• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

113     I Call B.S.       WARNING – POLITICAL CONTENT

2/23/2018

0 Comments

 
​I really try very hard to maintain a non-political attitude in my posts.  I’ll confess that I’m not always successful, but I do try.  On fairly rare occasion, however, there is something which happens in the world of politics which I find so outrageous that, as much as I try to avoid it, I feel compelled to comment. 
 
This time is the reemergence of the idea that the way to prevent shootings in schools (Note: nobody seems to care about shootings in churches, movie theatres, or other “mass” shootings.) is to have “weapon adept,” armed teachers in the schools.  “It’s called concealed carry,” we are told, although if teacher’s guns were in their lockers during the school day (as is sometimes suggested) it seems highly unlikely that they could be obtained quickly enough to be terribly effective in an emergency.
 
The PBS News Hour phrased in this way:
​On Thursday, Trump did offer one concrete proposal. He said he thinks arming hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country who have experience handling guns could help thwart school shootings. 
“I think a concealed permit for teachers and letting people know there are people in the building with a gun, you won’t have, in my opinion you won’t have these shootings,” Trump said. “Because these people are cowards. They’re not going to walk into a school if 20 percent of the teachers have guns. It may be 10 percent, it may be 40 percent.”
Trump also said, he would want to reward teachers who carry guns. “Now what I’d recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus, we give them a little bit of a bonus, because frankly they’d feel more comfortable having the gun anyway,” he said.
​​Now, twenty percent of teachers nationwide would amount to about 700,000 people, which is approximately the same number as the number of sworn police officers in the country, according to the best information I can find.  That’s a lot!  If we were to offer them as little as $100.00 a year ($10 a month, because, it’s a “fact” that teachers “only work 10 months a year,” isn’t it?)  as a “bonus,” it would still amount to $70,000,000.00.  That’s a good deal of money for a federal budget which currently wants to cut money for school safety and for an administration which would like to get the federal government out of the school business altogether because education is a “local” issue, not a national one, in spite of the fact that we have the most mobile population in history, so relatively few people actually spend their life where they grew up.
Then, there is making sure that these teachers are trained.  Even in the case of ex-military, shouldn’t they be provided the same training as police officers?  And should they not be required to be “retrained” as often as police officers?  That’s going to cost something in addition to the 70 million a year mentioned above, but without which the whole idea would seem to break down.
​
Of course, some would suggest that we be aware of the fact that even trained, sworn police officers (armed with handguns) are not always immediately “effective” against suspects in a “shots fired” situation.  That is to say that it often takes more than one shot to “take down” a shooter.  In 2008, the New York Times reported that in New York “Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time.” And, “So far this year the hit ratio in Los Angeles is 31 percent, with 74 of 237 bullets fired by officers hitting the target.”  In 2015, the New York Daily News reported “Oft-apprehended Jerrol Harris, 27, was busted around 1:10 a.m. when a single bullet — out of 84 fired at him — pierced his calf to end a blocks-long police pursuit through Bushwick, cops said.”  I find this distressing, although it may be understandable, given the pressure of “shoot/don’t shoot” decisions being made in a split second in the “heat of the moment.”  Yes, President Trump did attend military school from age 13 through high school, but I find it hard to believe that he had much “live fire” combat training, so I have little confidence that he is well qualified to speak as to how easy it is to “take out” a shooter in a combat situation.
 
Others, perhaps more familiar with this situation, tell a different story, as in this from Business Insider:
​"Shooting under stress is extremely difficult. Even for the most well-trained shooters," Jay Kirell,, an Afghanistan veteran who has written about difficulties veterans face in civilian life, tweeted. "A teacher is not going to be able to do this. Cops & soldiers literally get paid to do this & most of them can't shoot accurately under stress."
 
"Not because they suck, but because it's nearly impossible to hit a target in one shot when pumped full of adrenaline," Kirell added, "And if you're in a school with a shooter and dozens of children, if you're not shooting accurately you're just creating crossfire."
 
Data compiled by the New York City Police Department underscores the difficulty of firing accurately in challenging situations. 
 
In 2005, NYPD officers intentionally fired their guns at someone 472 times, hitting their mark 82 times. In 2006, New York police fired under the same circumstances 364 times, hitting their target 103 times. That same year, Los Angeles police fired 67 times, recording 27 hits.
And, there is a lot of other data to make one wonder about how often bullets are fired which don’t hit the “target.”  Some examples: in 2012, “NYPD officers responded to a report of shots fired with one victim killed in front of the Empire State Building. Officers fired sixteen rounds wounding 9 bystanders and killing the shooter.”; in 2006, Police in Lakeland, Florida fired 110 rounds at a suspect, Angilo Freeland, who had killed an officer earlier, hitting him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel, ‘That's all the bullets we had.’”; in 2004, ABC News reported "When 44-year-old drug suspect Winston Hayes' SUV lurched forward he hit a police car, deputies unloaded their weapons, firing 120 shots. Four bullets ended up hitting Hayes who survived, one hit a deputy sheriff, 11 hit patrol cars and 11 hit five homes in the neighborhood (one of them ended up tearing a hole in a homeowner's hat)."

That leads me to wonder how often those “stray” bullets hit someone, or something, besides the target.  It makes me worry about kids in a crowded school hallway, and it reminds me of non-demonstrators shot at Kent State in 1970.
 
Of course, some people would suggest that a military-style “assault” rifles and ammunition, designed for the military for the express purpose of killing the “enemy” have no business being available on the open market.  Regarding the wounds made by such high-powered weapons, Heather Sher, a radiologist who treated Parkland victims commented in The Atlantic:
​As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
 
In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
 
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
 
The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
​
A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out-of-the-ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low velocity handgun injuries as those I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
​I’m really not opposed to Second Amendment rights, but one cannot deny that the authors of the Bill of Rights never conceived of even multiple shot, let alone semi or fully automatic, rifles and this sort of high-powered ammunition.  And I also have a number of other concerns about the whole idea of “hardened” schools and weapon-carrying teachers:

  1. What about the fact that the walls and doors of most buildings are not built to “bulletproof” standards?  Hence the possibility of injury to people who are unseen in classrooms, let alone in hallways? 
  2. Do we really think that metal detectors, etc. are going to be enough to prevent weapons from being brought on campuses, let alone the idea that students are not going to be frightened by such methods?  After all, we haven’t seen the TSA (a force of specially trained people) be able to accomplish this at airports.
  3. What about the fact that it is far from certain that the only people in a school hallway during a shooting “incident” would be the shooter and the armed teacher?  What guarantees no “collateral damage” when the teacher starts shooting?
  4. How do we prevent one of our “weapon agile” teachers from shooting another one (a colleague) especially in large schools, given the fact that the “fire/don’t fire” decision would have to be made in a split second?
  5. How does the police SWAT team sort out who is the armed “bad” guy from all of the armed faculty and staff?
  6. Who provides the liability insurance for the “select, armed teachers” in case there is “collateral damage” within the student body, faculty, or staff? 
 
This strikes me as suggesting that this “simple, easy” solution is likely to cost a great deal of money and create a great many problems which may not come immediately to mind, regardless of what Trump and the NRA may think.
 
It seems to me that, as a nation, we are awash with weapons, a good number of which are designed and intended for the specific purpose of killing people, not for hunting, or personal protection, except on a battlefield, where one can assume (perhaps incorrectly) that “collateral damage” can be expected and doesn’t seem to be a cause of much concern, unlike schools and other public places in the “homeland.”  The American Journal of Medicine reports that the firearm death rate in the U.S. is 10.2/ 100,000.  In the next closest nation, that rate is 3.6, or almost three times as high.
 
We like to think of ourselves as living in a country which leads the world.  Isn’t it time we took some action to avoid being the leader in this way?  Yet, we continue to suggest that it’s “too hard” to do anything beyond offering “prayers and condolences” to the victims and their families.  Isn’t it time we did something more to demonstrate our leadership?  Why is it harder to drive a car legally (learner’s permit, driver’s ed., driving test, insurance, vehicle registration and licensing, etc.) than to buy a military-style assault weapon?  (Yes, one is a “right” and one is a “privilege,” but nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day and an additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled despite these precautions.)
 
” Even with “enhanced” background checks, one can go to a gun “show” and purchase anything one wants in the way of weaponry with NO checks and no questions except how we are going to pay?  A Google search for “AR-15 for sale” produces 2,920,000 hits in .31 seconds.  Is this really the way we want to live?
 
It’s time to quit fooling ourselves.  To quote Emma Gonzalez, a student survivor from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “We call BS.”  To slightly misquote Andrew Shepherd from The American President: “We've got serious problems, and we need serious people…. and fifteen minutes are up.”
 
LLAP
0 Comments

112     An Interesting Shakespeare-Related Book

2/20/2018

0 Comments

 
I just recently read Bernard Cornwell’s Fools and Mortals, a rather interesting piece of historical fiction by a prolific and popular author.  Much of what Cornwell writes has been in series form.  That is, while each book stands alone, they have been written in groups following a character, or group of characters through multiple books.  I confess that I haven’t completely read any of the series, although I have read bits and pieces of several of them and a couple of Cornwell’s “stand-alone” novels, as well.  Yes, I do tend to enjoy historical fiction, if it focuses on characters or events which I find interesting.
 
Fools and Mortals is a stand-alone built around William’s brother, Richard, whom Cornwell portrays in this book as a struggling “hired man” for The Lord Chamberlain’s Men (the company Will was a member of).  Now Richard Shakespeare really did exist and really was Will’s brother, although I don’t find evidence that he made any serious attempt at success on the stage.  Now, his (and Will’s) other brother, Edmund, who, according to church records, is buried in what is now Southwark Cathedral not far from the site of the original (and the reconstructed) Globe, WAS an actor in London, although we don’t have evidence which suggests he was all that important to the London theatre scene.  Both Will and Richard are buried at Trinity Church in Stratford-Upon-Avon.  We have virtually no information about the historical Richard other than his birth and death.
 
On the other hand, we have records of Edmund’s burial (which cost 20 shillings, not a small sum) which indicate that he was buried in the morning with "with a forenoone knell of the great bell".  As has been pointed out by others, this was a fair amount of money at the time, so it seems fairly likely that Will must have paid for it and the morning burial would have allowed his fellow actors to have performed later that day at the Globe.  (The Chamberlain’s Men would not start using the Blackfriars Theatre until a couple of years later, so they would, probably, have been at the Theatre in Shoreditch even though Edmund died in December.
                                                                                                                               
So, right off the bat it would appear that Cornwell may not have all of his facts really straight.  That’s too bad, but it doesn’t alter the fact that this story revolves around “Richard’s” desire to escape playing women’s roles and to establish himself as a regular performer (hired man) with the company.  As Cornwell tells it, it is an interesting story making use of the time (the winter of 1595) when both A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Romeo and Juliet are believed to have been written and The Swan (theatre) was being built across the Thames in Southwark.  While it is probably wise to suggest that one can’t be sure that Cornwell has documented all of his facts, this IS a work of fiction, not a scholarly study, and the story he tells is reasonably interesting and provides a great deal of conjectural detail (all of which seems fairly reasonable to me) regarding what life might well have been like for a struggling, young actor in London at this time. 
 
Needless to say, “Richard” does not come off as a Romantic hero, but he is presented as a young man struggling for success.  Elder brother Will comes off as something of a jerk, but even I have to confess that it’s possible that this isn’t too far from the truth.  Again, not all artists (actors or playwrights) are noble creatures selflessly devoted to the betterment of all mankind.  I’d prefer not to think of Will as quite such a self-centered bozo, but it is possible that he was.  And the characters (some with authentic names, some almost certainly invented) are presented as believable and enjoyable in terms of the story.
 
Perhaps what I like the best about the book is that it captures a good deal of what I suspect is a fairly authentic “feel” of London at the time.  It’s dirty, it’s unsafe, the not-so-secret Protestant religious police are always hovering in the background trying to rid the country of secret Roman Catholics and such “devil’s spawn” as actors and theatres.  Their authority was fairly limited by noble sponsorship of the theatre companies and the fact that the theatres, themselves, were located outside of the City of London proper (and it didn’t hurt that Elizabeth enjoyed having players perform for her and her Court). 
 
All things considered, I found this a pretty interesting read.  While I could quibble over bits and pieces not conforming to what I believe to be the facts, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in Shakespeare’s times.  It’s not a history book, although it sheds some light on what those times might have been like, and it’s an interesting enough story to be a pretty enjoyable read.  I’d encourage you to give it a try.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

111     Harry Potter Is Twenty?

2/7/2018

0 Comments

 

 
Can this really be true?  Has it really been twenty years since the Harry Potter phenomenon burst onto the scene?  The answer is, of course, “YES!”  I confess that I was taken aback when I saw that, although I’m not sure if it feels longer, or shorter.  It feels shorter, at least to me, because the whole notion of the HP universe still seems pretty fresh and worth exploring.  It feels longer because I am aware of the fact that it was a good while ago when I was first exposed to the adventures of this young wizard and his friends in a world not so different (yet VERY different) from our own.
 
I still remember Bonnie telling me about a news story she had read online about Amazon being sued for allowing their UK division to sell copies of this book (apparently in what were considered commercial quantities) to folks in this country when the US publisher hadn’t released it yet; and it was a “kid’s” book, which seemed to make it even more surprising!  It turns out that the subject of the story was Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets which was published in the US a full year after it was published in the UK, which may explain the attempts to “bootleg” copies of it.  (It is worth noting that the international publication dates got a good deal closer as time went by.)  Bonnie asked Margaret about the first book (which had already been published in the US and learned that she had a copy and had enjoyed it, so she (Bonnie) picked up Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and read it.  Now this, in and of itself was a bit unusual.  Bonnie has never been the reader I am, so her sitting down to read a book was a bit out of the ordinary.  She seemed to enjoy it a lot and insisted that I read it, so we could talk about it.  So, I did, and that was that; I was hooked.  Eventually this would lead to our each buying a copy of each new novel as they appeared; our spending a weekend (or more) each buried in our own copy; and, eventually, giving one copy to the Sylva Public Library (under the condition that the copies be circulated) because we didn’t need to keep two, but didn’t want to fight over who got to read the new book first.
 
As anyone who has known me in the last twenty years can tell you, (and is obvious from the story above), I am a “true-believing” Harry Potter fan.  I’ve read all of the books more than once, seen all of the movies (multiple times) and listened to the Jim Dale audiobooks more than once, as well.  I don’t pretend to have the memory for specific detail that Bonnie has (I find her memory amazing), but I still think I know all of the books pretty well.  I even think that the movie adaptations are, generally, pretty acceptable (I like the casting a lot), although I am less than fond of some of the cutting from the original stories and the general loss of the “texture” of the novels which I find very pleasing.  I recognize the necessity of cutting for a movie, but I think the movies have lost something of the “flavor” of the books.
 
More important, I think, is the fact that the books and other materials have made J.K. Rowling the first female, author to become a billionaire.  They say that she’s not a billionaire any longer because she has given so much money to charity.  She has also become a best-selling author of detective fiction, as well, under the name of Robert Galbraith. 
 
The cultural impact of Rowling’s work is immense, as well.  Books for “young readers” have become 173% longer in the last 40 years, with most of that in the last twenty.  (prior to the HP books, most “children’s” fiction was pretty short.  Many people have studied the idea that a lot of young people became readers because they enjoyed these books enough to try others, although this has not, apparently, been proven.  Quidditch became an actual sport in 2005 and is played worldwide, although I haven’t seen coverage of the World Cup in the press or on TV yet.  The New York Times (I think due to pressure from publishers) created a special best-seller list for “children’s literature” due (I think, but I can’t prove) to the fact that the first three HP books were all on the main “Best-seller” list and it was clear that Goblet of Fire was likely to join them as the earlier books had been on the hardcover best-seller list for 79 weeks.  Later, the NYT started a “series” category of best-sellers in order to free up space for non-HP books on the “children’s” list.
 
I confess that I find this assignment of the Harry Potter books to the “children’s” or (at best) “young adult” best-seller lists, sections of book stores, etc., amusing (and annoying).  After all, I was well over 50 when the books started appearing, which would seem to eliminate me from being a child (or even a “young” adult).  Nor am I alone as an “older” reader of the HP books.  In fact, so many adults were reading the books that the UK publisher put out editions with a cover featuring less “childish” artwork, which was quite successful with more “adult” readers.
 
Of course, the HP books have not been without controversy.  Several fundamentalist Christian groups (and many individuals with such leanings) have protested the “fact” that the books “teach” witchcraft and various pagan religions; while others suggest that the books should be banned (or even burned) because they promote various political agendas.  There actually might be something to that last charge as a study in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology said that people who read the series tended to be more open-minded and empathic, and less likely to hold prejudices against minority groups.  Clearly those are qualities which are “anti-American” and we should be suspicious of them.  (Yes, I AM being sarcastic!)
 
As discussed in my last post (#110 in the archive), I’ve always been at least a bit suspicious of critics, but I have wondered why so many of them have been so negative about Rowling as an author and the HP books in general.  As is usual, the books are said to lack “literary merit,” are “unimaginative,” “derivative,” etc.  Of course, most of these same accusations have been leveled against such mediocre works as The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, and the Hobbit-Lord of the Rings books.  I confess to relatively little expertise with The Wizard of Oz or Alice, but I’ve been a fan of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit since I was in college in the 1960’s and I know them, in book (and movie) form, about as well as I know the Harry Potter materials.  THEY are, of course, often referred to as “epic high-fantasy” and are clearly intended for “adult” audiences, unlike the HP books.  I suppose that this is because the central character of LOTR (Frodo) came of age (at 33) when Bilbo turned 111 at the grand party which starts LOTR.  That, of course makes Frodo an “adult” while Harry and friends are “just kids.”  (Yes, I find that more than slightly stupid.) Of course, Alice and Dorothy are both “just kids,” but I guess that’s different (?).  If I were to be unkind, I’d point out that Rowling is the only one of these authors who is female (although she was pressured to use J.K. Rowling to disguise that fact in order to appeal to boys).  Is it possible that critics don’t wish to take a female’s work as literature for “adults,” but that it’s okay for kids?  There is also the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was both male and an Oxford professor.  I don’t know what either has to do with his fiction, but I digress.
 
Actually, one doesn’t have to be a great scholar to recognize that Bilbo, Frodo, AND Harry all seem to fit rather neatly into Joseph Campbell’s notion of the universal monomyth which he suggests forms a central mythic pattern affecting most (at least) societies.  In the introduction to The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Campbell summarized the pattern of the monomyth as: “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.”1
 
Okay, the “…region of supernatural wonder…” in both the HP and the LOTR universes is presented as just the way things are, so they may lack what one might consider the “supernatural,” “religious” overtones one can read into Campbell’s summary, but where the characters go on their travels is definitely NOT into the world they came from and are presented as believing to be “normal.”  Bilbo and Frodo have heard about wizards, dwarves, elves, etc., but they don’t have much experience with them prior to their adventures.  I find it carefully set up that the Shire (which is the general limit of their experience) is NOT like the rest of Middle Earth, but the reader learns about that as the story unfolds.  Harry, of course, has been kept from any knowledge of the “wizarding world,” although we do find out that his aunt and uncle are aware of its existence.  Still, I would suggest that both cases seem to fit into Campbell’s summary pretty well.
 
What’s important about this?  Well, I think it’s the idea that it ties these stories to the ideas Campbell explores in his (rather well-respected) work which suggests that other examples of the monomyth include the stories of Osiris, Prometheus, the Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, and Jesus.  No, I’m not really suggesting that either Frodo or Harry are exactly “Christ figures,” (although I think a case can be made), but they certainly seem to at least fit into the mold of the hero as described by Campbell.  (As does Luke Skywalker, probably Indiana Jones and a lot of other fictional characters, as well.)
 
Perhaps I’ve pushed this a bit too far, but it annoys me when the HP stories are shoved aside by the same people who were running around wearing “Frodo Lives!” tee shirts in the Sixties.  I certainly can’t prove it, but I do find it quite interesting that (according to IMDB) both The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone films were released in the same year (2001) and Fellowship grossed (US) $315.54M, while Sorcerer’s Stone grossed (US) $317.58M.  However, Fellowship got more than 2½ times the number of votes in IMDB’s rather unclear voting process, which seems to be primarily a record of those who sign-in to IMDB and vote: not exactly a scientific process.  I have to confess that I think that the sort of prejudice I’ve described above probably has had some influence, i.e. people think of LOTR as for “adults” and HP as “kid’s stuff,” which I hope I’ve made clear I think is hogwash.  Then again, maybe that’s the way it is in a world where the value of something (a book, a movie, or a person) is defined by their poll numbers, ratings, likes, followers, etc., and score is kept on social media.
 
I’m disappointed that that seems to be the case, but I guess I still have to keep hoping…

 
1 Joseph Campbell. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968, p. 30 / Novato, California: New World Library, 2008, p. 23.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly