The real scandal is the long pattern of corrupt political leadership of Birmingham.
Birmingham was once an industrial capital, and in the middle of the last century was bigger than Atlanta, and in many ways better positioned economically to lead the south east. High taxes and a corrupt political culture drove Birmingham into the dirt. A couple generations later, Atlanta has one of the busiest airports in America, world-class universities, and hosted the Olympics, while Birmingham can't provide running water.
Elections DO matter. A major difference between Birmingham and Atlanta is that Birmingham became the poster city for racism because of the way Bull Conner responded to civil rights protesters in 1963. Atlanta, on the other hand, became known as "The City too Busy to Hate", and ever since the two cities have had drastically different fortunes.
I was watching a video of some Alabama state legislators discussing changes to the state's alcohol laws and came to the conclusion that Alabama is going to remain poor for a long time to come. Alvin Holmes in particular seems like an idiot. I do not write this just to be vulgar and insulting; the man honestly seems dumb and foolish. Several of his colleagues seemed to be almost as bad.
And this is why instead of a large city of Birmingham, you have a large amount of spun off mini-cities in the area each with their own schools and municipal infrastructure (Hoover, Mountain Brook, etc). Of the many friends I know that live in Birmingham, none of them actually technically live in the city of Birmingham.
He says he finds it cheaper to buy drums of water from a petrol station and pay a sanitation company about $14 a month to remove waste from his "porta-potty" than pay the combined sewer and water rate bill, which some months can reach $300.
What really happens at the very end after all of the brouhaha about derivatives, crooked politics, and mortgage disasters? The people go back to using outhouses. Pardon the pun: Shit just got real.
Sometimes, even GS finds itself on the wrong side of a bet. This certainly doesn't invalidate your point, but might give you the tiniest bit of solace.
"Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Aluminum stockpiles rose to a record and orders to withdraw metal from warehouses fell to a 15-month low amid speculation traders are adding to bets the commodity will extend its biggest slump since the global recession."
But the bill soared to $3.1bn after construction problems and a series of bond and derivatives deals that went sour in the financial meltdown of 2008.
Investment bank JP Morgan Securities and two of its former directors have been fined for offering bribes to Jefferson County workers and politicians to win business financing the sewer upgrade.
Fined? That level of punishment seems insufficient.
One wonders if the 'fine' for this sort of behavior could be 'JP Morgan will provide the city of Birmingham the infrastructure to provide sewer and water service to the town, once complete they will transfer all titles and interest over to the town at no charge.'
The current consequence of 'pay some fines' doesn't serve the public, nor does it discourage the abuse. Restitution here is that the city doesn't have a sewer and water system. By having JP Morgan fund the building and provisioning of such a system and then handing it over debt/bond free to the city, the city is made whole (they have their sewer system), JP Morgan is punished (they paid for it), and hopefully they are discouraged from future attempts at bribing folks.
It's pretty clear from the article that JP Morgan is not the sole cause of these problems:
"But the bill soared to $3.1bn after construction problems and a series of bond and derivatives deals that went sour in the financial meltdown of 2008...[the county] faces a budget shortfall next year of $40m after a local tax was declared illegal."
Clearly, someone involved with the construction is partially at fault, as are politicians for basing their budget on an illegal tax.
So it would certainly be excessive and unfair for JP Morgan to foot the bill for the entire sewer and water system.
Am I the only one here that believes that running water is a luxury, not a right?
I've been in some pretty shitty situations myself, though none as tough as this. That much I freely admit. But the overall tone of the article seems to be one of horror that people might not have a ceramic toilet which flushes the waste away to a sewage treatment plant. Also, an attitude of "This is a first world country; this shouldn't be happening to anyone". (Yes, I noticed the sidebar on "corruption")
Does everybody else think that running water/sewage is a right?
"Right" is a word made for arguing about. Let's forget the word "right".
Clean water and sanitation are pretty much the two things which most enable us to maintain population-dense cities. Lack of modern sanitation repeatedly led to horrific pandemics in the Middle Ages in Europe, culminating in the Black Death. I don't have any statistics handy, but one would expect the presence of sanitation to be as big a contribution to personal health as diet, and what's more, poor sanitation is sure to harm other people through disease transmission.
So yes, I believe that clean water and sanitation are very important to human life at scale; important enough that we should pay a sufficient tax, so that we can give them to people who can't afford to pay.
I do. This isn't 1511, it's 2011. We can make all kinds of appeals to the "noble savage" who survived just fine without porcelain bowls, but that would be disingenuous.
Even disregarding the sanitation, hygiene, and emotional impact of cutting people off from modern sewage, there are efficiency issues. The more time people spend digging latrines and putting up outhouses the less time they have to improve their own lot.
Imagine if we took away roads, and it took you two hours each way to get to the general store!
Infrastructure, luxury or not, are key to pulling this country out of the shit-pit (no pun intended) it's found itself in. Cutting people off from these essential services certainly won't help matters.
Sitting around debating whether or not people are crybabies for demanding modern sewage services, also doesn't help.
"Right" is a term of art. If you are denied a right, you can sue to get that right vindicated. So in that sense running water is not a right.
But what do "rights" have to do with this discussion? Running water may or may not be a right, but it's a basic feature of first world civilization. It is an embarrassment to the nation when a major county in the U.S. can't provide its citizens with running water, because of the greed and corruption of some politicians and some banks.
I was born in Bangladesh (where running water is indeed a luxury for most people), and my dad has spent his life working in public health (not running water, but vaccine programs and the like). These are problems to be dealt with in places like Uganda, not in the United States.
Of course its a luxury, but its a cheap and easy one. It can and should be considered a "solved problem" in the "developed" world that this luxury can be extended to all. Letting go of this luxury has health implications to society far beyond the poor it directly effects.
When we have no problem spending billions on foreign wars with dubious moral justifications but can't provide clean water to citizens we have serious priority issues. Its the first really dangerous symptom of what might be a truly horrifying underlying disease.
I'll upvote because I don't think you should be downvoted for expressing an unpopular opinion in a civil manner, and genuinely asking for input on it. But I don't agree.
It's not like we are talking about a small, rural town in middle-of-nowhere Alabama being cut off from cheap sewer access (we might expect this considering infrastructure costs of getting it all set up out that far away from cities). This is Jefferson County, which is the most populated county in Alabama. We've moved past expecting the bare minimum once we get into cities, and we expect a bit more competence from our local governments when it comes to dealing with these pretty basic issues. Without basic sanitation, we don't get large cities.
Certainly from a libertarian perspective, water and sewage are not. For philosophers like Rothbard, humans have a natural right to not being aggressed against--but not a right to, say, health. Similarly so for authors like Hoppe and Nozick.
All of them believing in libertarianism for consequentialist reasons as well, they would probably view this story as testament to the failures of government, and what happens when it is coopted by businesses.
Edit: I also want to disagree with the other commenters that issues of 'rights' don't matter. Sure, if you're only judging things by their consequences, then that discussion is moot. But having a moral position against the coercion of government (I'm going to take your money to build sewers, roads, engage in multiple wars, etc) is a legitimate stance--even if you disagree with it.
Interesting thought. I lived in Zambia for 6 years without running water and we got used to it. Fortunately for us, we had a gardner that spent half his day filling up our water drums...
My point is: I have been there and at the time didn't think much of it. But after living in the USA for 16+ years now, I can't even imagine being without running water.
So, is it a right or a luxury? I don't know... 17 years ago, I would have said luxury but now, my answer would be it's a right...
Sanitation and sewers are a public good. My health is directly affected by my neighbors' access to these things. Thus, it is in all of our interests to ensure that we all have access. Whether you call it a "right" or not doesn't much matter, I think. Bottom line is that it's something we ought to have, and cutting some people off from it will harm us all.
I'm kind of new-ish to HN, so I was wondering how you guys lean (if at all).
Also, it bothers me that there is usually no competition amongst utility providers. Where I live, we have one choice for electricity (short of generating your own), one choice for sewage (there _are_ other options, such as personal sewage systems), and one choice for garbage removal.
I think that if we could find ways to create more options, we could create a better situation for the folks in referenced in the article (and elsewhere).
False dichotomy. Access to running water is not a luxury. I think that word is too loaded to use technically here.
In the context of a country where running water is ubiquitous, it is a horror that people have no infrastructure providing running water. It's not a "right" in the platonic sense, but I think I can say fairly objectively that it comes close to that status. That's really all that matters.
What can you really do with the information that water should be a "luxury" in the technical sense? Leave everyone t their own devices?
I don't think it is a right but a public health necessity. This should never happen in a developed country. Sewerage pricing here (.au) is linked to property value so the poor pay less. Water is charged by the kL and while it may be expensive for large manicured gardens is quite affordable for basic hygiene.
It is incredibly callus to suggest that poor (mostly black) people do not deserve such basic necessities as drinkable water and sanitary disposal of their own excrement.
A right to reasonable access to sanitation, yes; the alternative is disease, and that's no good for anyone. That doesn't mean it should be free, of course.
If you're going to get that philosophical about "what is a right", you may as well just end up and state that only might makes right. It doesn't really add anything of real value to the conversation.
I mean, what rights aren't luxuries in some form or another? Voting? Luxury. Not being a slave? Luxury. You can still live, breathe, and procreate without access to either of those things.
So I wonder...should I point and laugh or sit down and cry. It's not my country, and I would never want to live in the US. How a country treats it's least fortunate says a lot about the country in general.
I don't think lowering the standard of living is going to get us very far in this world. What we desperately need is for everyone to contribute to society. This is usually done by having healthy citizens with a high level of education so we can find better ways of solving today's problems.
This isn't a matter of how the country treats it's least fortunate. The issue is biggest county bankruptcy in the history of the country. And the issue that caused that is a level of fraud of massive proportions. The county has $4.1 billion dollars of debt.
Unfortunately services provided by private companies are not a right. You can call access to water a "right" and that's a reasonable claim. Now what does that actually mean. Do I have the right to demand free water from a private company riddled with debt? Do I have the right to demand free water from you personally? Or for you to pay my bill? Or for my bill to be reduced to zero? Or for someone to work at a utility company for free so that the utility company can provide a free service? Does that then mean that the utility company has a right to demand free parts from local supplies companies so that the can provide a free service?
Maybe the utility companies should be nationalized and all citizens can contribute tax dollars to the service. It wouldn't surprise me if that's how it's done in a lot of Eurozone countries? I'm not sure. I don't even really understand how the fraud occured and who is on the hook for the bill. It is however fair to say that it's way more complicated than "how a country treat's it's least fortunate".
So I wonder...should I point and laugh or sit down and cry. It's not my country, and I would never want to live in the US. How a country treats it's least fortunate says a lot about the country in general.
You did notice that this was bout 'a' county, in 'a' state. And that there was no data in the article about how many people this problem affects.
Thinking this is representative of the country as a whole would be a big mistake.
Two steps back (lack of affordable clean water and lack of affordable sewage), hopefully the one step forward is going to be lack of government.
The leading problem in the western world is that the free market doesn't extend to government. I want to choose my politicians based on lowest expense and highest reward, because the electoral system seems to keep giving me the highest expense and the lowest rewards.
There are people who form groups that voluntarily get off of the grid to seek independence. No city water, no city sewage, no grocery shopping.
It seems to me that if most of these people are on welfare in an area with a pretty good climate and what appears to be (from the photos) low population density, this would lend itself very nicely to getting off of the grid.
Instead of relying on the government to support them, they could farm. Instead of worrying about running water and sewage, they could irrigate and fertilize. Instead of worrying about hydro bills for lighting they could use small scale solar.
How a country treats it's least fortunate says a lot about the country in general.
what a disgrace!!! the richest country in the world can't provide running water to its citizens... what a shame!!!
Did anyone else notice that the linked article doesn't come right out and tell us how many people are using outhouses instead of the city sewer? One lady who may cut off service, one guy who has. The number of guys like this is said to be growing.
Outrage is fine and dandy.
But shouldn't you find dig around so you know what you're outraged about?
I'm a resident of Jefferson County and a ratepayer for the sewer system, and as such I can confirm that while the portion of this article dealing with the political history and issues was fine, the opening personal part was quite misleading.
If you have a $300 water/sewer bill you're doing something absurd. We're a family of 6, and I am by no means conservative with my showers, wife takes a bath every night, 4 kids bathing regularly, and our bill has never been more than $100 for a month.
Having the sewer portion of the bill be the same as the water portion is bad, and there's no doubt it's a screwed up situation, but this is a typical case of a reporter seeking out outliers and presenting them as commonplace.
This might be a cultural difference. I'm from India.
But 'poor' people have cars in America(From the photos)? You guys get $600 per month for doing nothing(Social security)? Don't pay taxes and yet infrastructure benefits must reach you?
I don't really know what more the country can do for you guys. I mean paying individuals $600 per month for doing nothing, with which they can afford home, cars, food and clothing all this when the individual isn't even working.
I mean if this isn't sufficient, what is?
You really must come out of US and check the definition of 'poor' in other countries.
Here is a reason why you guys can never beat China. Because there people tend to be happy with ever little they get. But here in this case you have people complaining for stuff which is offered to them free at the first place.
P.S : I am software engineer here, who can barely afford a motorcycle and fuel. Let alone a car.
I suffered in Birmingham for almost 3yrs of my life. I realized the error in my ways and moved. The closet thing to a real politician was forced out a few years ago. Everyone else is bought
[+] [-] Newgy|14 years ago|reply
Birmingham was once an industrial capital, and in the middle of the last century was bigger than Atlanta, and in many ways better positioned economically to lead the south east. High taxes and a corrupt political culture drove Birmingham into the dirt. A couple generations later, Atlanta has one of the busiest airports in America, world-class universities, and hosted the Olympics, while Birmingham can't provide running water.
Elections matter.
[+] [-] UrbanPat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] absconditus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dp1234|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|14 years ago|reply
What really happens at the very end after all of the brouhaha about derivatives, crooked politics, and mortgage disasters? The people go back to using outhouses. Pardon the pun: Shit just got real.
[+] [-] mahyarm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muhfuhkuh|14 years ago|reply
And, now I read that Goldman Sachs is literally hoarding aluminum in gigantic warehouses to manipulate the market.
I wonder when people start to realize that concentrating money like this is not a good idea.
[+] [-] scottkduncan|14 years ago|reply
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-14/aluminum-glut-at...
"Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Aluminum stockpiles rose to a record and orders to withdraw metal from warehouses fell to a 15-month low amid speculation traders are adding to bets the commodity will extend its biggest slump since the global recession."
[+] [-] ericdykstra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cushman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donaldc|14 years ago|reply
Investment bank JP Morgan Securities and two of its former directors have been fined for offering bribes to Jefferson County workers and politicians to win business financing the sewer upgrade.
Fined? That level of punishment seems insufficient.
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|14 years ago|reply
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/five_men_convicted_in_je...
[+] [-] scarmig|14 years ago|reply
(Assuming they weren't well-connected to the upper ranks of the Party elite...)
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
The current consequence of 'pay some fines' doesn't serve the public, nor does it discourage the abuse. Restitution here is that the city doesn't have a sewer and water system. By having JP Morgan fund the building and provisioning of such a system and then handing it over debt/bond free to the city, the city is made whole (they have their sewer system), JP Morgan is punished (they paid for it), and hopefully they are discouraged from future attempts at bribing folks.
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|14 years ago|reply
"But the bill soared to $3.1bn after construction problems and a series of bond and derivatives deals that went sour in the financial meltdown of 2008...[the county] faces a budget shortfall next year of $40m after a local tax was declared illegal."
Clearly, someone involved with the construction is partially at fault, as are politicians for basing their budget on an illegal tax.
So it would certainly be excessive and unfair for JP Morgan to foot the bill for the entire sewer and water system.
[+] [-] JWLong|14 years ago|reply
Am I the only one here that believes that running water is a luxury, not a right?
I've been in some pretty shitty situations myself, though none as tough as this. That much I freely admit. But the overall tone of the article seems to be one of horror that people might not have a ceramic toilet which flushes the waste away to a sewage treatment plant. Also, an attitude of "This is a first world country; this shouldn't be happening to anyone". (Yes, I noticed the sidebar on "corruption")
Does everybody else think that running water/sewage is a right?
[+] [-] mquander|14 years ago|reply
Clean water and sanitation are pretty much the two things which most enable us to maintain population-dense cities. Lack of modern sanitation repeatedly led to horrific pandemics in the Middle Ages in Europe, culminating in the Black Death. I don't have any statistics handy, but one would expect the presence of sanitation to be as big a contribution to personal health as diet, and what's more, poor sanitation is sure to harm other people through disease transmission.
So yes, I believe that clean water and sanitation are very important to human life at scale; important enough that we should pay a sufficient tax, so that we can give them to people who can't afford to pay.
[+] [-] potatolicious|14 years ago|reply
Even disregarding the sanitation, hygiene, and emotional impact of cutting people off from modern sewage, there are efficiency issues. The more time people spend digging latrines and putting up outhouses the less time they have to improve their own lot.
Imagine if we took away roads, and it took you two hours each way to get to the general store!
Infrastructure, luxury or not, are key to pulling this country out of the shit-pit (no pun intended) it's found itself in. Cutting people off from these essential services certainly won't help matters.
Sitting around debating whether or not people are crybabies for demanding modern sewage services, also doesn't help.
[+] [-] rayiner|14 years ago|reply
But what do "rights" have to do with this discussion? Running water may or may not be a right, but it's a basic feature of first world civilization. It is an embarrassment to the nation when a major county in the U.S. can't provide its citizens with running water, because of the greed and corruption of some politicians and some banks.
I was born in Bangladesh (where running water is indeed a luxury for most people), and my dad has spent his life working in public health (not running water, but vaccine programs and the like). These are problems to be dealt with in places like Uganda, not in the United States.
[+] [-] noonespecial|14 years ago|reply
When we have no problem spending billions on foreign wars with dubious moral justifications but can't provide clean water to citizens we have serious priority issues. Its the first really dangerous symptom of what might be a truly horrifying underlying disease.
[+] [-] cobrausn|14 years ago|reply
It's not like we are talking about a small, rural town in middle-of-nowhere Alabama being cut off from cheap sewer access (we might expect this considering infrastructure costs of getting it all set up out that far away from cities). This is Jefferson County, which is the most populated county in Alabama. We've moved past expecting the bare minimum once we get into cities, and we expect a bit more competence from our local governments when it comes to dealing with these pretty basic issues. Without basic sanitation, we don't get large cities.
[+] [-] MaxGabriel|14 years ago|reply
All of them believing in libertarianism for consequentialist reasons as well, they would probably view this story as testament to the failures of government, and what happens when it is coopted by businesses.
Edit: I also want to disagree with the other commenters that issues of 'rights' don't matter. Sure, if you're only judging things by their consequences, then that discussion is moot. But having a moral position against the coercion of government (I'm going to take your money to build sewers, roads, engage in multiple wars, etc) is a legitimate stance--even if you disagree with it.
[+] [-] eibrahim|14 years ago|reply
My point is: I have been there and at the time didn't think much of it. But after living in the USA for 16+ years now, I can't even imagine being without running water.
So, is it a right or a luxury? I don't know... 17 years ago, I would have said luxury but now, my answer would be it's a right...
[+] [-] mikeash|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] estevez|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JWLong|14 years ago|reply
I'm kind of new-ish to HN, so I was wondering how you guys lean (if at all).
Also, it bothers me that there is usually no competition amongst utility providers. Where I live, we have one choice for electricity (short of generating your own), one choice for sewage (there _are_ other options, such as personal sewage systems), and one choice for garbage removal.
I think that if we could find ways to create more options, we could create a better situation for the folks in referenced in the article (and elsewhere).
Also, how do you guys define troll?
[+] [-] ezy|14 years ago|reply
In the context of a country where running water is ubiquitous, it is a horror that people have no infrastructure providing running water. It's not a "right" in the platonic sense, but I think I can say fairly objectively that it comes close to that status. That's really all that matters.
What can you really do with the information that water should be a "luxury" in the technical sense? Leave everyone t their own devices?
[+] [-] shirro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shallowwater|14 years ago|reply
So yes, you are trolling.
[+] [-] barrkel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iopuy|14 years ago|reply
I see what you did there.
[+] [-] vacri|14 years ago|reply
I mean, what rights aren't luxuries in some form or another? Voting? Luxury. Not being a slave? Luxury. You can still live, breathe, and procreate without access to either of those things.
[+] [-] hmottestad|14 years ago|reply
I don't think lowering the standard of living is going to get us very far in this world. What we desperately need is for everyone to contribute to society. This is usually done by having healthy citizens with a high level of education so we can find better ways of solving today's problems.
But sure...two steps back, one step forward.
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|14 years ago|reply
Unfortunately services provided by private companies are not a right. You can call access to water a "right" and that's a reasonable claim. Now what does that actually mean. Do I have the right to demand free water from a private company riddled with debt? Do I have the right to demand free water from you personally? Or for you to pay my bill? Or for my bill to be reduced to zero? Or for someone to work at a utility company for free so that the utility company can provide a free service? Does that then mean that the utility company has a right to demand free parts from local supplies companies so that the can provide a free service?
Maybe the utility companies should be nationalized and all citizens can contribute tax dollars to the service. It wouldn't surprise me if that's how it's done in a lot of Eurozone countries? I'm not sure. I don't even really understand how the fraud occured and who is on the hook for the bill. It is however fair to say that it's way more complicated than "how a country treat's it's least fortunate".
[+] [-] bdunbar|14 years ago|reply
You did notice that this was bout 'a' county, in 'a' state. And that there was no data in the article about how many people this problem affects.
Thinking this is representative of the country as a whole would be a big mistake.
The article was long on emotion, short on facts.
[+] [-] electromagnetic|14 years ago|reply
Two steps back (lack of affordable clean water and lack of affordable sewage), hopefully the one step forward is going to be lack of government.
The leading problem in the western world is that the free market doesn't extend to government. I want to choose my politicians based on lowest expense and highest reward, because the electoral system seems to keep giving me the highest expense and the lowest rewards.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grannyg00se|14 years ago|reply
It seems to me that if most of these people are on welfare in an area with a pretty good climate and what appears to be (from the photos) low population density, this would lend itself very nicely to getting off of the grid.
Instead of relying on the government to support them, they could farm. Instead of worrying about running water and sewage, they could irrigate and fertilize. Instead of worrying about hydro bills for lighting they could use small scale solar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
[+] [-] bdunbar|14 years ago|reply
what a disgrace!!! the richest country in the world can't provide running water to its citizens... what a shame!!!
Did anyone else notice that the linked article doesn't come right out and tell us how many people are using outhouses instead of the city sewer? One lady who may cut off service, one guy who has. The number of guys like this is said to be growing.
Outrage is fine and dandy.
But shouldn't you find dig around so you know what you're outraged about?
[+] [-] lftl|14 years ago|reply
If you have a $300 water/sewer bill you're doing something absurd. We're a family of 6, and I am by no means conservative with my showers, wife takes a bath every night, 4 kids bathing regularly, and our bill has never been more than $100 for a month.
Having the sewer portion of the bill be the same as the water portion is bad, and there's no doubt it's a screwed up situation, but this is a typical case of a reporter seeking out outliers and presenting them as commonplace.
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
Some crazy decisions going on there.
Let's see if people keep voting against themselves.
[+] [-] kamaal|14 years ago|reply
But 'poor' people have cars in America(From the photos)? You guys get $600 per month for doing nothing(Social security)? Don't pay taxes and yet infrastructure benefits must reach you?
I don't really know what more the country can do for you guys. I mean paying individuals $600 per month for doing nothing, with which they can afford home, cars, food and clothing all this when the individual isn't even working.
I mean if this isn't sufficient, what is?
You really must come out of US and check the definition of 'poor' in other countries.
Here is a reason why you guys can never beat China. Because there people tend to be happy with ever little they get. But here in this case you have people complaining for stuff which is offered to them free at the first place.
P.S : I am software engineer here, who can barely afford a motorcycle and fuel. Let alone a car.
[+] [-] jamgraham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qas1981|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leoh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eibrahim|14 years ago|reply