i’m bored, entertain me ![]()
— end of line —
-stone
|
|
||
|
i’m bored, entertain me -stone So Newsweek prints an uncorroborated allegation about American interrogators flushing Qurans down the toilet in order to get fanatical Muslim prisoners to talk, and there’s rioting and death all over the Muslim world. There are several lessons to be learned from this incident, some trivial, 1. The courts have given the news media carte blanche, in the name of the First Amendment — but the media are no better than government at exercising unchecked power. When it’s known that no one can punish you, a certain kind of person stops caring whether he hurts anybody. And such people tend to rise within any organization that doesn’t work hard to have a conscience. Personally, I think there should be legal consequences for editors and publishers and reporters so abysmally selfish and stupid that they would run with a story that they knew would provoke outrage in Muslim lands, without first making sure it was true. I’m not talking about prior restraint, which would be unconstitutional. I’m talking about consequences after the fact. In this case, formal libel and slander laws wouldn’t have much effect, because who has standing to sue? (Though we need to restore a reasonable standard of libel and slander, even for public figures; being famous shouldn’t mean that other people have no obligation to tell the truth about you.) I’m talking about informal consequence, like Newsweek‘s correspondents being frozen out of news stories. Being banned from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department for at least a year. But if any administration did such a thing, all of the media would unite to crucify them. So all that’s left would be a clean personnel sweep of everyone involved in publishing a false story that leads to needless deaths. But it’ll never happen. Maybe some token person, after a lengthy “internal investigation” (i.e., coverup; after all, we know just how thorough em>Newsweek’s So all that’s left is for the public to punish the offenders by ceasing to buy their publication. But that won’t work because fifteen minutes after the story, the American people have forgotten it. So Newsweek kills people with a false story that is actually a lie (unlike anything President Bush ever said about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction), and nothing happens to the perpetrators. 2. Too many people in the “American” media have lost any concept of loyalty to their country — if they even consider it their country, rather than just their residence. Yeah, that’s right, I’m playing the “patriotism” card. But not the way you think. Our country is at war. And it’s a war in which victory absolutely depends on the Muslim world perceiving it as a war between the U.S and its allies on one side, and fanatical murderous terrorists on the other. If it is ever perceived as a war against Islam, then we have lost. The world has lost. So during such a difficult time, even people who think the Iraq War or even the whole war on terror is a horrible mistake still have an obligation of loyalty to the nation that offers them protection, prosperity, and freedom. I mean, what kind of idiot breaks a hole in the hull of his boat during a storm, just because he doesn’t like the guy at the tiller and thinks the storm could have been avoided? Even if the allegations about Quran desecration were completely and absolutely verified, why in the world would you publish the information during wartime? It’s not that the Media themselves regard the Quran as sacred. It’s just paper to them. And surely they would have to agree that if such actions might somehow gain the cooperation of a potential source of useful information (though that seems extremely unlikely to me), it would be infinitely preferable to physical torture. But they dwell so blindly within the cocoon of their sheltered world, where it’s just awful for somebody to offend “multicultural” people (though just fine to be openly vicious to American Christians or Israeli Jews), that it doesn’t occur to them that they could just keep their mouths shut and avoid damaging America and putting Americans all over the world in danger. They might even realize that by not reporting this story, true or not, they would save Muslim lives. If patriotism couldn’t rein them in, then surely simple humaneness should … one might suppose. After all, who benefits from the publication of such a story at this time? Only one group: People who want to bring down or weaken President Bush and everything he stands for, no matter the cost. The press isn’t running for office. To say that the media culture is unpatriotic isn’t a political ploy, it’s an obvious observation. Oh, if my words actually mattered to them, they’d howl and scream about my illegitimate attack. But in private, they are perfectly happy to mock patriotism in all its forms. They’re only patriotic when somebody says they aren’t. They are loyal to a community — but it’s not America. It’s Smartland. The nation of the newsmedia people. That’s where they live. Not in America. These newspeople generally don’t even know anybody, apart from “sources,” who serves America in the military. Smartland consists of a very different crowd. I know that crowd. I’ve heard them jeer at all the values that most Americans still care about, laughing at religious people, at the middle class, at suburbanites, at the poor ignorant saps who don’t think correct thoughts all the time. You know — the citizens of Heartland. Those poor sentimental fools who stood in line to see The Passion and who like Adam Sandler movies and who get tears in their eyes when they see the American flag and whose hearts break a little when it burns. And yet the irony is that the reason the radical Islamists hate the West so much is primarily because of the unchecked and uncheckable excesses of the Smartish. From Hollywood to newspeople to the soft-subject professors in our universities, the culture that makes people like Osama bin Laden want to blow us up or crush us into dust is the culture of the R-rated movie, the anti-religion intellectual, the glorified abortionist, the babies-without-marriage crowd, and the what-me-worry media elite. Osama isn’t much worried about Christianity. Why should he? If a Muslim converts to Christianity in a Muslim country, he’ll just be killed. Christianity, despite our apparent numbers, has been reduced to nothing more dangerous to Islam than a swarm of gnats. It’s a lot harder to keep dirty movies and atheistic Western ideas out of Muslim lands. That’s the established church of the West these days — liberty without responsibility, filth praised as “edgy” and virtue despised as “bourgeouis.” If the Islamists ever ruled the world — and only a fool thinks that history offers some guarantee against it — then America’s unpatriotic elite will realize … No they won’t. Whom do I think I’m kidding? They’ll still blame it on Bush or the Christian right or the oil companies, because the central tenet of their belief is that their side can do no wrong. Wow. That sounds just like “my country, right or wrong.” Only instead of a country with borders, they have Smartland, the nation of people who know far better how to order the world than those ignorant unwashed masses of voters that keep electing morons who can’t pronounce “nuclear.” They’re fanatical Smartland patriots. So fanatical they don’t hesitate long enough to get their facts right before running a story that seriously weakens America’s position in a deadly war that has already blown up the two tallest buildings in the capital city of Smartland. Because they haven’t recognized yet that Smartland only exists as a parasite, sucking the blood out of the Heartland that they have such contempt for. One thing for sure. At Newsweek, nobody better ever say again, “We don’t make the news, we just print it.” 3. Muslims in Muslim countries can dish it out, but they can’t take it. They had no problem expelling all the Jews from their countries in an ethnic cleansing every bit as vicious as anything the Spaniards did in 1492. They desecrated Torahs left and right. Nowadays they blow up babies and call it a heroic act, because they were Jewish babies. But let somebody start a rumor that somebody dunked a Quran in the toilet, and they go insane and riot and kill people. What planet do these people live on? It’s Earth. What you see in those riots is the result of centuries of being in an almost complete majority — and having nothing to show for it. Not freedom, not prosperity, not even respect. Practically everybody they know is Muslim and yet they are still powerless and ashamed and angry. Muslims in the United States might feel all the same things, but they know they’re not in the majority and they’ve learned to keep their heads down. Like every other minority that doesn’t have the power of the state behind them. The religious right in America thought they were in the majority back in the 1980s, when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and others flexed their political muscle, only to discover — oops — that committed Christians had somehow slipped into a despised minority position without even realizing it. They didn’t have anywhere near the muscle they thought they had and they soon relapsed back into relative quiet. (Forget the way they keep getting trotted out as dangerous demons — that’s just the Left, looking for somebody to demonize so they can whip up support. The new McCarthyism; they always need devils.) It’s hard for me to feel even a shred of pity for all those poor Muslims who heard that somewhere in the world, their holy book might have been desecrated. Do they really expect people outside their religion to take their beliefs as seriously as they do? Why, just a few weeks ago a CBS television show (Cold Case Files) ran an episode that made an outrageous attack on my church, in which items as sacred to us as the Quran is to Muslims were openly displayed and mocked on national television. But you didn’t see Mormons rioting over it. Oh, we were angry enough– it was infuriating to be treated with such contempt, as CBS, without a second thought, turned its airwaves over to some Mormon-hating writer who reveled in having the power to get at us with impunity. But you see, we Mormons are very much aware of being in the minority. The memory of “Christian” mobs and state militias murdering helpless Mormon men, women and children, and then betraying and assassinating our leaders while they were in government custody, is still keen within our culture. It didn’t happen far away, it happened in Missouri and Illinois. And it has continued in the years since then, in isolated incidents of murder and expulsion throughout the world, not least in America. We remember our forebears leaving their homes again and again to get away from an oppressive majority. We remember our haven being invaded by the United States Army; we remember being prepared to burn our homes and crops and flee again, leaving our homeland a desert rather than submit to oppression again. But in the years afterward, we learned something else, too: How to get along. How to avoid making waves. How to blend in. How to make a moral stand when it matters, without alienating those who might stand with us and without (usually) provoking those who stand against us. That’s what you learn when you’re in a perpetual minority. When would Muslims in the Middle East have learned lessons like that? What the rioters haven’t learned is that blowing up with rage accomplishes nothing except to make themselves look like big babies throwing tantrums. It doesn’t make anybody in the world respect Islam more — it makes us respect Islam less. After all, when babies are prone to throwing tantrums, we may tiptoe around the house to avoid waking them up, but we don’t give them the car keys. It’s not respect you’re giving them. You can’t take them seriously as equals. You only avoid provoking them. They’re a nuisance. I can hear people already complaining that my rhetoric is “excessive” and I have indulged in “name-calling.” I have not. What I have indulged in here is correct labeling. Rioters have surrendered to their passions precisely as babies do, instead of controlling their emotions and acting sensibly, the way grownups are expected to. Nobody respects people who riot over such offenses, period. But we’re so used to lying about things like that and pretending to take this sort of thing seriously that the truth has become unspeakable in polite company. Yet this is precisely the truth that most needs to be spoken. The fact that Muslims riot over such an offense does not make anybody in the world admire Islam more, or take the words of the Prophet Muhammed more seriously. It just makes us shake our heads and think, Are these people supposed to be ready for self-government? The fact is that most Muslims in Muslim countries did not riot. Most of them were appalled and frightened when so many of their fellow citizens went crazy in the streets. But those aren’t the people who shape the image of Islam. It’s the rioters who make the news and get the airtime. The rioters and the terrorists. For what is Osama’s “movement” if not a tantrum that has been cynically focused and organized in order to get the maximum attention. Not real damage, mind you. They’re big babies, kicking mommy’s shins and screaming “I hate you I hate you.” We have to stop them. To that extent we take them seriously. But not as equals. And yet that is the thing that hurts them most. The thing they crave. To be treated with respect. Oh, they can say “We don’t care if you respect us,” but their actions prove that to be utterly false. All they care about is gaining the respect of the world. And yet they behave in ways that 4. Seeing Kingdom of Heaven this week, I was sharply reminded of the fact that Islam has produced great leaders who accomplished great things. The portrayal of Saladin in that movie coincided very closely with the historical record. And if this movie were actually to be shown in the Muslim world, Saladin’s words in the script could be read as a political instruction manual for political Islam today. Instead, the Muslim world has turned its back on Saladin and embraced leaders who are exactly the kind of people shown in the movie as fanatical warmongering Christians. Sure that God would protect them, the true believers wanted all-out war with the surrounding Muslim world. Never mind that they were unprepared and their enemy vastly outnumbered them — God would provide! So they murdered innocents in the name of God … and got God’s answer. Because whatever else God may or may not do, he certainly does not help those who commit murder and other crimes in his name. Osama and his ilk are identical to the monsters in this film. Some of them are true believers even if they violate every aspect of Islam with the crimes they commit against humanity; others, like the character Guy, are jockeying for command of a ship — and they’ll sink it if that’s what it takes to get control of the helm. Which should mean that we are like Saladin. After all, without even being asked we waged and are waging the most humane major war in history. Our efforts to save the lives of our enemies have cost us many casualties that we need not have suffered — who does that? 5. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The greatest asset that Osama and his tribe have going for them is not the tantrumlike behavior of their supporters. It’s the fact that the West is deeply divided, as a new religious movement — politically correct puritanism — is perilously These citizens of Smartland disingenuously claim that they are neither organized nor a religion — organized religions are the bogeyman they invoke to frighten their opponents into silence. But let’s remember, please, that Puritanism wasn’t an organized religion, either. (Nor was anarchism; nor, for that matter, is Islamicism.) Without ever quite being organized as a church, Puritanism still managed to seize power in England in the 17th century, rather the way that Islamicism seized power in Iran and Afghanistan in the 20th. How long did it take for the people to be utterly disenchanted by government-by-fanatics, who see every opponent as evil and make every political decision an article of faith? Afghanistan longed to be free of the Taliban; the people of Iran hunger for freedom now. And when the Puritans were toppled in Just so the fanatics who now rule the Democratic Party, serving the cause of Smartland at the expense of the Heartland, will find that if they ever really get control of government, they will quickly be the most hated rulers our country ever had. Already large numbers of Americans seethe over the puritanical laws imposed on us by anti-democratic judges, who cannot wait for compromise and the political process to “purify” us. Already we are outraged by the propaganda they foist on our children in the schools, without reference to the values of the community or the roots of the American culture. The Taliban of Smartland will be just as repugnant to the people of America as the Islamist Taliban was to most of the people of Afghanistan. So as we watch the Democratic Party flush away democratic processes in order to get correct outcomes, it’s worth remembering that we’re not so different from “those wacky Muslims.” People who are so sure they’re right that they are willing to eliminate democratic processes in order to get and keep power are the enemies of freedom for everyone. We may be slow to recognize the danger, but one thing is certain: Once the Puritans have power, everyone else will finally see the cost of their utopia. And as the Iranians and North Koreans have learned, it’s very very hard to get rid of a dictatorship with a puritan ideology. Sometimes you’re lucky and a big country comes along and liberates you. But sometimes there’s no country big enough to do it, and you just have to hunker down and pretend to think correct thoughts and live some kind of life below the radar. You know, the way believing Christians do right now at American universities. Copyright © 2005 by Orson Scott Card. yeah, what he said. — end of line — On the first day God created the dog. God said, "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. I will give you a life span of twenty years." The dog said, "That’s too long to be barking. Give me ten years and I’ll give you back the other ten." So God agreed. On the second day God created the monkey. God said, "Entertain people, do monkey tricks, make them laugh. I’ll give you a twenty-year life span." The monkey said, "How boring. Monkey tricks for twenty years? I don’t think so. Dog gave you back ten, so that’s what I’ll do too, okay?" And God agreed. On the third day God created the cow. God said, "You must go to the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer. I will give you a life span of sixty years." The cow said, "That’s kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. Let me have twenty and I’ll give back the other forty." And God agreed again. On the fourth day God created man. God said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. I’ll give you twenty years." Man said, "What? Only twenty years?! Tell you what, I’ll take my twenty, and the forty the cow gave back and the ten the monkey gave back and the ten the dog gave back…that makes eighty, okay?" So that is why the first twenty years we eat, sleep, play, and enjoy ourselves; for the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family; for the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren; and for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone. Life has now been explained to you. — end of line — Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we’re a bit ticked off here in California, so we’re leaving. California will now be its own country. And we’re taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii,Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the North East. We spoke to God, and she agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she’s going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST next Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep the Governator; we can live with that.) We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole Miss. We get 85% of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that. Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation’s veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs. Oh yeah, another thing, don’t plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it’s imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we’re clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war, we’re going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they’re willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their kids’ caskets coming home. Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Soon. Sincerely, California — end of line — Dear President Bush: I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this law applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? 7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) Mr. Bush, I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. — end of line — so, the subject of me having children came up yesterday… scary eh? i’ve put a lot of thought into this over the years, and for a long time my answer was just plain “no”. mostly due to the quality of the woman that was asking (not interested in being trapped in your white trash hell, sorry) or the fact that i want any children i have to have it better than i did. (really wouldn’t take much) or that i’m kinda greedy and i don’t want that kind of responsibility. … it has since changed to “with the right woman, maybe” … mostly because the “no” came from that part of me that watches out for me. .. you know, the one that says “don’t do that” a lot. i was looking at how the future would unfold, with children, and the woman who happened to be hassling me about having them, at that particuliar time. no wonder i said no. well, i’ve decided that i’m okay with the idea of having kids. of course, i WILL be naming them google and apache, just on principle. the past week in my life, in detail: right now (daily, 5 minute average): right now (weekly, 30 minute average): right now (monthly, 2 hour average): right now (yearly, 1 day average): *sigh* well, okay, how about — end of line — sometimes other people can say it sooo much better than i: It’s happened again. Not for the first time, I was subjected the other day to a heartfelt diatribe on how Ikea has singlehandedly leached all the vitality and vigor out of the world, shoehorned human creativity into an infinity of barcode-anonymous MDF wall units, and spawned endless cyborg armies of khaki-clad, essentially fungible consumervolk. You read that right: Ikea. Unlike many nonsensical prejudices, it’s roughly possible to trace the root source of all this hostility, identify a locus classicus of Ikeaphobia: in this case, the vastly-overrated Fight Club. Ever since the film hit American screens, some years ago now, it’s been hip among would-be cynics of a certain cohort to reserve a stream of vituperation for the giant Swedish furnishings chain. (For those of you who didn’t see the movie, it contained a very nicely-produced CG sequence that essentially laid the blame for all that is fake, mediocre and generic in contemporary life at the company’s blue-and-yellow feet: the minute-long rant that launched ten thousand sneers.) I must hear some version of this spiel once a month, generally from some self-consciously leftie male between the ages of sixteen and twenty-two desperate to prove his authenticity, present his down-with-the-people, fuck-the-Man bona fides. This despite the fact that Ikea was explicitly founded on the premise of providing well-designed furniture to the masses at affordable prices – a premise that the company still largely delivers on. (If I have a quibble, it’s with quality, not price.) You know what? I’m done with it. If your life is mediocre, I promise you, Ingvar Kamprad didn’t make it that way. You did. And if you’re so desperate for your own soixante-huit moment that you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that you’re being oppressed by flat-packable pine furniture with goofy pseudo-Scandinavian names, I’d advise you to spend a few days working with child slaves in the Sudan, or something. There’s an equally wrongheaded sibling rant, which is the eternal current of complaint lodged against Starbucks Coffee. Although there’s probably more truth in the notion that Starbucks has made it difficult for independent local alternatives to survive – mmmmmmmaybe – most critiques directed at the chain strike me as being built on the same shaky armature of self-righteousness, spoiledness, and ahistoricity. Like the blistering Ikea-hatred, there’s something wildly out of scale in the tone and tenor of the criticism directed at Starbucks. To reiterate, in the wake of a perhaps representative rant of this type: I drink Starbucks coffee on a fairly regular basis and am generally quite satisfied. The chain provides a highly reliable, reasonably high-quality beverage – high-octane drip coffee, in my case – at a not-absurd price point. I am rarely more than a block or two away from one. I get much less attitude from the people behind the counter than I do at the one indie coffeehouse I frequent – I mean, they’ll actually say hi, remember me and my drink from yesterday, refrain from chatting with each other while I’m standing there waiting to order. And their bathrooms tend to the clean. More importantly, I am also old enough to remember the swill that Americans drank and were pleased to call “coffee” before Howard Schultz swept down out of his damp PNW redoubt and clusterbombed us with franchises. It tasted like soggy cardboard, it was served in chipped diner porcelain that itself generally tasted of soap, and most importantly, with a very few exceptions, it was all you could get anywhere. There simply was no alternative, let alone an entire alternative venue that also provided comfortable seating. At sixty or seventy-five cents, too, this “coffee” was no bargain – far better to my mind to pay twice that and get something consistently worth drinking. Finally, for those of you who seem to be so incensed with the musical selections on offer at Starbucks: god forbid we should enjoy some Ella Fitzgerald or Frank Sinatra from time to time. You don’t like it, bring an iPod. Can you see that I’m really, really tired of people whining and complaining about the horrible, evil, monocultural, hegemonizing, bland, MOR grafted devil that is Starbucks? I mean, you try and find another place in Beijing, or on I-40 in the ass-end of nowhere, that rocks coffee this good. (What’s that? You can’t? Or if you can, it is solely because Starbucks tutored the mass audience in what to demand of coffee? Yeah, I thought so.) The dynamic at work in both cases is one many of us might recognize from bad relationships: when a deeply wounded person suffering from low self-esteem finally fights back against the various agents of their distress, very often it’s the closest, most sympathetic soft target they lash out at first, in defiance of all logic (or justice). Not the absent father, but the present lover. It feels like the same neurosis at work with young activists of the No Logo stripe: never ADM, General Dynamics, Monsanto, but Nike and Ikea and Starbucks. And never mind that each of these latter firms is, to a greater or lesser degree, founded on what used to be known as progressive principles, or is to a greater or lesser degree responsive to the demands of a politically and socially conscious audience. What I would sorely like to do is channel all the resentment currently directed at what are, after all, relatively benign inhabitants of the corporate sphere where it belongs, to drop all of that change energy on the institutions that actually are responsible for far greater deformations of the world. Is a little sense of scale too much to ask for? — end of line —
Permalink
|
||
|
Copyright © 2012 Sylverstone - All Rights Reserved Powered by ![]() |
||
Recent Comments