To be clear, from the article, the routers themselves cost $7,800. And, if I'm rolling out a state infrastructure, and wondering what I can put in place for the next 10 years to serve as a foundation, you could certainly do worse than the 3945 - it's a very flexible ISR, and, all-things being equal, it's probably not worth the hassle of putting 2921s in some locations and 3945s in others. Who knows how much bandwidth you'll want on these high-speed fiber connections 5+ years from now - the 3945 is rated for 350 megabits/second (with features), the 2921 tops out at 75 megabits.
Amortized over 10 years, I would have chosen the 3945 everywhere versus sticking 2921s in some places (the ISR that would have been an alternative) and 3945s in others. Single Security Policy. Single IOS update Policy. Zero doubt as to what features will run in a particular location.
I think what most people have difficulty with is that they are comparing this decision to roll out a state communications infrastructure with the fact that they can go connect a $60 linksys wrt54G in their house and serve a dozen people without breaking a sweat. And get wireless as well! The issues involved in scaling that across the state, while looking to the future, and managing all that gear is a different challenge though.
That seems like a pretty silly argument to me. The library with 4 computers would be just fine with the $60 router. How is it any harder to manage that gear compared to managing the completely unneeded equipment that the local employees have no clue how to run.
Not to mention spending $14k on upgrades for many places that don't need that particular upgrade. I don't care if it's a little simpler to buy all the same, it's absurd to spend millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on something that is completely unnecessary.
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense. There are plenty of ways to manage everything you mentioned with a tiered approach to the IT needs of the municipalities of the state without resorting to grossly over accommodating every location. Hell, they could've even used some of that money for regional IT management positions, putting people back to work.
Shame on you for justifying this nonsense in any way shape or form. This is textbook waste ala bureaucratic laziness.
If you are putting routers in a school that might serve a few thousand students and teachers, and a branch library that might be serve 5 patrons, you really can't afford to adopt a heterogeneous hardware strategy just to make admin easier.
It is surely more cost effective to use the cheaper router, and replace them when necessary than to buy the uber-model that will still be state of the art in 10 years.
The nonsense about $60 linksys devices was addressed in the article. Did you bother to read it? CISCO quoted a $487 router. You expect the taxpayer to foot the bill because you're too lazy to keep track of which router you've installed at each location? I deal with bureaucrats like you all the time. This is the last place I would have expected to find them.
The other thing is that the bids had to be submitted very quickly or they risked not getting any funding at all. In that light, they can't really be blamed for not doing research into the most efficient allocation of money! (To be clear, I blame the stupid bid process that rewards rushed decisions and punishes anyone who stops to think.)
It hardly seems like managing gear would be all that difficult at this kind of margin. Hire someone full-time at 100K annually who manages the systems and upgrades when necessary.
"West Virginia Homeland Security chief Jimmy Gianato, who's leading the state broadband project, defended the $24 million router purchase last week, saying the devices "could meet many different needs and be used for multiple applications."
"Our main concerns were to not have something that would become obsolete in a couple of years," Gianato said. "Looking at how technology evolves, we wanted something that was scalable, expandable and viable, five to 10 years out. We wanted to make sure every place had the same opportunity across the state."
Wow. I've spent some time in West Virginia libraries, and yes the internet connection was slow, but it's not due to the router. And in most towns, libraries and schools are not going to be serving anyone outside their walls with some kind of WAN. Best case will be public wireless near the building.
And how is it that the "West Virginia Homeland Security chief" is "leading the state broadband project"? Seems like bureaucratic overreach, technical ignorance, and budget authority all wrapped in.
Why not spend $50 for a router for libraries and something less than $22k per school?
These routers are pretty good choices for the schools. For the smaller sites it's hard to say without knowing their exact requirements for the future. For example this might be related to your question about the Homeland Security Chief being involved. Libraries are multipurpose buildings. In an emergency they could be used as an emergency response command center. Perhaps the library is used as a polling place and they have specific security requirements. The state may have decided it was in their best interest long term to equip all government buildings with a baseline level of equipment.
I think part of the reaction to this story is people coming to terms with how much real network equipment costs. It's definitely not cheap. You're paying for features, service, long-term support, upgradability, reliability, etc. Some of these routers will probably be in use 15 years from now. I've still got a Cisco 2500 series router chugging away. Next year will be it's 20th birthday. This stuff is built to last.
Am I the only person that is (not really of course!) tempted to put on official-looking clothing and confidently walk in with a laptop and Cisco console cable, nonchalantly telling the librarian their "Internet box" "needs a service upgrade".
And then quietly replace it (after dumping the config and replicating the configuration) with a $100 half-depth Supermicro server bought off Ebay, running OpenBSD?
And then walk out, like the Grinch after he artfully puts Cindy Lou Who to bed, with a nice new 3945 for my own use?
EDIT: forgot to mention, I need a CF card reader also to get the config off the Cisco flash.
If you then sold the router on the second-hand market and gave the money to the library to spend on materials that they actually needed, your plan could do some real good.
Considering you're talking about pulling the config off flash, which is where the OS and not the config is stored, I'm not too worried about what you plan to do.
From the article: "I'm not an expert on the technical side," [Gianato] said, "but these have all kinds of capabilities and applications."
Earlier: "Gianato acknowledged that he didn't heed Dunlap's advice or wait for an evaluation.
'The routers already had been bid out,' Gianato said. 'I think John was looking at our needs now, not looking at our needs into the future."
---
So not only does Gianato admit he doesn't know anything (which means he's not even suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect), but he also admits that he's not sure what his IT advisor was thinking about, but, eh, it doesn't really matter because the people who are the experts obviously don't think about the long-term and I'm not going to bother asking them about it anyway, because as we all know, bids are binding contracts. Right.
I'm surprised this article actually does a decent job covering both sides of the story. When you look at how flexible the ISRs are, and the likelihood these devices will be in service for probably the next 10 years or more, it's not not the worst investment they could make. They're actually well sized for the high schools and other larger sites. Obviously any 3900 series is going to be overkill for a little library but you do have to look at support costs, service contracts, future requirements, future upgrade costs, etc to get the full picture. This is not a 'bridge to nowhere' situation.
You can get an ASA 5505 firewall with all the features you'll ever need for a small library installation for about $1200 retail (hell of a lot less if you're buying, say, 50 of them), and any network engineer who can't handle ASA configuration in his sleep should be fired immediately for gross incompetence.
I have a buddy who sells routing equipment at this level. Doesn't have a degree in Fahrenheit, but just cleared a mil in his bank account, owns his 6 bedroom Connecticut home outright and keeps a beach house in Mystic. He's 38. I'm 36, a doc, and still paying off student loans and working for Uncle Sam.
Private sector FTW. Please, please I hope everyone who reads this begins to understand that governments are not meant to allocate resources. The idea (promoted by politicians, mostly democrats) that we should give the government our money and they will spend it wisely "for the betterment of all" is purely, simply and fundamentally flawed.
Out government should be small. It should perform a few basic functions like making sure we are secure, our trading interests are promoted and our banking and financial markets are healthy. It should educate our children to the best standards in the world. Finally it should make sure we are energy independent and our food and water is uncontaminated. That's pretty much it.
In other news, JP Morgan just posted a $2 billion loss due to their hedge trading unit. One of the paragons of the capitalist system. Big and old and supposedly "successful" and supposedly run by very smart people who deserve very high pay because what they're doing is very hard and technical, and only they know how to manage resources efficiently, unlike say the government. Let's not even get into the paychecks of all the CEO's, traders, partners, huge sums of money for what in many cases involves just hiring other people and telling them what to do, pointing out the obvious, etc. Meanwhile the little people, the people that do the vast majority of the real and necessary work in our communities --- teachers, doctors, repairmen, cops, firefighters, road crew, waiters, delivery folks, carpenters, electricians, etc. --- get the least amount of pay. Because that's "efficient". If that's an efficient allocation of resources, maybe that's a bad thing.
I think we agree on the idea that government should be small, or at least as small as possible. And we agree on the roles it should play. But I don't buy into the argument that government is inherently bad at allocating resources efficiently and private businesses are inherently good. I've seen way way too many examples that contradict the latter. I think it ultimately comes to individual situations and the choices of individuals, what information is available to them, their goals, where their financial interests pull them.
Please don't make this a democrat/republican debate. This is the crooked way that all of our US government is spending our tax money. We need corporate money out of politics if we want to prevent these outlandish contracts from being awarded to the corporations that donate enough money to campaigns.
It's not a democrat/republican or big/small government thing. It's about corruption of the system.
Out of your comment, I agree most with that our government needs to help educate our children. Without an educated population, things only get worse.
They wouldn't be buying any routers without the federal dollars to build fiber so it's kind of a moot point in this situation. Anyone who has worked in the private sector can tell you this type of stuff happens constantly. Too many technically ignorant people making decisions is the problem public or private. A private contractor could have sold them on the same exact package for the same reasons. Maybe even charged more for it.
As for your core point about the role of government... just look at the top 10 economies of the world. Most are not libertarian paradises and they're doing OK. It seems to me both models could probably work if executed properly. I doubt one model is inherently right and one is inherently wrong. Most likely some hybrid is the best solution for everyone.
If you had worked in a big company environment, you would know that this kind of nonsense happens all the time, in both private and public environments. 30000$ routers are pocket money compared to some of the things I have seen (millions of $ spent to develop and maintain in-house software that cannot do 10 % of what a basic open source solution would do).
When you reach a certain size, and you have many competing groups, all with their agenda with the same company, it becomes difficult to allocate resources correctly, especially in a domain that is not considered "core of business" (IT being a common case, sadly).
Very well said. I agree with your point that governments aren't great at allocating resources, and should concentrate on the basics.
I disagree with the sidebar that it's mostly Democrats trying to take our money. Both parties do it, just with different priorities and in different ways, with all the accepted terms used to discuss it.
Spending other people money is so easy. But $22k apiece instead of the $485 solution quoted in the article - that's madness. It can't be just gross incompetence.
I guess someone involved in the decision got some kind of kickback, gift, or will have a nice cushy job offer waiting for them at Cisco when they get fired as they should be.
Remember this article next time some liberal ask to raise taxes and justifies this by saying how stimulus money is important, and why everyone should have the same opportunities (quoted in the article - as if a 22k router gave any kind of opportunity to people browsing the net in a public library in WV).
And cry when they get trashed at the end of their lifecycle without having ever been connected to optic fiber.
why do military closets cost 5000$ a piece? because it costs a sh#tload of money to sell the military a closet. i don't know where i read this but it is a great analogy.
i have been - in my time (2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? ...) - involved into selling the national austrian television their first video streaming solution (think: free (as in free beer) windows media streaming server) - it took man-years. man-years cost money.
I'm not a programmer or technical person, I'm an end user who uses R, LaTeX and processing now and again. I hack an awesome spreadsheet. I have a degree and I do a professional job.
I could be a manager in a public service or an elected representative. Perhaps in a small rural authority.
Given the lack of consensus in this discussion thread, and evidence in the article of a similar lack of consensus between the various offices involved, how am I supposed to reach a decision?
Is there a case for some kind of planning toolkit or requirements estimation software? Is there an opportunity here?
PS: I and other colleagues did once have to help a senior manager spend out a £250k capital grant in 10 days. The idiotic spending deadline was due to delay in award of funds in a competitive funding round. We did ok but could have done better with another month or two to think through detailed requirements.
You use your intelligence. The Cisco person says you can do what you want with $500. Then do you continue to spend $30k instead? Do you think your small town library is going to grow into a college campus (as the other pro-mega-router people are expecting)
> Given the lack of consensus in this discussion thread, and evidence in the article of a similar lack of consensus between the various offices involved, how am I supposed to reach a decision?
1. You ask people who have already done this, like hotels who deploy thousands of networked sites. 2. You hold a bakeoff at a few dozen sites and see what works.
Interestingly, the CEO of Cisco is from West Virginia and went to WVU - I believe he's one of the largest donors to WVU. (only know this because I'm also from WV, not suggesting any conspiracy here)
Sounds like a buffoon was in charge of the operation. Gianato suggesting that the unused/unneeded T1 interface cards could still be used for "video conferencing, wireless Internet and "voice over Internet protocol." is just painful to read. I am not sure how they can be used for such things if you don't actually stick them in a router!
I would still like to see a breakdown of the costs and what services are provided with the routers before I call it a total waste though. If it was just the routers then it was a waste. If it includes other things like a long term warranty & onsite service, then maybe not so much.
West Virginia Homeland Security must be planning for a truly unprecedented expansion of libraries and schools, based on the capacity of the routers and the number of them allocated to sites with a handful of users. This is heartening, especially during a period of massive cutbacks to public education. ;)
When a public school/library buys a 22K router with government money, sounds like an overkill (handout) of massive proportions. Someone's cousin here was probably on the Cisco + Verizon sales team. This is frustrating.
I remember a few weeks ago PB made a comment that at least social networks and alike make it easier to spread the news, which eventually will lead to greater good (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3890543). At least that's true, but doesn't feel like it's enough.
Hacker News, you continue to disappoint me. Every time I read an article, I know the comments are going to be filled with people arguing for the sake of feeling superior. And once again, they are.
No. This is not okay. No twisted sense of reason that only you have makes it okay. A $60 consumer router that needs to be upgraded every year is still cheaper than this. Even with support costs. People have been rolling out tiered infrastructure for years.
I describe this as 'funny money'. The government is spending other people's money.
I imagine the government worker that signed off on this purchase worrying a lot more about a dollar increase in the local lunch special than millions spent on equipment.
Most of this is in practice amounts to the justification of bureaucrats too lazy to do a proper analysis. I work with them and this is exactly the generalized rubbish they spout--it NEVER gets deeper than this. Details are never forthcoming. Instead we have self-serving nonsense about the difficulty of maintaining databases of router configurations. It's as if remote management facilities don't exist--you tell your superiors that you're still upgrading IOS with TFTP, so you need all the routers to be the same.
You haven't mentioned the article once.
What do you think the probability of expanding a small library from four users to 50 is in this economic climate? Did you read that the stimulus was for the installation of fiber? Instead the state got routers equipped with T1 modules.
i live in a developing country. I am thinking what would happen here if a state offical had 24 million in his hands to spend on the infrastructure? The official may be corrupt and this thing may never go to proper bidding. So official and a company would share say 10 million as the profit. But 14 million would still go to something useful.
In this story, at least 20 million of the money seems to be completely wasted. (Higher capacity router does not mean better internet access for 4-computer lib.)
Wait, not finished. So our corrupt official has 2 million in his hands. He may buy a car or a house, but probably he would spend it for something useful. So much of the value would return to the market. This is also true for the vendor company. But in the US case, the value is gone. it is like you burned the cash.
Moral of the story: stupidity is more dangerous than corruption. You may want to have a corrupt offical than a stupid one.
Finally, that stupid would never have survived in the relatively corrupt but wild political system of my country.
[+] [-] ghshephard|14 years ago|reply
Amortized over 10 years, I would have chosen the 3945 everywhere versus sticking 2921s in some places (the ISR that would have been an alternative) and 3945s in others. Single Security Policy. Single IOS update Policy. Zero doubt as to what features will run in a particular location.
I think what most people have difficulty with is that they are comparing this decision to roll out a state communications infrastructure with the fact that they can go connect a $60 linksys wrt54G in their house and serve a dozen people without breaking a sweat. And get wireless as well! The issues involved in scaling that across the state, while looking to the future, and managing all that gear is a different challenge though.
I don't see any huge scandal here.
[+] [-] clarky07|14 years ago|reply
Not to mention spending $14k on upgrades for many places that don't need that particular upgrade. I don't care if it's a little simpler to buy all the same, it's absurd to spend millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on something that is completely unnecessary.
[+] [-] dclowd9901|14 years ago|reply
Shame on you for justifying this nonsense in any way shape or form. This is textbook waste ala bureaucratic laziness.
[+] [-] NoPiece|14 years ago|reply
It is surely more cost effective to use the cheaper router, and replace them when necessary than to buy the uber-model that will still be state of the art in 10 years.
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffpersonified|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikescar|14 years ago|reply
"Our main concerns were to not have something that would become obsolete in a couple of years," Gianato said. "Looking at how technology evolves, we wanted something that was scalable, expandable and viable, five to 10 years out. We wanted to make sure every place had the same opportunity across the state."
Wow. I've spent some time in West Virginia libraries, and yes the internet connection was slow, but it's not due to the router. And in most towns, libraries and schools are not going to be serving anyone outside their walls with some kind of WAN. Best case will be public wireless near the building.
And how is it that the "West Virginia Homeland Security chief" is "leading the state broadband project"? Seems like bureaucratic overreach, technical ignorance, and budget authority all wrapped in.
Why not spend $50 for a router for libraries and something less than $22k per school?
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
I think part of the reaction to this story is people coming to terms with how much real network equipment costs. It's definitely not cheap. You're paying for features, service, long-term support, upgradability, reliability, etc. Some of these routers will probably be in use 15 years from now. I've still got a Cisco 2500 series router chugging away. Next year will be it's 20th birthday. This stuff is built to last.
[+] [-] dfc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] patrickgzill|14 years ago|reply
And then quietly replace it (after dumping the config and replicating the configuration) with a $100 half-depth Supermicro server bought off Ebay, running OpenBSD?
And then walk out, like the Grinch after he artfully puts Cindy Lou Who to bed, with a nice new 3945 for my own use?
EDIT: forgot to mention, I need a CF card reader also to get the config off the Cisco flash.
[+] [-] smithian|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffpersonified|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c4urself|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doughj3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] waiwai933|14 years ago|reply
Earlier: "Gianato acknowledged that he didn't heed Dunlap's advice or wait for an evaluation.
'The routers already had been bid out,' Gianato said. 'I think John was looking at our needs now, not looking at our needs into the future."
---
So not only does Gianato admit he doesn't know anything (which means he's not even suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect), but he also admits that he's not sure what his IT advisor was thinking about, but, eh, it doesn't really matter because the people who are the experts obviously don't think about the long-term and I'm not going to bother asking them about it anyway, because as we all know, bids are binding contracts. Right.
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nknight|14 years ago|reply
There is no excuse for this insanity.
[+] [-] niels_olson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dstroot|14 years ago|reply
Out government should be small. It should perform a few basic functions like making sure we are secure, our trading interests are promoted and our banking and financial markets are healthy. It should educate our children to the best standards in the world. Finally it should make sure we are energy independent and our food and water is uncontaminated. That's pretty much it.
[+] [-] mkramlich|14 years ago|reply
I think we agree on the idea that government should be small, or at least as small as possible. And we agree on the roles it should play. But I don't buy into the argument that government is inherently bad at allocating resources efficiently and private businesses are inherently good. I've seen way way too many examples that contradict the latter. I think it ultimately comes to individual situations and the choices of individuals, what information is available to them, their goals, where their financial interests pull them.
[+] [-] epoxyhockey|14 years ago|reply
It's not a democrat/republican or big/small government thing. It's about corruption of the system.
Out of your comment, I agree most with that our government needs to help educate our children. Without an educated population, things only get worse.
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
As for your core point about the role of government... just look at the top 10 economies of the world. Most are not libertarian paradises and they're doing OK. It seems to me both models could probably work if executed properly. I doubt one model is inherently right and one is inherently wrong. Most likely some hybrid is the best solution for everyone.
[+] [-] cdavid|14 years ago|reply
When you reach a certain size, and you have many competing groups, all with their agenda with the same company, it becomes difficult to allocate resources correctly, especially in a domain that is not considered "core of business" (IT being a common case, sadly).
[+] [-] mikescar|14 years ago|reply
I disagree with the sidebar that it's mostly Democrats trying to take our money. Both parties do it, just with different priorities and in different ways, with all the accepted terms used to discuss it.
[+] [-] sbov|14 years ago|reply
A little known fact in the tech community is that a $7,800 router provides exactly 16.016 times more opportunity to a student than a $487 router.
[+] [-] tatsuke95|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guylhem|14 years ago|reply
I guess someone involved in the decision got some kind of kickback, gift, or will have a nice cushy job offer waiting for them at Cisco when they get fired as they should be.
Remember this article next time some liberal ask to raise taxes and justifies this by saying how stimulus money is important, and why everyone should have the same opportunities (quoted in the article - as if a 22k router gave any kind of opportunity to people browsing the net in a public library in WV).
And cry when they get trashed at the end of their lifecycle without having ever been connected to optic fiber.
[+] [-] gjkood|14 years ago|reply
Unless I misread, the article is talking about West Virginia. I would hardly call WV a bastion of liberal thinking.
Never attribute to malice (or political leaning) that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence)
[+] [-] franze|14 years ago|reply
i have been - in my time (2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? ...) - involved into selling the national austrian television their first video streaming solution (think: free (as in free beer) windows media streaming server) - it took man-years. man-years cost money.
[+] [-] quink|14 years ago|reply
I could further elaborate on the reasons why this matters to me, but I'm just relieved that it works OK now.
[+] [-] keithpeter|14 years ago|reply
I'm not a programmer or technical person, I'm an end user who uses R, LaTeX and processing now and again. I hack an awesome spreadsheet. I have a degree and I do a professional job.
I could be a manager in a public service or an elected representative. Perhaps in a small rural authority.
Given the lack of consensus in this discussion thread, and evidence in the article of a similar lack of consensus between the various offices involved, how am I supposed to reach a decision?
Is there a case for some kind of planning toolkit or requirements estimation software? Is there an opportunity here?
PS: I and other colleagues did once have to help a senior manager spend out a £250k capital grant in 10 days. The idiotic spending deadline was due to delay in award of funds in a competitive funding round. We did ok but could have done better with another month or two to think through detailed requirements.
[+] [-] amalag|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daniel_Newby|14 years ago|reply
1. You ask people who have already done this, like hotels who deploy thousands of networked sites. 2. You hold a bakeoff at a few dozen sites and see what works.
[+] [-] GreyTheory|14 years ago|reply
No you fool! These are designed to handle large loads, not protection from obsolescence!
[+] [-] jaredmck|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Klinky|14 years ago|reply
I would still like to see a breakdown of the costs and what services are provided with the routers before I call it a total waste though. If it was just the routers then it was a waste. If it includes other things like a long term warranty & onsite service, then maybe not so much.
[+] [-] frankydp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirillzubovsky|14 years ago|reply
I remember a few weeks ago PB made a comment that at least social networks and alike make it easier to spread the news, which eventually will lead to greater good (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3890543). At least that's true, but doesn't feel like it's enough.
[+] [-] tylermenezes|14 years ago|reply
No. This is not okay. No twisted sense of reason that only you have makes it okay. A $60 consumer router that needs to be upgraded every year is still cheaper than this. Even with support costs. People have been rolling out tiered infrastructure for years.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 8ig8|14 years ago|reply
I imagine the government worker that signed off on this purchase worrying a lot more about a dollar increase in the local lunch special than millions spent on equipment.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|14 years ago|reply
You haven't mentioned the article once.
What do you think the probability of expanding a small library from four users to 50 is in this economic climate? Did you read that the stimulus was for the installation of fiber? Instead the state got routers equipped with T1 modules.
[+] [-] luminaobscura|14 years ago|reply
In this story, at least 20 million of the money seems to be completely wasted. (Higher capacity router does not mean better internet access for 4-computer lib.)
Wait, not finished. So our corrupt official has 2 million in his hands. He may buy a car or a house, but probably he would spend it for something useful. So much of the value would return to the market. This is also true for the vendor company. But in the US case, the value is gone. it is like you burned the cash.
Moral of the story: stupidity is more dangerous than corruption. You may want to have a corrupt offical than a stupid one.
Finally, that stupid would never have survived in the relatively corrupt but wild political system of my country.
[+] [-] sparkie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doyoulikeworms|14 years ago|reply