Now Playing: something happened to the economy - did you notice - well wiskey & gunpowder did
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Monday, 17 May 2010
Israeli Defense Force, Col. Bentzion Gruber - Denver University 5.11
Now Playing: Israel Uses Senior Military Officers to Justify Killing
Israel Uses Senior Military Officers to Justify Killing
Charles E. Carlson May 16, 2010
An event at Denver University on May 11, 2010---
I was fortunate to attend a speech Tuesday by a senior military officer of the Israeli Defense Force, Col. Bentzion Gruber, speaking at Denver University on May 11, about the "morality and restraint" of the IDF in dealing with their "terrorist" neighbors... fortunate because this is the first time I have seen an Israeli propagandist lambasted for lying to his audience. Col. Gruber looked like he had been run over by his own bulldozers when a few knowledgeable members of the audience refused to sit quietly and have their intelligence insulted.
The meeting was sponsored by the Institute for Study of Israel in Middle East and the DU chapter of Hillel, a Jewish fraternity on campus. Gruber's lecture was called, "The Most Rigorous Military Code of Ethics in the World." Gruber is a Deputy Commander of the Reserve Division that served in Operation Cast Lead, the Christmas 2008 one month massacre in Gaza, which has, in fact, been followed by a blockade. He is now a reserve officer, but he also served during the Second Intifada (1998-02) during which Israeli forces killed 4789 Palestinians.
Gruber was interrupted constantly by individuals one-by- one who constantly challenged his facts. The resistance resulted from the efforts of eight to ten people who called a Mother's day strategy meeting in a Denver park. They know the only way to refute Gruber was not to allow one lie to pass unchallenged. It worked.
Gruber became unnerved and struggled unsuccessfully to finish his speech, limping through his allotted time with the aid of police, who ushered out one by one those who spoke clearly from the floor. Later Gruber was to be roundly challenged by his general audience, including a professor and some of the students, during a Q & A period. Most attacked Gruber's facts and his country's credibility.
Angered, the flustered Colonel stated, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims," causing shouts from the stunned audience to bring the meeting to a temporary halt. Gruber was forced to apologize, but he stuck to his guns in referring to every Palestinian who resists Israel as a "terrorist."
Gruber's lecture made the same points that are made in every Israeli propaganda speech: Israel is the victim, not the aggressor. For evidence, the Colonel cited suicide bombers, rockets and missiles, and the evil Hamas hiding behind civilians. He used an IDF propaganda film to attempt to show how careful Israel is to avoid killing civilians. The film contained obviously misleading statements about the Gazans and Hamas, including alleging Gazans used over three thousand "rockets" and "mortars" against Israelis.
His challengers cited the now famous Goldstone Report, which states otherwise. He was told the Gazans have no missiles, their rockets are the homemade kind that don't explode, and only four Israelis were killed by rocket fire in all the history of it. Mortar rounds are so scarce they are rarely used on rural Israel that surrounds Gaza, and are saved to fight off invasions.
The IDF also showed footage of a human bomber attacking a bus that he insisted was carrying women and children. But the movie was clearly faked, with dubbed in gunfire much too loud for the long range and grainy film. A questionable close-up of the grinning "suicide bomber" was offered to prove how happy Palestinian terrorists are just before they blow themselves up. Gruber was asked why he did not tell the audience that Palestinian's homemade rockets do not explode and that Israeli buses carry on-duty military and are therefore military targets. The audience of students did not buy the film once some of Gruber's misstatements were exposed.
Some challenged Gruber and the IDF film on its claims of humanitarian restraint in battle by citing the Goldstone Report, which documented the massacre 16 months ago. The Colonel's response was that Goldstone was "full of lies," and Israel "never used white phosphorus bombs."
He ended his much contested speech by reciting a sad but irrelevant story of his family being "holocaust" survivors sixty years ago and one of his family members being raped by a German, springing from this to the defense of Israel with no explanation as to what this had to do with the IDF's slaughter of the Gazans. The final questioner asked why he did this, and Gruber did not say how the Palestinians were involved in Germany's acts sixty years ago.
We in the United States are increasingly subjected to the influence of military personal on our payroll, used by politicians to tell us why this war or that war is needed. A generation ago it was a violation of the military code. General Douglas Mac Arthur, American five-star hero of World War II, was fired and ousted from the military for making statements about the Korean War.
Today it is commonplace for retired and even active duty officers to give interviews and public statements about the progress of the war, apparently deemed necessary by our political leaders to support the war effort. A recent example is found in a story by retired General Paul Vallaly whose claims go beyond fantasy.
Vallaly is listed in Wikipedia as a senior military analyst for Fox News. He claims tiny Lebanon has "50-60,000 missiles and rockets" hidden in houses and orchards aimed at Israel, that Iran already has nuclear bombs and is getting ready to mount them on "Scud" missiles from Russia, and that surrounding Islamic countries are planning a chemical attack on Israel. This war propagandist general repeatedly suggests he has privileged information. His final words: "We cannot allow Israel to stand alone in this." Endnote 1.
Israel, not unlike the USA, uses their military, like Colonel Gruber, to sell the false idea that it is the victim, and is a humane, surgically clean eliminator of "terrorists". The response at Denver University was an encouraging surprise and another sign of a "turning" in our time that is finally beginning to happen in the minds of those who think about what they are being told, especially students.
1.) "General (Vallaly) Warns of Chemical Attacks against Israel" <http://www.pjtv.com/v/3505>http://www.pjtv.com/v/3505
Philosopher - silly - leisure thinker - relaxed and anti social
Now Playing: what is a philosopher question is answered by Simon Critchley
Topic: ANYBODY * ANYDAY
Good Day Z3 Readers... I find an article titled "What is a Philosopher?" in the NY Times this morning, pasted below is what the writer explains is the definition of what a philosopher is or suppose to be.
Original article is located here:
May 16, 2010, 5:00 pm
What Is a Philosopher?By SIMON CRITCHLEYhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/what-is-a-philosopher/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp
There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. After three millennia of philosophical activity and disagreement, it is unlikely that we’ll reach consensus, and I certainly don’t want to add more hot air to the volcanic cloud of unknowing. What I’d like to do in the opening column in this new venture — The Stone — is to kick things off by asking a slightly different question: what is a philosopher?
As Alfred North Whitehead said, philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. Let me risk adding a footnote by looking at Plato’s provocative definition of the philosopher that appears in the middle of his dialogue, “Theaetetus,” in a passage that some scholars consider a “digression.” But far from being a footnote to a digression, I think this moment in Plato tells us something hugely important about what a philosopher is and what philosophy does.
Socrates tells the story of Thales, who was by some accounts the first philosopher. He was looking so intently at the stars that he fell into a well. Some witty Thracian servant girl is said to have made a joke at Thales’ expense — that in his eagerness to know what went on in the sky he was unaware of the things in front of him and at his feet. Socrates adds, in Seth Benardete’s translation, “The same jest suffices for all those who engage in philosophy.”
What is a philosopher, then? The answer is clear: a laughing stock, an absent-minded buffoon, the butt of countless jokes from Aristophanes’ “The Clouds” to Mel Brooks’s “History of the World, part one.” Whenever the philosopher is compelled to talk about the things at his feet, he gives not only the Thracian girl but the rest of the crowd a belly laugh. The philosopher’s clumsiness in worldly affairs makes him appear stupid or, “gives the impression of plain silliness.” We are left with a rather Monty Pythonesque definition of the philosopher: the one who is silly.
But as always with Plato, things are not necessarily as they first appear, and Socrates is the greatest of ironists. First, we should recall that Thales believed that water was the universal substance out of which all things were composed. Water was Thales’ philosophers’ stone, as it were. Therefore, by falling into a well, he inadvertently presses his basic philosophical claim.
But there is a deeper and more troubling layer of irony here that I would like to peel off more slowly. Socrates introduces the “digression” by making a distinction between the philosopher and the lawyer, or what Benardete nicely renders as the “pettifogger.” The lawyer is compelled to present a case in court and time is of the essence. In Greek legal proceedings, a strictly limited amount of time was allotted for the presentation of cases. Time was measured with a water clock or clepsydra, which literally steals time, as in the Greek kleptes, a thief or embezzler. The pettifogger, the jury, and by implication the whole society, live with the constant pressure of time. The water of time’s flow is constantly threatening to drown them.
The freedom of the philosopher consists in either moving freely from topic to topic or simply spending years returning to the same topic out of perplexity, fascination and curiosity.
By contrast, we might say, the philosopher is the person who has time or who takes time. Theodorus, Socrates’ interlocutor, introduces the “digression” with the words, “Aren’t we at leisure, Socrates?” The latter’s response is interesting. He says, “It appears we are.” As we know, in philosophy appearances can be deceptive. But the basic contrast here is that between the lawyer, who has no time, or for whom time is money, and the philosopher, who takes time. The freedom of the philosopher consists in either moving freely from topic to topic or simply spending years returning to the same topic out of perplexity, fascination and curiosity.
Pushing this a little further, we might say that to philosophize is to take your time, even when you have no time, when time is constantly pressing at your back. The busy readers of The New York Times will doubtless understand this sentiment. It is our hope that some of them will make the time to read The Stone. As Wittgenstein says, “This is how philosophers should salute each other: ‘Take your time.’ ” Indeed, it might tell you something about the nature of philosophical dialogue to confess that my attention was recently drawn to this passage from Theaetetus in leisurely discussions with a doctoral student at the New School, Charles Snyder.
Socrates says that those in the constant press of business, like lawyers, policy-makers, mortgage brokers and hedge fund managers, become ”bent and stunted” and they are compelled “to do crooked things.” The pettifogger is undoubtedly successful, wealthy and extraordinarily honey-tongued, but, Socrates adds, “small in his soul and shrewd and a shyster.” The philosopher, by contrast, is free by virtue of his or her otherworldliness, by their capacity to fall into wells and appear silly.
Socrates adds that the philosopher neither sees nor hears the so-called unwritten laws of the city, that is, the mores and conventions that govern public life. The philosopher shows no respect for rank and inherited privilege and is unaware of anyone’s high or low birth. It also does not occur to the philosopher to join a political club or a private party. As Socrates concludes, the philosopher’s body alone dwells within the city’s walls. In thought, they are elsewhere.
This all sounds dreamy, but it isn’t. Philosophy should come with the kind of health warning one finds on packs of European cigarettes: PHILOSOPHY KILLS. Here we approach the deep irony of Plato’s words. Plato’s dialogues were written after Socrates’ death. Socrates was charged with impiety towards the gods of the city and with corrupting the youth of Athens. He was obliged to speak in court in defense of these charges, to speak against the water-clock, that thief of time. He ran out of time and suffered the consequences: he was condemned to death and forced to take his own life.
A couple of generations later, during the uprisings against Macedonian rule that followed the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E., Alexander’s former tutor, Aristotle, escaped Athens saying, “I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy.” From the ancient Greeks to Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, Hume and right up to the shameful lawsuit that prevented Bertrand Russell from teaching at the City College of New York in 1940 on the charge of sexual immorality and atheism, philosophy has repeatedly and persistently been identified with blasphemy against the gods, whichever gods they might be. Nothing is more common in the history of philosophy than the accusation of impiety. Because of their laughable otherworldliness and lack of respect for social convention, rank and privilege, philosophers refuse to honor the old gods and this makes them politically suspicious, even dangerous. Might such dismal things still happen in our happily enlightened age? That depends where one casts one’s eyes and how closely one looks.
Perhaps the last laugh is with the philosopher. Although the philosopher will always look ridiculous in the eyes of pettifoggers and those obsessed with maintaining the status quo, the opposite happens when the non-philosopher is obliged to give an account of justice in itself or happiness and misery in general. Far from eloquent, Socrates insists, the pettifogger is “perplexed and stutters.”
Of course, one might object, that ridiculing someone’s stammer isn’t a very nice thing to do. Benardete rightly points out that Socrates assigns every kind of virtue to the philosopher apart from moderation. Nurtured in freedom and taking their time, there is something dreadfully uncanny about the philosopher, something either monstrous or god-like or indeed both at once. This is why many sensible people continue to think the Athenians had a point in condemning Socrates to death. I leave it for you to decide. I couldn’t possibly judge.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Obama doesnt want Marijuana legal
Now Playing: Same old crock of disinformation and fear
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Obama Administration ‘Firmly Opposes’ Marijuana Legalization — Here’s Why
So this is your administration on drugs. Any questions?
Is anyone surprised? You shouldn’t be. After all, this is the same Gil Kerlikowske that has said repeatedly that legalization is not in his vocabulary, and publicly stated, “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.” And this is the same administration that recently nominated Michele Leonhart to head the DEA — the same Michele Leonhart who overruled the DEA’s own administrative law judge in order to continue to block medical marijuana research, and publicly claimed that the rising death toll civilians attributable to the U.S./Mexican drug war “a signpost of the success” of U.S. prohibitionist policies.
Yet, given that national polls now indicate that an estimated one out of two Americans nationwide support legalization, and that a solid majority of west coast voters and Californians back regulating the retail production and distribution of pot like alcohol, it seems politically counterproductive for the administration to maintain such a ‘flat Earth’ policy. So what could possibly be their reasoning?
It’s actually spelled out here, in the White House’s 2010 Drug Control Strategy:
There it is in black and white — in less than 100 words: The federal government’s entire justification for marijuana prohibition; their entire justification for a policy that has led to the arrest of over 20 million Americans since 1965, that is responsible for allowing cops to terrorize families and kill their pets, that has stripped hundreds of thousands of young people of their ability to pursue higher education, and that is directly responsible for the deaths of over 20,000 civilians on the U.S./Mexico border. And that’s just for starters.
Yet the entire premise for maintaining the government’s policy — that keeping marijuana criminally prohibited “reduces [its] availability and lessens willingness to use [it]” — is demonstrably false. Under present prohibition, more than 1/3 of 8th graders, more than 2/3rds of 10th graders, and some 85 percent of 12th graders say that marijuana is “easy to get.” Even according to the stridently prohibitionist group CASA (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University), more teens say that they can get their hands on pot than booze, and one-quarter say that they can buy marijuana within the hour. That means, President Obama and Gil Kerlikowske, that 25 percent of teens can obtain marijuana as easily — and as quickly — as a Domino’s pizza!
This is your “proven” method for “reducing availability?” Don’t make us laugh.
By contrast, dozens of studies from around the globe have established, consistently, that marijuana liberalization will result in lower overall drug use. For example, no less than the World Health Organization concluded:
Of course, the best option to truly reduce youth availability to cannabis is legalization and regulation. This strategy — the same one that we employ for the use of virtually every other product except cannabis — would impose common sense controls regarding who can legally produce marijuana, who can legally distribute marijuana, who can legally consume marijuana, and where adults can legally use marijuana and under what circumstances is such use legally permitted.
But we already know that this option isn’t in the administration’s vocabulary, now don’t we?
I’ve written time and time again that this administration ought to view marijuana legalization as a political opportunity, not a political liability. They obviously aren’t listening. Nevertheless, it is the voters who have led — and will continue to lead — on this issue, and it is the politicians who will follow. Could we expect it to be any other way?
After all it was the federal government that followed the states lead in 1937 — federally criminalizing pot, but only doing so after virtually every state in the nation had already done so. California, for instance, outlawed marijuana use in 1913 — nearly a quarter of a century before the Feds acted similarly. Likewise, it is going to be the states — and California in particular — that are going to usher in the era of re-legalization.
And it will be the Feds who eventually will have no other choice but to fall in line.
Monday, 10 May 2010
CEO's and the battle keep their jobs
Now Playing: CEO and job stability in the Electronic Industry
Topic: CORPORATE CRAP
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Oil Spill - Iran Offers to Help - Wait we are Sanctioning You?
Now Playing: Iran offers to help contain US oil spill
Iran offers to help contain US oil spill
Mon, 03 May 2010 13:29:49 GMT
The National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has offered to assist the US in efforts to prevent an ecological disaster caused by the spreading oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Following an explosion on a BP-operated oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico last month, at least 210,000 gallons (5,000 barrels) of crude oil are thought to be spilling into the water every day.
NIDC managing director Heidar Bahmani announced the firm's readiness to use its decades-long expertise to fight the oil slick, the company's public relations office told Press TV.
"Our oil industry experts in the field of drilling can contain the rig leakage in the Gulf of Mexico and prevent an ecological disaster in that part of the world," Bahmani said.
Overlooking the new US drive for slapping more UN sanctions on Iran over its civilian nuclear program, the company said that there is an urgent need for action to protect the nearby coasts from the advancing oil spill.
The governors of Alabama, Louisiana and Florida have reportedly called a state of emergency for fear of the oil slick's environmental and economic damages.
The disaster has also prompted the White House to ban oil drillings in new areas of the US coast until the British company explains the cause of the explosion that killed 11 employees and resulted in the oil spill.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Whose Side Are You On Son?
Now Playing: Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country? - Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Marine, what is that button on your body armor?
Private Joker: A peace symbol, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Where'd you get it?
Private Joker: I don't remember, sir.
Pogue Colonel: What is that you've got written on your helmet?
Private Joker: "Born to Kill", sir.
Pogue Colonel: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
Private Joker: No, sir.
Pogue Colonel: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you.
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?
Private Joker: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Private Joker: Our side, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Private Joker: Aye-aye, sir.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Congressman, member of the House of Representatives, Duncan Blasts "Useless" Air Marshal Service
Now Playing: TSA Air Marshal are more trouble - then they are help
Duncan Blasts "Useless" Air Marshal Service
Washington, DC -- Mr. DUNCAN: Madam Speaker, probably the most needless, useless agency in the entire Federal Government is the Air Marshal Service.
In the Homeland Security Appropriations bill we will take up next week, we will appropriate $860 million for this needless, useless agency. This money is a total waste: $860 million for people to sit on airplanes and simply fly back and forth, back and forth. What a cushy, easy job.
And listen to this paragraph from a front-page story in the USA Today last November: “Since 9/11, more than three dozen Federal air marshals have been charged with crimes, and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct. Cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding a human-trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from Afghanistan.''
Actually, there have been many more arrests of Federal air marshals than that story reported, quite a few for felony offenses. In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.
We now have approximately 4,000 in the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet they have made an average of just 4.2 arrests a year since 2001. This comes out to an average of about one arrest a year per 1,000 employees.
Now, let me make that clear. Their thousands of employees are not making one arrest per year each. They are averaging slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. Let me repeat that: we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest.
Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania wrote last year about the money feeding frenzy of the war on terror. And he wrote this: “Nearly 7 years after September 11, 2001,'' he wrote this last year, “what accounts for the vast discrepancy between the terrorist threat facing America and the scale of our response? Why, absent any evidence of a serious terror threat, is a war to on terror so enormous, so all-encompassing, and still expanding? The fundamental answer is that al Qaeda's most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes but to hijack our political system.”
“For a multitude of politicians, interest groups and professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and State governments and Federal agency officials, the war on terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, grant, and contract proposals.''
And finally, Professor Lustick wrote: “For the country as a whole, however, it has become maelstrom of waste.'' And there is no agency for which those words are more applicable than the Federal Air Marshal Service.
In case anyone is wondering, the Air Marshal Service has done nothing to me, and I know none of its employees. But I do know with absolute certainty that this $860 million we are about to give them could be better spent on thousands of other things.
As far as I'm concerned, it is just money going down a drain for the little good it will do. When we are so many trillions of dollars in debt, a national debt of over $13 trillion, we simply cannot afford to waste money in this way.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Obama - This Must Stop
Now Playing: The things that were crimes under Bush are crimes under Obama
To sign your name to the list click this link:
In the past few weeks, it has become common knowledge that Barack Obama has openly ordered the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, because he is suspected of participating in plots by Al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki denies these charges. No matter. Without trial or other judicial proceeding, the administration has simply put him on the to-be-killed list.
During this same period, a video leaked by whistleblowers in the military showing U.S. troops firing on an unarmed party of Iraqis in 2007, including two journalists, and then firing on those who attempted to rescue them – including two children – became public. As ugly as this video of the killing of 12 Iraqis was, the chatter recorded from the helicopter cockpit was even more chilling and monstrous. Yet the Pentagon said that there would be no charges against these soldiers; and the media focused on absolving them of blame – “they were under stress,” the story went, “and after all our brave men and women must be supported.” Meanwhile, those who leaked and publicized the video came under government surveillance and are targeted as “national security” threats.
Also during this period, the Pentagon acknowledged, after denials, a massacre near the city of Gardez, Afghanistan, on February 12, 2010, in which 5 people were killed, including two pregnant women, leaving 16 children motherless. The U.S. military first said the two men killed were insurgents, and the women, victims of a family “honor killing.” The Afghan government has accepted the eyewitness reports that U.S. Special Forces killed the men, (a police officer and lawyer) and the women, and then dug their own bullets out of the women’s bodies to destroy evidence. Top U.S. military officials have now admitted that U.S. soldiers killed the family in their house.
Just weeks earlier, a story broken in Harper’s by Scott Horton carried news that three supposed suicides of detainees in Guantánamo in 2006 were not actual suicides, but homicides carried out by American personnel. This passed almost without comment.
In some respects, this is worse than Bush. First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of “terrorism,” merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly. Second, Obama says that the government can detain you indefinitely, even if you have been exonerated in a trial, and he has publicly floated the idea of “preventive detention." Third, the Obama administration, in expanding the use of unmanned drone attacks, argues that the U.S. has the authority under international law to use such lethal force and extrajudicial killing in sovereign countries with which it is not at war.
Such measures by Bush were widely considered by liberals and progressives to be outrages and were roundly, and correctly, protested. But those acts which may have been construed (wishfully or not) as anomalies under the Bush regime, have now been consecrated into “standard operating procedure” by Obama, who claims, as did Bush, executive privilege and state secrecy in defending the crime of aggressive war.
Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him or any future president, Democrat or Republican.
We must end the complicity of silence and say loud and clear:
The things that were crimes under Bush are crimes under Obama.
Outrages under Bush are outrages under Obama.
All this MUST STOP.
And all this MUST BE RESISTED by anyone who claims a shred of conscience or integrity.
You are not logged in. Log in
5-5-5 Social Distance
ANYBODY * ANYDAY
BIG MONEY PLAYERS
Economy and Labor
FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Privacy & Security
SMILE SMILE SMILE