|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:
Do any of the democrat supporters around here hope that Pelosi wins the minority leadership position again?
No, but I'll admit that I haven't looked enough in depth into what is and isn't good about her and that's just piggybacking on my increased disdain for mainstream Congressional Democrats in recent times.
|
On November 30 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
Diversity is nice to have for a number of reasons, but it falls lower on the list than other things.
The resulting segregation is a symptom of other systemic disparities. That is what the concern is, and it can be viewed from a non-racial (or less racial) lens. Like, let's say that some families can't send their kids to a better school in a different district because they can't afford the transportation. And then the school in their district gets worse because it gets less funding because students (who can afford it) move to other districts. It's just more of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So much for education being the ladder upwards. The real problem is that too many people want to use schools to fix problems that schools aren't meant to fix. Schools are at best a band aid for the problems that broken families spawn. What problems exactly? And not to jump too far ahead, how are schools only a band aid? All of them? Poverty, drug abuse, crime -- pretty much everything that plagues inner city communities. All of these problems have a far lesser frequency where families stay together and have relatively intra-family health relationships. School simply can't replace the deadbeat dad who takes off and is uninvolved in his children's lives. School isn't meant to raise children. That's up to the parents. Much like manufacturing, the traditional 2 parent home isn't a magical cure to social ills, it's really something that existed in the past. Both still exist, but we can't expect a return to those things and for everything to be hunky dory. That aside, that's not the argument. The issue is that school vouchers exacerbate the disparity in the quality of education. Many public schools are chronically underfunded, and since it's more or less dollars per head in a simplified (but pretty accurate) scenario if there are two districts, all those who can move to the better one, which deprives the poorer one of needed funding. Beyond that, the ones with the means to move districts ALSO tend to be the ones who are more involved in their childrens' education. And then the better teachers want to work for the better district with better students... it's a positive feedback loop in a dozen different ways. Anecdotally, my selective admissions high school was the best in the state and (theoretically) would be well funded, but I had teachers who would give us raggedy old handouts and make us return them so the next year of students could use them. Do you not think that that there would be vast improvement in the shitty inner city schools if the societies where these schools are located improved greatly?
So how do you suggest we improve the underlying problems with our society? Rip off the band aid and let the patient bleed to death?
|
On November 30 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
Diversity is nice to have for a number of reasons, but it falls lower on the list than other things.
The resulting segregation is a symptom of other systemic disparities. That is what the concern is, and it can be viewed from a non-racial (or less racial) lens. Like, let's say that some families can't send their kids to a better school in a different district because they can't afford the transportation. And then the school in their district gets worse because it gets less funding because students (who can afford it) move to other districts. It's just more of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So much for education being the ladder upwards. The real problem is that too many people want to use schools to fix problems that schools aren't meant to fix. Schools are at best a band aid for the problems that broken families spawn. What problems exactly? And not to jump too far ahead, how are schools only a band aid? All of them? Poverty, drug abuse, crime -- pretty much everything that plagues inner city communities. All of these problems have a far lesser frequency where families stay together and have relatively intra-family health relationships. School simply can't replace the deadbeat dad who takes off and is uninvolved in his children's lives. School isn't meant to raise children. That's up to the parents. Much like manufacturing, the traditional 2 parent home isn't a magical cure to social ills, it's really something that existed in the past. Both still exist, but we can't expect a return to those things and for everything to be hunky dory. That aside, that's not the argument. The issue is that school vouchers exacerbate the disparity in the quality of education. Many public schools are chronically underfunded, and since it's more or less dollars per head in a simplified (but pretty accurate) scenario if there are two districts, all those who can move to the better one, which deprives the poorer one of needed funding. Beyond that, the ones with the means to move districts ALSO tend to be the ones who are more involved in their childrens' education. And then the better teachers want to work for the better district with better students... it's a positive feedback loop in a dozen different ways. Anecdotally, my selective admissions high school was the best in the state and (theoretically) would be well funded, but I had teachers who would give us raggedy old handouts and make us return them so the next year of students could use them. Do you not think that that there would be vast improvement in the shitty inner city schools if the societies where these schools are located improved greatly? So how do you suggest we improve the underlying problems with our society? Rip off the band aid and let the patient bleed to death?
That's the big question, isn't it? All I know is that the solution can't be imposed from the top down. It has to start at the local/community level. Sure, it could involve some federal funding, but it has to be about boots on the ground. Probably the best organizations to use would be churches and other faith-based outfits.
|
In the days following Donald Trump's presidential victory, students in Kansas chanted, "Trump won, you're going back to Mexico," to students from other countries, according to a high school teacher in a suburban community within the state.
...
Those are just a few of the examples given by more than 10,000 educators, 90% of whom are teachers, who responded to an online survey sponsored by Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is dedicated to reducing prejudice and improving relations among school children across the country. The organization has been critical of Donald Trump following comments from the candidate it characterized as fueling racism and bigotry. The educators were asked to answer a series of questions about the climate at their schools following the presidential election.
In the first national snapshot of what teachers are observing, nine out of 10 educators who responded to the survey said the election has negatively impacted students' behavior and mood. Forty percent said they have heard derogatory language used against students of color, Muslims, immigrants and other students based on gender or sexual orientation.
CNN
|
On November 30 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
Diversity is nice to have for a number of reasons, but it falls lower on the list than other things.
The resulting segregation is a symptom of other systemic disparities. That is what the concern is, and it can be viewed from a non-racial (or less racial) lens. Like, let's say that some families can't send their kids to a better school in a different district because they can't afford the transportation. And then the school in their district gets worse because it gets less funding because students (who can afford it) move to other districts. It's just more of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So much for education being the ladder upwards. The real problem is that too many people want to use schools to fix problems that schools aren't meant to fix. Schools are at best a band aid for the problems that broken families spawn. What problems exactly? And not to jump too far ahead, how are schools only a band aid? All of them? Poverty, drug abuse, crime -- pretty much everything that plagues inner city communities. All of these problems have a far lesser frequency where families stay together and have relatively intra-family health relationships. School simply can't replace the deadbeat dad who takes off and is uninvolved in his children's lives. School isn't meant to raise children. That's up to the parents. Much like manufacturing, the traditional 2 parent home isn't a magical cure to social ills, it's really something that existed in the past. Both still exist, but we can't expect a return to those things and for everything to be hunky dory. That aside, that's not the argument. The issue is that school vouchers exacerbate the disparity in the quality of education. Many public schools are chronically underfunded, and since it's more or less dollars per head in a simplified (but pretty accurate) scenario if there are two districts, all those who can move to the better one, which deprives the poorer one of needed funding. Beyond that, the ones with the means to move districts ALSO tend to be the ones who are more involved in their childrens' education. And then the better teachers want to work for the better district with better students... it's a positive feedback loop in a dozen different ways. Anecdotally, my selective admissions high school was the best in the state and (theoretically) would be well funded, but I had teachers who would give us raggedy old handouts and make us return them so the next year of students could use them. Do you not think that that there would be vast improvement in the shitty inner city schools if the societies where these schools are located improved greatly? So how do you suggest we improve the underlying problems with our society? Rip off the band aid and let the patient bleed to death?
I mean that is how Trump got elected.
He might screw everything up and make America terrible but atleast we are changing something!
|
On November 30 2016 03:15 zlefin wrote:
This is reminiscent of a possible problem I see in many tax credit and subsidies:
they benefit those who are good at managing their money. People who know how to use every credit, bonus, loophole, and deduction. People who are good at saving their money and living frugally.
IIRC there are some stats on the utilization rates (that is, how many people eligible for a program make use of it), but I'm not sure where they all are.
the concern is that some things give more of a benefit for good money manager than bad; but in practice people who're good with their money probably tend to have fewer problems in general and deal wtih them better. While people who're bad at managing their money are more likely to need help; (or at least that's my guess, it seems very plausible, though I'd want it verified of course).
So in terms of program design, it's something I'd like to factor in.
this seems to be somewhat parallel to the issue of some school choice programs providing more benefit to children of parents who are actively involved with their children's education.
The solution is to
1-make getting the benefit/loophole/credit as easy as possible (best way is to make it universal)
2-make use of the money for X purpose easy (make sure those that would take the money provide proper information, etc.)
Whatever society does (for children) is going to benefit (children of) involved people more
*the () are removable.
The disparity is not a problem... the problem is bringing up the minimum.
(also involved parents benefit all children).... if schools compete for involved parents, they will also improve for children of uninvolved parents that are able to attend...so it is about improving the ability of all parents to attend schools that the involved parents are going to.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Since we're using this term of "involved parents".
I'm not confident that competing for the involved parents also works for the uninvolved parents. In other words, I'm not confident that the same school system that works best for involved parents works best for uninvolved parents. I'm also not confident having a classroom with children of varying levels of parental involvement isn't one of the things involved parents are trying to avoid.
Additionally, certain parents/guardians might value other factors more than the quality of their children's education.
In general, your involved parents are going to respond quickest to any perceived difference in quality of education and anything that might factor into it. These parents may even bite the bullet and shell out for private school. Your uninvolved parents aren't going to really budge in comparison.
Given this difference in response, the short term way for the school administrator or politician to keep voting population as happy as possible is:
- segregate your involved parents from uninvolved parents and treat their kids differently
- promote a policy where involved parents segregate themselves from the uninvolved parents
This is what I think the Charter School Vouchers policy is.
|
Well charter schools themselves seem to come with a lot of risk themselves since there is a good chance the school is shit and many states have little regulation.
|
what you're proposing is condemning kids who have families which by choice or otherwise are not engaged in their children's wellbeing and education to be with only other students with shitty families at schools with less funding. it bears repeating that this sort of segregation, which is not necessarily along racial lines, merely reinforces the divide between the haves and the hvae nots instead of education being a ladder of opportunity.
xdaunt makes a good point about interventions of various sorts outside the classroom to address wellbeing and not merely education/ the schools, with my only minor quibble being that he recommends it bedone through religious orgs.
|
I've seen two news stories suggest Trump picks McConnell's wife for DoT. Ones politico. So much for draining the swamp. Consider McConnells big spending habits, and now just add in his wife ready to help get Trump's ear on the $1T planned spending.
On November 30 2016 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 30 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
Diversity is nice to have for a number of reasons, but it falls lower on the list than other things.
The resulting segregation is a symptom of other systemic disparities. That is what the concern is, and it can be viewed from a non-racial (or less racial) lens. Like, let's say that some families can't send their kids to a better school in a different district because they can't afford the transportation. And then the school in their district gets worse because it gets less funding because students (who can afford it) move to other districts. It's just more of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So much for education being the ladder upwards. The real problem is that too many people want to use schools to fix problems that schools aren't meant to fix. Schools are at best a band aid for the problems that broken families spawn. What problems exactly? And not to jump too far ahead, how are schools only a band aid? All of them? Poverty, drug abuse, crime -- pretty much everything that plagues inner city communities. All of these problems have a far lesser frequency where families stay together and have relatively intra-family health relationships. School simply can't replace the deadbeat dad who takes off and is uninvolved in his children's lives. School isn't meant to raise children. That's up to the parents. Much like manufacturing, the traditional 2 parent home isn't a magical cure to social ills, it's really something that existed in the past. Both still exist, but we can't expect a return to those things and for everything to be hunky dory. That aside, that's not the argument. The issue is that school vouchers exacerbate the disparity in the quality of education. Many public schools are chronically underfunded, and since it's more or less dollars per head in a simplified (but pretty accurate) scenario if there are two districts, all those who can move to the better one, which deprives the poorer one of needed funding. Beyond that, the ones with the means to move districts ALSO tend to be the ones who are more involved in their childrens' education. And then the better teachers want to work for the better district with better students... it's a positive feedback loop in a dozen different ways. Anecdotally, my selective admissions high school was the best in the state and (theoretically) would be well funded, but I had teachers who would give us raggedy old handouts and make us return them so the next year of students could use them. Do you not think that that there would be vast improvement in the shitty inner city schools if the societies where these schools are located improved greatly? So how do you suggest we improve the underlying problems with our society? Rip off the band aid and let the patient bleed to death? That's the big question, isn't it? All I know is that the solution can't be imposed from the top down. It has to start at the local/community level. Sure, it could involve some federal funding, but it has to be about boots on the ground. Probably the best organizations to use would be churches and other faith-based outfits.
Why is it that all the best ideas are the ones that will run into the most political opposition? Past bandaids and present bandaids get all the lip service. I'm talking way back to people pushing through forced busing and the like. Can you imagine the church/state rhetoric that would fly having any sizable amount of federal funding directed that way with the obvious accompanying publicity?
|
On November 30 2016 05:35 Danglars wrote:
I've seen two news stories suggest Trump picks McConnell's wife for DoT. Ones politico. So much for draining the swamp. Consider McConnells big spending habits, and now just add in his wife ready to help get Trump's ear on the $1T planned spending.
At times like this I comfort myself by trying to imagine who Hillary Clinton would have appointed if she had the chance in Trump's place.
We sort of get pond scum all around either way.
|
there's a lot of things that can be done outside schools to address social factors and the like (or even in schools if the fundings there). But throwing all the disadvantaged kids into a school with much lower funding just makes the situation worse especially because in many ways the only way to break out of the cycle is to get an education and go off to college. I just see school choice as increasing the inequity between schools if funding isn't addressed. I don't care what happens with school choice as long as inequities in funding are also addressed because I find that to be the much more pressing issue.
My parents both work in the school system in a poor county (rural not urban) so I can go into more detail if you like on it.
Also charter schools aren't some magic solution to the problem. They have all sorts of their own problems (My mother is vice principal at one so I could go on for pages about issues). There are good ones bad one, and ones in the middle but more charter schools isn't going to magically fix the problems that are their.
|
On November 30 2016 05:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 05:35 Danglars wrote:
I've seen two news stories suggest Trump picks McConnell's wife for DoT. Ones politico. So much for draining the swamp. Consider McConnells big spending habits, and now just add in his wife ready to help get Trump's ear on the $1T planned spending. At times like this I comfort myself by trying to imagine who Hillary Clinton would have appointed if she had the chance in Trump's place. We sort of get pond scum all around either way.
Not Ben Carson or very-recent-if-not-current-foreign-lobbyist General Flynn, that's for sure.
|
A longtime business and lobbying partner of Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign manager who was ousted last summer over his ties to a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, has resurfaced as a key figure in planning the Trump inauguration, according to four Republican sources familiar with matter.
The business partner, Rick Gates, was not mentioned in the Trump transition team’s Nov. 15 public announcement naming the members of the inaugural committee. But behind the scenes Gates is serving as the chief deputy to Thomas Barrack, the private equity investor and close friend of Trump who is inaugural chairman, the sources said.
...
Manafort’s resignation came after disclosures that Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau was investigating entries in a ledger book supposedly showing $12.7 million in “off the books” payments to Manafort between 2007 and 2012 from the Party of Regions headed by Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych is the former Ukrainian president, aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who fled the country in 2014 and now lives in Moscow. Manafort has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the payments.
Gates was Manafort’s deputy on the Party of Regions account while their firm, Davis Manafort International, advised Yunukovych’s election campaigns.
...
Gates did not respond to email and phone requests for comment. But sources said that he quietly weathered the storm of Manafort’s resignation and continued to do major work on the Trump campaign, serving a key role as a liaison to the Republican National Committee.
Manafort left the Trump campaign under a cloud as the Associated Press and others, including Yahoo News, reported that he and Gates were the go-betweens in hiring two high-powered Washington firms to secretly lobby for Yanukovych’s party, under the cover of representing a Belgian nonprofit group. According to a source close to the Ukrainian government, those allegations prompted an inquiry by the FBI into possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The status of that investigation is unclear. (Manafort recently told NBC News he was unaware of any FBI investigation.) Bloomberg News reported this week that Manafort has recently quietly resurfaced in Trump’s camp and has been in regular contact with Vice President-elect Mike Pence and other members of the transition team, as well as inaugural chair Barrack, with whom he has a longtime relationship.
Yahoo
|
I don't have a problem with appointing Chao as Transportation Secretary. Trump is buying off McConnell for relative chump change so that he can lock up support for his larger agenda.
|
I'm a little annoyed that everyone waited till now to bring up these kind of conflict of interest things. I would have rather this actually talked about instead of pointless arguing over the same things. A lot of them I think are a bit overstated but this time he's actually in violation of his lease (at least he appears to be)
Among Donald Trump's many potential conflicts of interest, one stands out: His organization's lease with the federal government to redevelop and run a luxury hotel in the iconic Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol.
How, critics wondered, could President Trump become his own landlord?
Now comes a new twist: Two federal procurement experts are arguing that not only will Trump have an ethics challenge — he will be in violation of the terms of the lease as soon as he takes the oath of office.
Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, and Daniel I. Gordon, a senior advisor to GW's Government Procurement Law Program (and President Obama's first administrator for federal procurement policy) pointed out this week in Government Executive magazine that a provision in Trump's lease with the General Services Administration states that "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom..."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-will-violate-dc-hotel-lease-taking-office-say-experts-n689146
|
On November 30 2016 05:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:I'm a little annoyed that everyone waited till now to bring up these kind of conflict of interest things. I would have rather this actually talked about instead of pointless arguing over the same things. A lot of them I think are a bit overstated but this time he's actually in violation of his lease (at least he appears to be) Show nested quote +Among Donald Trump's many potential conflicts of interest, one stands out: His organization's lease with the federal government to redevelop and run a luxury hotel in the iconic Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol.
How, critics wondered, could President Trump become his own landlord?
Now comes a new twist: Two federal procurement experts are arguing that not only will Trump have an ethics challenge — he will be in violation of the terms of the lease as soon as he takes the oath of office.
Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, and Daniel I. Gordon, a senior advisor to GW's Government Procurement Law Program (and President Obama's first administrator for federal procurement policy) pointed out this week in Government Executive magazine that a provision in Trump's lease with the General Services Administration states that "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom..."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-will-violate-dc-hotel-lease-taking-office-say-experts-n689146
Wha?
Potential conflicts of interests and his intent to not completely sever ties with his businesses were mentioned multiple times during the election.
Its just that (as with so many Trump issues) no one cared enough about it.
|
On November 30 2016 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 05:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:I'm a little annoyed that everyone waited till now to bring up these kind of conflict of interest things. I would have rather this actually talked about instead of pointless arguing over the same things. A lot of them I think are a bit overstated but this time he's actually in violation of his lease (at least he appears to be) Among Donald Trump's many potential conflicts of interest, one stands out: His organization's lease with the federal government to redevelop and run a luxury hotel in the iconic Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol.
How, critics wondered, could President Trump become his own landlord?
Now comes a new twist: Two federal procurement experts are arguing that not only will Trump have an ethics challenge — he will be in violation of the terms of the lease as soon as he takes the oath of office.
Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, and Daniel I. Gordon, a senior advisor to GW's Government Procurement Law Program (and President Obama's first administrator for federal procurement policy) pointed out this week in Government Executive magazine that a provision in Trump's lease with the General Services Administration states that "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom..."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-will-violate-dc-hotel-lease-taking-office-say-experts-n689146 Wha? Potential conflicts of interests and his intent to not completely sever ties with his businesses were mentioned multiple times during the election. Its just that (as with so many Trump issues) no one cared enough about it.
Maybe. seemed to me people mentioned it a few times but never really went into much detail on it. Good point though that nobody seemed to care about it
|
Of all the things there is to worry about in a Trump presidency, him using his post to give his business (a luxury real estate business, mind you, not something like Haliburton) a boost is pretty far down my list of concerns.
He might have a few more foreign guests than average stay at his hotels as he bumps up the price ridiculously high and he might get his company a few more government contracts for fancy real estate in prime locations. There are worse things that could be worried about.
|
On November 30 2016 06:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 05:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:I'm a little annoyed that everyone waited till now to bring up these kind of conflict of interest things. I would have rather this actually talked about instead of pointless arguing over the same things. A lot of them I think are a bit overstated but this time he's actually in violation of his lease (at least he appears to be) Among Donald Trump's many potential conflicts of interest, one stands out: His organization's lease with the federal government to redevelop and run a luxury hotel in the iconic Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol.
How, critics wondered, could President Trump become his own landlord?
Now comes a new twist: Two federal procurement experts are arguing that not only will Trump have an ethics challenge — he will be in violation of the terms of the lease as soon as he takes the oath of office.
Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, and Daniel I. Gordon, a senior advisor to GW's Government Procurement Law Program (and President Obama's first administrator for federal procurement policy) pointed out this week in Government Executive magazine that a provision in Trump's lease with the General Services Administration states that "No ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom..."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-will-violate-dc-hotel-lease-taking-office-say-experts-n689146 Wha? Potential conflicts of interests and his intent to not completely sever ties with his businesses were mentioned multiple times during the election. Its just that (as with so many Trump issues) no one cared enough about it. Maybe. seemed to me people mentioned it a few times but never really went into much detail on it. Good point though that nobody seemed to care about it
I'd say plenty of people were concerned about it, and it got covered some. There's just such a long list of things wrong with trump that this particular one didn't get mentioned so much.
Just some fairly predictable corruption though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
