs to keep its er, nose out of.
This quote kills me ...
Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings."What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said. "I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."
Like anyone gives a damn whether Bill Heath approves or not!
I personally am squeamish of all piercings - I don't even have pierced ears - but one thing I do know, I don't want some redneck state congressman telling how and where I can wear jewelry! For all he knows, every woman he sees during the course of his day has a nice little piece of pretty jewelry "down there."
Solidarity with my MUCH more adventurous (and brave) sistuhs!
For those of you wondering about my art - here's a link to my current eBay auctions and to my permanent gallery hosted on Yessy.
I've been neglecting my blog reading lately, so this morning I popped into Kelley's place and she reminded me I haven't done the Friday Five in ages. So here goes -
If you ...
1. ...owned a restaurant, what kind of food would you serve?
Ooooh, that's a good one. Probably Japanese/American fusion, very cutting edge, with a fantastic wine list and housed within a sleek modern interior.
2. ...owned a small store, what kind of merchandise would you sell?
I'd love to own a store similar to Pink Flamingos in Little 5 Points here in Atlanta: cool t-shirts and casual clothes, lots of trinkets and lots of and lots of Japanese fun junk including a large range of Sanrio stuff.
3. ...wrote a book, what genre would it be?
That's tough. I'd like to write a novel, I guess: something along the lines of Anita Diamant's The Red Tent but set in Northern Europe (the British Isles, most likely) circa 500 - 100 BC, before the influence of the Romans began to creep into the culture. None of this silly "female Druid warrior heroine" stuff ... I'd try to make it as realistic as possible. Not that female Druid warrior heroines didn't exist, but I'd try to keep it as far from the realm of "Xena" as possible.
4. ...ran a school, what would you teach?
Art, most likely.
5. ...recorded an album, what kind of music would be on it?
At this point in my life, it would likely be a kind of IDM type of album ... done on the computer, using lots of samples of my voice and of other things I've recorded myself, sped up and tweaked and mangled; then set to a quasi-trance beat. Some tracks would be akin to psytrance and some tracks would be more breakbeat, but all too idiosyncratic to fit into any set genre. In fact, I've got a bunch of tracks I made last year that are close to fitting this description, and a couple of 'em aren't half bad. If I got off my butt and started making music again I may someday get an album made. We'll see.
Jane Eyre is actually one of my all-time favorite novels. I think I first read it at the age of fourteen and it was scary how much I identified with the protagonist.
'Tis a great mystery, but somehow you have come to
belong in Jane Eyre; a random world of love,
kindness, madness, bad luck and lunatic ex-
wives. There really isn't much to say about the
place you belong in. It's your place, and
though it seems far from reality largly due to
how random the events are, you seem to enjoy
it. You belong in a world where not too many
people understand you, and where you can be
somewhat of a recluse.
Which Classic Novel do You Belong In?
brought to you by Quizilla
On Wednesday I was selected to serve on a jury. The case, nauseatingly enough, turned out to be an extremely frivolous (IMO!) personal-injury lawsuit brought about by a self-centered Buckhead bitch against a retired Army Colonel who had the misfortune of hitting her car four years ago. The woman had already gotten a sizeable settlement from the old guy's insurance which had enabled her to buy a brand-new BMW (which she proceeded to wreck two years later.) She wanted us to make the old guy responsible for ALL her medical bills from the time of the accident on and that includes the future. She also wanted big bucks (like $100,000s) for "pain and suffering." Her attorney and her witnesses made some really crazy claims including wildly exaggerating the circumstances of the accident (they claimed the old guy hit her at 50 MPH on Peachtree Road in rush hour traffic!) when photos of her old car clearly showed an impact just slightly worse than a fender-bender. They also kept saying the old man had "t-boned" her when the photos showed no side impact at all. On top of that, they were claiming that her life was severely disrupted and that she was unable to do "anything" for two whole years - then it came out that she was running a successful home business during that time, was acting as chairman of a couple of high-profile charity events, and playing sports such as tennis and going scuba diving. She blamed the old guy hitting her on everything that has gone wrong in her life for four years from breakups with boyfriends to her cellulite (it seems.)
It just burned my ass that this lady wanted us to in effect reach into the pockets of this old man and heap tons of cash on her just because she has an occasional back-ache and she can't keep a relationship going for more than a year. I wasn't the only one and it only took us, the jury, three hours total to render a verdict that gave her $14000 to cover her medical costs (which had already been paid by insurance, incidentally) plus $3,000 for "pain and suffering." A total of $17,000 when she had been looking for a verdict in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. After paying her attorney and her court costs, this case will wind up actually costing her and that's how we designed it. We all agreed that the suit was frivolous and that the old man wasn't responsible for her various mental and physical maladies now and forever.
She burst into tears upon hearing the verdict. The old guy and his wife were crying for joy in the lobby and he actually gave me a tight hug. I feel like I had the chance to do right by somebody and I have a much better opinion of how our justice system works.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Recent Comments