Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for January 8th, 2019

Amusing juxtaposition re: Dietary laws—the similarity of Muscovy Duck and Coca-Cola

leave a comment »

Take a look at this earlier post, and then read this: “Can Mormons Drink Coca-Cola?

As is so often the case with direct questions, the answer begins, “Well, you gotta understand, it’s not just one, two, three.”

No, Indeed.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 8:52 pm

Posted in Daily life, Food, Religion

Ocasio-Cortez called Trump a racist. The White House response may have proved her point.

leave a comment »

Eugene Scott writes in the Washington Post:

In a “60 Minutes” interview that aired on CBS on Sunday night, Anderson Cooper asked freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “Do you believe President Trump is a racist?” The New York congresswoman didn’t even pause before responding: “Yeah. Yeah. No question.”

The Trump administration hit back almost immediately by dismissing the 29-year-old’s intelligence. A White House statement said that Ocasio-Cortez’s “sheer ignorance on the matter can’t cover the fact that President Trump supported and passed historic criminal justice reform,” adding that the president has also “repeatedly condemned racism and bigotry in all forms.”

It’s a telling response, one that displays the White House’s lack of awareness about why nearly 6 in 10 Americans agree with Ocasio-Cortez’s opinion that the president is a racist, according to a February 2018 Associated Press poll.

For starters, the fact that the Trump White House — an administration known for its lack of diversity — accused a young Latina woman of “ignorance” on the matter of racism didn’t go unnoticed.

And it reflects what many people see as a broader pattern of disrespect toward Americans of color.

After nearly 20 years, the president has yet to apologize for calling for the death of five Latino and black teenagers who were wrongly accused of assaulting a white woman in Central Park. When the topic of police brutality of people of color arises, Trump has criticized black activists affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement and gone so far as to call NFL players protesting racism and police violence profane names.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say: ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He’s fired. He’s fired,’ ” the president said to roaring applause in Huntsville, Ala., at a 2017 campaign rally. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 8:40 pm

Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What’s right, wrong and still unclear?

leave a comment »

Time for a stock-taking of the dossier. Marshall Cohen and Jeremy Herb report at CNN:

It’s a document that became so famous — or infamous — in the two years since its existence was reported that it’s now known by a simple two-word phrase: the dossier.

The controversial 35 pages of intelligence memos compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele paint a picture of widespread conspiracy of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. To Democrats and President Donald Trump’s critics, the documents tell a story that could amount to treason.

To Trump and some of his loudest defenders, the dossier was flawed from its inception, abused by the FBI to pursue an investigation into Trump’s team that preceded the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump has said the memos are “phony” and full of lies, and has pointed out that the project was funded by his political opponents, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It was two years ago, January 6, 2017, that then-FBI Director James Comey briefed President-elect Trump about some details from the dossier. Days later, CNN broke the story of that briefing and reported that the FBI was investigating the accuracy of the allegations. CNN did not publish the dossier, because of its unverified status, but BuzzFeed soon posted all the memos online “so that Americans can make up their own minds.”

The most salacious claims in the dossier remain unproven two years after it first burst into the public conversation, but many of the allegations that form the bulk of the intelligence memos have held up over time, or have proven to be at least partially true.

While the Steele dossier is largely known for one or two key unsavory details, here’s the full rundown of how Steele’s work holds up with what we now know about Trump’s team, their contacts with Russians and Russian election meddling.

Contacts between Trump’s team and Russians

The dossier contains allegations against several of Trump’s campaign officials and associates of having secret contacts with Russians during the campaign. Steele’s raw intelligence reports cited unnamed sources alleging these communications were part of a widespread effort to collude on the election and secure the White House for Trump.

When the memos spilled into public view, Trump and at least five other senior administration officials denied in emphatic and often sweeping terms that anyone involved in the campaign was in contact with Russians. But in the two years since those denials were issued, news reports and court filings revealed that at least 16 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition.

Steele’s memos lay out specific meetings that haven’t been corroborated. But his claim that there was regular contact between Trump’s campaign and Russians has held up over time. When he wrote his memos in 2016, hardly any of these contacts were publicly known. They have since been revealed in Mueller’s court filings, countless news reports and testimony on Capitol Hill.

Trump and his associates who were named in the dossier continue to vehemently deny any collusion.

Russian meddling in the 2016 election

While Trump and his supporters have seized on the most salacious, uncorroborated claims to discredit the dossier as a “pile of garbage,” much of Steele’s memos focused on Russia’s role interfering in the 2016 election. Steele’s intelligence memos detail a pattern and preference for Trump that have since been confirmed by the US intelligence community and indictments against Russians brought by Mueller’s investigation.

Steele, a former MI6 intelligence operative, has a history of working with US agencies, including the FBI, and helped with the corruption investigation into FIFA, the world soccer governing body. Steele’s dossier eventually made its way to the FBI, which cross-referenced Steele’s work with its own burgeoning investigation into Russian meddling.

Written in the midst of the campaign, Steele’s memos contained allegations that Russia was waging a broad effort to interfere, and Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the effort, motivated by his “fear and hatred” of Clinton. That assertion is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community and Trump’s handpicked intelligence leaders, though Trump himself has refused to unequivocally accept the conclusion that Putin was trying to help him.

Even Putin has seemingly endorsed the conclusion that he favored Trump’s candidacy. Asked during his summit with Trump last year in Helsinki, Finland, if he wanted Trump to win the election, Putin responded: “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal.”

The dossier said that the hacks against Democrats, which were publicly released by WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, were part of a wider Russian hacking effort. That has since been confirmed in Mueller’s court filings, and last year, the special counsel indicted a dozen Russian intelligence agents in connection with the hacks.

The dossier also noted efforts from the Russian government to exploit political divisions within the US and the Democratic Party after the bruising primary fight between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. A separate Mueller indictment dealt with disinformation efforts by a Kremlin-linked troll farm that played on those divisions. Since the 2016 election, social media companies have pulled thousands of accounts tied to Russia.

Trump’s real estate dealings in Russia

The dossier claimed that the Russians tried to influence Trump by offering him “sweetener” real estate deals, in hopes of drawing him closer to Moscow. The specific details about these purported deals haven’t been corroborated, but the dossier said Trump declined these offers.

Throughout the campaign, Trump said he had “nothing to do with Russia.” When the dossier was first published, there wasn’t any indication that Trump’s company was involved in Russia beyond the Miss Universe pageant that he hosted in Moscow in 2013.

But it recently became public knowledge that Trump pursued a lucrative project in Moscow deep into the 2016 campaign, and that his then-attorney Michael Cohen sought help from the Kremlin to move the project along. Cohen admitted these shocking details when he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow proposal, which never came to fruition.

Steele’s sources were right that Trump had recently explored business dealings in Russia. And his suggestion that it could be linked to the election has also been made by Mueller’s team. In court fillings, the special counsel said that the proposal “likely required” help from the Kremlin and highlighted how it overlapped with “sustained efforts” by the Russians to influence the election.

Potential Russian leverage on Trump

The most sensational claim in the dossier memos is that Trump was involved with prostitutes while he stayed at The Ritz-Carlton in Moscow during his trip there for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant — and that the Russians had this blackmail, or kompromat, on Trump.

Nothing has come to light to corroborate that allegation, and Trump has denied that it happened. “Does anyone really believe that story?” Trump said in January 2017. “I’m also very much of a germaphobe.”

Keith Schiller, who worked for years as Trump’s body man and accompanied Trump on the 2013 trip, told the House Intelligence Committee that the allegations were false. But he also testifiedthat he was offered five women to send to Trump’s hotel room — an offer he says he rejected and perceived as a joke, according to the GOP House Intelligence Committee Russia investigation report.

But not all leverage needs to be salacious in nature. The dossier included claims that Russian intelligence had compromising financial information about Trump.

Cohen’s guilty plea in November revealed that he had a phone call with a Kremlin aide in 2016 about the Trump Tower Moscow project. While Trump publicly said his business had no Russian ties, the Kremlin knew about the Moscow deal and could have revealed it at any time, theoretically even with recordings of the Cohen call.

Michael Cohen’s alleged trip to Prague

There still isn’t any public evidence to confirm the explosive claim from the dossier that Cohen secretly met Russian officials in Prague to coordinate Kremlin interference in the election and do damage control if the alleged collusion was exposed or if Clinton won.

Last year, Cohen’s lawyer at the time told the House Intelligence Committee that his client “has never traveled to Prague, Czech Republic, as evidenced by his US passport” and that Cohen “did not participate in meetings of any kind with Kremlin officials in Prague in August 2016.”

Cohen repeated his blanket denials in recent weeks.

He has cooperated with Mueller, and prosecutors said in a court filing he provided “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation.” Cohen says he has shared “everything” with Mueller and that the Prague claims are false.

Michael Flynn’s paid trip to Moscow

Another allegation that’s proven true: Steele’s sources noted that the Russian government had indirectly paid Michael Flynn to travel to Moscow, a reference to his attendance at a 2015 gala honoring the state-run broadcaster RT.

Flynn, who later advised Trump’s campaign and was briefly Trump’s national security adviser, denied during the campaign that he received any payments from Russia.

But a bipartisan inquiry by the House Oversight Committee in early 2017 revealed Flynn was paid more than $33,000 by the Kremlin-funded network to attend the black-tie event and participate in a question-and-answer session.

2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein also attended the event and was seated at the same table as Flynn and Putin. The dossier said Stein was similarly paid to participate, and the Senate Intelligence Committee is looking into her Russian ties. She denies accepting any payments.

Carter Page’s meetings with Russians . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 8:07 pm

President Trump is entering his terrible twos

leave a comment »

Excellent column in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank:

He shuts down the government, maybe for “years.” He wants a wall that is “transparent,” then concrete, then slatted, then steel. One moment he’s leaving Syria, the next he isn’t. He’s watching too much TV and yelling at everyone.

This is all to be expected. President Trump is entering his terrible twos.

The Trump presidency turns two this month, and though we often hear the mantra “this is not normal,” what the president is doing actually is normal. For a 2-year-old.

If you want to understand this White House, turn off Wolf Blitzer and pick up Benjamin Spock. The ninth edition of the late pediatrician’s famous guide, first published in 1946, tells us all we need to know about this presidency as it approaches its second birthday:

“This can be a physically exhausting and trying time.”

The 2-year-old “has a hard time making up his mind, and then he wants to change it,” his “understanding of the world is still so limited,” and “he becomes bolder and more daring in his experiments.”

“A battle of wills with a two-year-old is tiring.”

“Two is a great age for whining.”

One moment, Trump says the furloughed workers are Democrats, who oppose the wall. The next moment, Trump says the furloughed workers support his stand. Dr. Spock anticipated this: “Negativism reaches new heights and takes new forms after two.” The “two-and-a-half-year-old . . . even contradicts herself.”

Trump rails about being persecuted by “THE HATERS AND THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA.” Dr. Spock anticipated this, too: “She acts like a person who feels she is being bossed too much, even when no one is bothering her and even when she tries to boss others.”

Trump believes “my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.” Dr. Spock: “The child’s nature urges her to decide things for herself and resist pressure from other people. Trying to fight this battle without much worldly experience seems to get her tightened up inside.”

And the terrible twos are defined by tantrums, which, Dr. Spock wrote, “usually start around age one” — Trump was precocious — “peak around age two to three” and are worse for “children who are less flexible.” So buckle up.

How to deal with Trump? I called my teenage daughter’s pediatricians for advice. “The behavior is natural,” explains Dr. Howard Bennett. Two-year-olds “are living in an adult world but they don’t have all the tools they need to see how the world is structured. That’s why they have conflict with their parents.”

In this case, we are Trump’s parents — the electorate, members of Congress, the media, all of us. (I challenge him to produce a birth certificate showing otherwise.) And, according to Dr. Spock, we’re doing it all wrong.

It was a mistake to leave him alone in the White House during the holidays, tweeting forlornly. Children left alone “for long periods, even though they are crying for company,” Dr. Spock wrote, are “learning that the world is a mean place.”

Dr. Spock also explained Trump’s petulance during his televised meeting with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: “A child might just feel outnumbered when she has to take on two important people at once.” And Trump’s subsequent attacks on Schumer while ignoring Pelosi? “It’s more often the father who is particularly unpopular at this period,” Dr. Spock wrote.

Clearly, White House aides are giving him too much “executive time.” Dr. Spock strongly opposed TV for 2-year-olds, “because it does all the work” for them. This is how Fox News ordered the shutdown.

But Democrats should quiet the impeachment talk and name-calling: “Young children who see parents using hurtful language or threats often develop similar troublesome behaviors.” Instead, “You might say, ‘I know how angry you feel toward me when I have to say no to you.’ ”

Respecting allies is not developmentally appropriate for Trump — as Jim Mattis learned. “Two-year-olds don’t play cooperatively with each other very much,” Dr. Spock wrote. “There is no point in trying to teach a two-year-old to share; he simply isn’t ready.”

And when Trump has a tantrum, “it doesn’t help to yell at your child, threaten punishment, plead for calm, or try too hard to ‘make everything better.’ ” This “just tends to make tantrums last longer.” Instead, ignore the outburst, and later, “a quick word of praise along the lines of ‘Nice job pulling yourself together’ can let your child salvage some self-esteem.”

Nice job pulling yourself together after announcing the Syria pullout, Mr. President. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 7:44 pm

Did CIA Director Gina Haspel run a black site at Guantánamo?

leave a comment »

I certainly would not be surprised. She seems totally comfortable with torturing suspects (aka extreme interrogation techniques). Carol Rosenberg reports for McClatchy:

An attorney for the accused architect of the Sept. 11 attacks told a judge in a secret session last year that CIA Director Gina Haspel ran a secret agency outpost at Guantánamo, an apparent reference to a post-9/11 black site, according to a recently declassified transcript.

The claim by Rita Radostitz, a lawyer for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, appears in one paragraph of a partially redacted transcript of a secret hearing held at Guantánamo on Nov. 16. Defense lawyers were arguing, in a motion that ultimately failed, that Haspel’s role at the prison precludes the possibility of a fair trial for the men accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks who were also held for years in covert CIA prisons.

Neither the public nor the accused was allowed to attend the hearing but, following an intelligence review, the Pentagon released portions of its transcript on a war court website.

Haspel reportedly ran a CIA black site in Thailand where two terror suspects were waterboarded, probably before her arrival there. The unverified statement that she had a similar assignment at the terror-detention center at the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would reveal a never-before disclosed chapter of the spy chief’s clandestine career.

The CIA declined to comment on the claim.

But in the transcript of a discussion about CIA torture and restrictions on the lawyers for the alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Radostitz notes that prosecutors claim they are “not trying to cover up the torture … But the one thing that they’re not willing to talk about is the names of the people involved in the torture.” Then, after a large censored section, she says, “it makes it impossible for people at Guantánamo, who may have seen her when she was here as chief of base, to identify her and talk about it.”

Chief of base is a CIA term for the officer in charge of a secret foreign outpost. A 2014 Senate study of the CIA’s network of secret overseas prisons, called black sites, said the CIA had two such secret prisons at Guantánamo in 2003 and 2004 — apart from the Pentagon’s Guantánamo prison known as Camp Delta. While the military prison commanders’ names were disclosed, those who served as CIA chief of base were not.

The CIA sent the alleged 9/11 conspirators and other “high-value detainees” to military detention at Guantánamo in September 2006 after the captives spent three or four years in secret spy agency custody. But at least one 9/11 defendant, Ramzi bin al Shibh, was earlier held at Guantánamo, according to the public portion of the 6,200-page Senate Intelligence Committee study of the CIA’s overseas prison program, known as the torture report.

It says the agency operated two black sites there — code named Maroon and Indigo — from September 2003 to April 2004 then spirited them away for fear their captives might be entitled to attorneys.

Former CIA counterterrorism officer John Kiriakou told McClatchy that he was offered theGuantánamo chief of base position in late 2002 or early 2003 — and declined. “Nobody wanted the job,” he said. So they resorted to sending people on temporary duty assignments ranging from six weeks to nine months, he said.

“If it was during one of those periods when they couldn’t find somebody to fill the billet it would’ve made sense that she would’ve been there a short period of time,” Kiriakou said, describing a Gitmo stint as essentially a ticket punch for some agents associated with the black site program. “So when I read it, although I was surprised by it, I kind of believed it.”

Former CIA analyst Gail Helt, now a professor of Security and Intelligence Studies at King University in Tennessee, said there’s been “a lot of shadiness” with the way the spy agency has spoken about Haspel’s agency career.

An official CIA timeline of Haspel’s 33-year career notes that the agency won’t disclose 30 short-term, temporary duty assignments she held over the course of her career, suggesting they were covert. “Was one of those at Guantánamo for a couple of months?,” said Helt. “I don’t have personal knowledge of that, and couldn’t discuss it if I did. But it doesn’t surprise me.” . . .

Continue reading. There’s more.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 6:54 pm

The Networks Blew the Call

leave a comment »

I have to agree with James Fallows on this. From the Atlantic:

On tuesday night, Donald Trump is planning to give an address on immigration, the southern border, and the government shutdown that has arisen from his insistence that any budget measure must include money for “the wall.”

When plans for the speech were announced on Monday evening, I opined on Twitter that it would be better for the major broadcasts not to carry the speech. There would have been crystal-clear precedent for their turning him down: In 2014, when Barack Obama gave a speech on his immigration-policy plans, neither CBS nor NBC nor ABC aired it live, on the argument that circumstances made the message “too political.” A closer parallel would be hard to find.

There was also a clearly unprecedented reason not to carry the speech: namely, that nearly everything Trump says on this topic is intentionally inflammatory and either carelessly or deliberately untrue. Politics always involves spin and selective emphasis, but the networks would know for sure ahead of time that they were using their resources to advance untruths.

But the networks said yes, they’ll presumably air the speech, and the question now is what else they can do to cope with the reality of an office holder who doesn’t care that he lies.

Below I make the case that the networks and other news organizations must themselves break precedent, to keep up with what Trump is trying to do. Knowing that Trump is going to attack the truth this evening, they must take active measures to defend it. They have this day to prepare. A commitment to real-time, onscreen fact-checking is at this point the most feasible goal for a speech mere hours away. In the longer run, all major media need to think about how to deal with the endless skein of choices like this they’ll face in the next two years.

It’s been nearly four years since Trump came onto the national-candidate scene. In that time, the “normal” media outlets have shown their near-helplessness against three of Trump’s most important weapons and tools.

One is the total impossibility of reestablishing the dividing line between news and entertainment. Back during Bill Clinton’s first term, I argued in Breaking the News that outlets had to be careful to remember that news and entertainmentwere not the same thing. Parents know that protein and vegetables are different from Mountain Dew and Spam. People filing suit or going on trial know that there’s a difference between a TV-style Judge Judy and a real, working magistrate. Schools are designed to be different from comedy clubs. And so, I argued, people in charge of the news had to remember to make their information as interesting as news could possibly be, rather than the most objectively interesting spectacle ever. In a contest for attention between entertainment and anything else, entertainment will always win. That’s what it’s for.

The challenge for the news media was to “make the important interesting,” rather than to search for the purely interesting. Car-crash footage or the last seconds of a sudden-death playoff game will always be more eye-catching than reports on a drought, or sexual-harassment patterns, or emergency-room standards, or a million other topics. But things that are merely interesting will never lack for coverage. The definition of news is that it attempts to explain things that matter, things that a democratic society needs to know about in order to make sane decisions.

Trump has been the most entertaining figure on the public stage since he came down the golden escalator in 2015. TV news, in particular, has therefore not been able to resist showing him (and his rallies) or talking about him. It’s the civic equivalent of seeing that 9-year-olds are guzzling down Mountain Dew and asking for more Spam, and just giving them more. Trump’s going live? Let’s switch to the White House! This needs to change.

The second, long discussed, is the difference between Trump and all previous figures when it comes to public lies. From Richard Nixon and long before to Bill Clinton and long after, normal public figures have told normal lies. That is, they have lied when they had to; they have lied when it was useful; they have lied when they thought they wouldn’t get caught.

Trump just lies. He doesn’t know, or he doesn’t care, about the difference between claims that are true and those that are obviously made up. (Daniel Dale, of the Toronto Star, has indefatigably cataloged Trump’s lies, at a rate of more than 100 a week.) Maybe 4,000 “terrorists” have been apprehended at the southern border? Maybe zero? Who can ever really know? Over the past week, Trump has claimed that former presidents “privately” told him they supported building his wall. All four living ex-presidents have taken the unusual step of denying that they said any such thing.It is very hard for the press to fact-check or otherwise cope with a figure of this sort. In exposing someone’s lies, they rely on the fact that he or she would care about being caught—much as religious or ethical leaders rely on the power of the guilty conscience.

Trump doesn’t care. He can’t be shamed. The press (except for Dale) tires of detailing his lies before Trump tires of telling them.

The third is the press’ whipped-dog cringe in anticipation of criticism about any supposed bias toward the left. The simplest illustration, again, is the contrast between their handling of Obama’s recent request in 2014 and this one by Trump. After the Obama decision, news executives lost not a moment of sleep out of concern about attacks from liberal groups for “right-wing bias.” They thought about it as a news decision, and presented it that way. But the certainty of an “enemy of the people!” onslaught by Trump, Fox News, and their allies indisputably weighed on the executives’ minds yesterday.

The network executives’ position has a lot in common with that of the Senate Republicans. Each group knows with perfect clarity what Trump is actually doing. The Senate Republicans know that Trump is using the wall as a distraction and life raft. They know that because they unanimously approved, by voice vote, a plan to keep the government open, with no mention of the wall, before Trump panicked in the face of criticism from Ann Coulter and Fox News. They could pass that resolution again tomorrow—but they won’t speak up in public, so fearful do they remain of being criticized, too. For their part, the network executives know exactly what Trump will do if given air time. (Though they also realize that the formal Oval Office speech is Trump’s weakest venue. He’s not good at reading prepared texts, with his trademark ad-libs of “That’s so true” when he encounters lines he has clearly never seen before.) But they are giving it to him.

They were not afraid of criticism for turning down Obama. They are afraid about what would happen if they turned down Trump. You can think of lots of explanations. But the difference is clear.

An instructive parallel:  . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 4:43 pm

Now THAT’s a lathering bowl! And shaving scuttle!

with 6 comments

Beautiful, eh? And easy to hold. Sold by Fendrihan, which has more photos. They say:

Junichi Tanaka Artisanal Lathering Bowl is a timeless and elegant accessory for any wet shaver. Meticulously crafted using Alberta sourced clay, each bowl takes six days to cool after undergoing the clay firing process. Once cooled, the bowl is finished with a stunning gloss and the artist’s signature which is located on the base. Use this functional piece of art to whip up a rich and luxurious lather from your favourite shaving soap. Even when not in use, this bowl makes a stunning addition to the bathroom. With exceptional quality and workmanship, the bowl is sturdy yet delicate and is an alternative to the popular Junichi Tanaka Artisanal Shaving Scuttle, both developed exclusively for Fendrihan.

A native of Japan, ceramic artist Mr. Junichi Tanaka established his wholesale business in 1998. Working out of his studio in Whonnock, British Columbia, his ceramic collection is found in artisanal shops throughout Canada. Fendrihan is proud to offer these rare commissioned pieces for our customers.

And that shaving scuttle? Here is it is (and more photos at the link):

 

 

Written by LeisureGuy

8 January 2019 at 4:08 pm

Posted in Art, Shaving

%d bloggers like this: