They tell their stories with anguish, with anger, with hopelessness and with numbers. They are the victims of a student loan system designed to guarantee big profits to lenders for years to come while enslaving borrowers with outrageous terms of repayment.
You can see their pictures and read their words at a new Occupy Student Debt website. There's the 27-year old woman with $100,000 in debt who can't find a job paying more than about $12/hour. She wants to send her useless diploma to Sallie Mae.
There's the widow who went back to school at the age of 48 to get a Master's Degree and the chance at a better job as a school teacher. She's now 55. She figures that she'll be 77 before she pays off her loan.
There's the 63-year old father of 3, a physician no less, who even pre-paid tuition to lock in lower rates. But college for 2 of his children ended up costing more anyway, and he's now stuck with $42,000 in loans that carry interest rates of more than 8%, with payments in the early years going only for interest, not to pay down principle. He compares that to the terms of his home mortgage and home equity loan, both with interest rates under 4% and terms that make prepayment a smart idea.
These stories show how the banks succeeded in getting the U.S. Congress to make student loans immensely profitable for lenders and uniquely onerous for borrowers.
With interest rates so low now, refinancing a home mortgage, for example, can save a home owner lots of money, as long as they have a good enough credit rating to convince a bank to do the refinancing. You can also declare bankruptcy if you fall behind. You'll lose most of what you own, but at least you'll be able to start fresh.
But no, there are no opportunities to refinance a student loan at lower rates. Lenders have no reason to offer them. Nor can you go bankrupt. The law doesn't allow it. There is no escape.
Read their stories. 400 of them so far. Each one proof that our elected representatives care much more about banking industry campaign contributions than the plight of their constituents.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
College Presidents' Pay Up Despite Economy
Thanks to the Chronicle of Higher Education, we have just learned that the pay of private college presidents continued up in 2009 despite the economy. As reported in The New York Times, 36 presidents had an average increase of 2.2 percent. Most interesting to me is the chart showing their compensation as a percentage of university expenditures, ranging from 1% to a high of 3.5% for a school I'd never heard of: Mountain State University in West Virginia.
This president, Charles H. Polk, pulled in $1, 843, 746 in 2009.
In defense of his and other million dollar plus pay packages, David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, told The Times: "There is just a small pool of candidates who possess the skill set that is required and are willing to take on the stressful 24/7 nature of the position."
The Times reporter didn't bother to quote anyone critical of these pay scales, much less anyone from the Occupy movement.
So Mountain State must be an excellent school, right? Wrong. Instead, the school may lose its accreditation early in 2012. A show-cause order by the Higher Learning Commission cited problems of monitoring of student progress, governance, and--get ready for it-- availability of resources. Seems to me that with a performance like that, everybody at Mountain State should be questioning his "skill set."
The other interesting chart shows the presidents' compensation as a multiple of average pay for professors--not adjuncts, of course, but the full-time profs. That ranges from a high of 16.1 for Stevenson University in Maryland to a low of about twice for the president of Wabash College in Indiana. Five other presidents earned at least 10 times as much as their full professors.
Stevenson has been undergoing rapid expansion in the last several years so that may be why its board of trustees thinks president Kevin J. Manning deserves to be paid so much more than the professors, a rich package worth $1,493,655. If I were a student there with student loans, I'd sure want to ask them.
This president, Charles H. Polk, pulled in $1, 843, 746 in 2009.
In defense of his and other million dollar plus pay packages, David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, told The Times: "There is just a small pool of candidates who possess the skill set that is required and are willing to take on the stressful 24/7 nature of the position."
The Times reporter didn't bother to quote anyone critical of these pay scales, much less anyone from the Occupy movement.
So Mountain State must be an excellent school, right? Wrong. Instead, the school may lose its accreditation early in 2012. A show-cause order by the Higher Learning Commission cited problems of monitoring of student progress, governance, and--get ready for it-- availability of resources. Seems to me that with a performance like that, everybody at Mountain State should be questioning his "skill set."
The other interesting chart shows the presidents' compensation as a multiple of average pay for professors--not adjuncts, of course, but the full-time profs. That ranges from a high of 16.1 for Stevenson University in Maryland to a low of about twice for the president of Wabash College in Indiana. Five other presidents earned at least 10 times as much as their full professors.
Stevenson has been undergoing rapid expansion in the last several years so that may be why its board of trustees thinks president Kevin J. Manning deserves to be paid so much more than the professors, a rich package worth $1,493,655. If I were a student there with student loans, I'd sure want to ask them.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Student Loans Enable Sky-High Tuitions
A few years ago, the chiropractor who was working on my back confided in me that she'd never be able to own a home because she had racked up a massive amount of student debt. She explained that she had taken out student loans to pay for chiropractic school expecting a big payoff, but then health insurance companies had essentially stopped paying for chiropractic visits. So she had gone back to school to become a licensed acupuncturist. That additional skill had not paid off either.
Now she had debt approaching $100,000 and saw no possibility of ever paying it off.
So I naively suggested that she declare bankruptcy to get out from under. I was incredulous when she told me that bankruptcy was not allowed under the laws regulating student loans.
But I quickly learned she was right.
Now, as Occupy Wall Street has morphed on campuses into the Occupy Student Debt Campaign, students facing a bleak job future are demanding relief from tuition increases. Meanwhile, an on-line effort to start a boycott of making debt payments has begun, and everyone involved in higher education is talking about ways to contain costs and give graduates some measure of relief from their debts--although not through bankruptcy.
Left out of this discussion is the elephant in the room: the role that the student loan program itself has played as colleges and universities ratcheted up the price of tuition by 50 percent in the past decade. Patrick M. Callan, president of the Higher Education Policy Institute, indirectly pointed it out recently when he said that huge federal funding increases in Pell grants under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama had "been absorbed by tuition increases."
He went on: "And with all that we've invested, we have a less affordable system than we had a decade ago. We're on a national treadmill."
Imagine how different the situation would have been if prospective college students and their parents had had to pay tuition out of current income or from loans whose repayment was not deferred until after graduation. Top administrators at colleges and universities wouldn't have been able to raise their salaries to astronomic heights. They couldn't have engaged in a luxuries arms race with other institutions, building campuses gilded with state-of-the art fitness centers, elaborate theaters and stadiums, ski areas, golf courses, arboretums and dorms that, in the case of Princeton, have been described as "a billionaire's mansion in the form of a dorm."
They were able to raise their prices knowing that students would simply borrow more to compensate. No one questioned whether the pay the students should expect after graduation had gone up enough to cover the added amounts. It's not substantially different from giving new home buyers mortgages that could never be supported by their income, except that with student loans the banks don't even have to repossess anything. In fact, they face virtually no risks. Thanks to laws passed by Congress, student debtors become indentured servants, obligated to a lifetime of payments--or maybe 20 years of them under new proposals--since they can't relieve themselves of the debt by going bankrupt. Worse still, students who miss payments can easily end up in a cycle of punitive fees that makes their debt balloon even bigger.
The high pay of university administrators and the luxury facilities, of course, have little or nothing to do with education. Most colleges and universities save on the actual cost of teaching by making heavy use of adjunct professors instead of hiring more full-time. As one myself, I can tell you that they haven't invested those tuition increases in higher adjunct pay although adjuncts teach so many of the required courses at the core of a college education. In fact, anyone who wants to live on the pay of an adjunct becomes an itinerant, driving from one campus to another trying to cobble together a big enough load to make a meager income.
Seen from this perspective, student loans have enabled spending sprees by the administrators of our colleges and universities who didn't have to worry--until very recently--about making their schools unaffordable.
Now, with so much money sunk into facilities, administrations have little room to maneuver. Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at cutting those top salaries, as some have done, at eliminating top-heavy staffs, and pulling back to a focus on the core mission of education. In 2008, 23 university presidents earned more than $1 million. The NY Times reported that the median pay for presidents of the 419 private colleges and universities surveyed by the Chronicle of Higher Education was $358,746, a 6.5 percent increase over 2007. Over the five years previous years, the median presidential pay grew by 14 percent, and that is adjusted for inflation.
And lest you think this applies only to private institutions, consider that the median total compensation for public college presidents in 2009-10 was $375,442, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. E. Gordon Gee, the president of football power house, Ohio State, topped the list, earning more than $1.3-million in total compensation.
Not incidentally, sports programs at public and private schools more often lose money than make it. Overall, only 12% of college athletic programs are profitable, according to the NCAA. Even most football programs--57%--lose money.
Funneling more money into loan programs won't help stop spiraling tuition prices. Unfortunately, that will just continue to enable the spending sprees that have created the crisis we're in. NYU professor Andrew Ross, who has started the campaign for a boycott of loan payments, is, among other things, calling for private and for-profit colleges to open their books so the public can see just where all that tuition is going. The books of public colleges should be open, and citizens should demand to know which aspects of spending have priority.
Ross has also recognized, as he told the NYU student newspaper blog, "that my own salary is debt-financed. … There’s an element of complicity. It’s an incredible burden for faculty to bear.”
Now we need to hear that same sentiment coming from university presidents, along with some serious rethinking of spending priorities. When we do, we might begin getting back to a realistic balance between the cost of a higher education and the income students can expect after graduation.
Now she had debt approaching $100,000 and saw no possibility of ever paying it off.
So I naively suggested that she declare bankruptcy to get out from under. I was incredulous when she told me that bankruptcy was not allowed under the laws regulating student loans.
But I quickly learned she was right.
Now, as Occupy Wall Street has morphed on campuses into the Occupy Student Debt Campaign, students facing a bleak job future are demanding relief from tuition increases. Meanwhile, an on-line effort to start a boycott of making debt payments has begun, and everyone involved in higher education is talking about ways to contain costs and give graduates some measure of relief from their debts--although not through bankruptcy.
Left out of this discussion is the elephant in the room: the role that the student loan program itself has played as colleges and universities ratcheted up the price of tuition by 50 percent in the past decade. Patrick M. Callan, president of the Higher Education Policy Institute, indirectly pointed it out recently when he said that huge federal funding increases in Pell grants under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama had "been absorbed by tuition increases."
He went on: "And with all that we've invested, we have a less affordable system than we had a decade ago. We're on a national treadmill."
Imagine how different the situation would have been if prospective college students and their parents had had to pay tuition out of current income or from loans whose repayment was not deferred until after graduation. Top administrators at colleges and universities wouldn't have been able to raise their salaries to astronomic heights. They couldn't have engaged in a luxuries arms race with other institutions, building campuses gilded with state-of-the art fitness centers, elaborate theaters and stadiums, ski areas, golf courses, arboretums and dorms that, in the case of Princeton, have been described as "a billionaire's mansion in the form of a dorm."
They were able to raise their prices knowing that students would simply borrow more to compensate. No one questioned whether the pay the students should expect after graduation had gone up enough to cover the added amounts. It's not substantially different from giving new home buyers mortgages that could never be supported by their income, except that with student loans the banks don't even have to repossess anything. In fact, they face virtually no risks. Thanks to laws passed by Congress, student debtors become indentured servants, obligated to a lifetime of payments--or maybe 20 years of them under new proposals--since they can't relieve themselves of the debt by going bankrupt. Worse still, students who miss payments can easily end up in a cycle of punitive fees that makes their debt balloon even bigger.
The high pay of university administrators and the luxury facilities, of course, have little or nothing to do with education. Most colleges and universities save on the actual cost of teaching by making heavy use of adjunct professors instead of hiring more full-time. As one myself, I can tell you that they haven't invested those tuition increases in higher adjunct pay although adjuncts teach so many of the required courses at the core of a college education. In fact, anyone who wants to live on the pay of an adjunct becomes an itinerant, driving from one campus to another trying to cobble together a big enough load to make a meager income.
Seen from this perspective, student loans have enabled spending sprees by the administrators of our colleges and universities who didn't have to worry--until very recently--about making their schools unaffordable.
Now, with so much money sunk into facilities, administrations have little room to maneuver. Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at cutting those top salaries, as some have done, at eliminating top-heavy staffs, and pulling back to a focus on the core mission of education. In 2008, 23 university presidents earned more than $1 million. The NY Times reported that the median pay for presidents of the 419 private colleges and universities surveyed by the Chronicle of Higher Education was $358,746, a 6.5 percent increase over 2007. Over the five years previous years, the median presidential pay grew by 14 percent, and that is adjusted for inflation.
And lest you think this applies only to private institutions, consider that the median total compensation for public college presidents in 2009-10 was $375,442, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. E. Gordon Gee, the president of football power house, Ohio State, topped the list, earning more than $1.3-million in total compensation.
Not incidentally, sports programs at public and private schools more often lose money than make it. Overall, only 12% of college athletic programs are profitable, according to the NCAA. Even most football programs--57%--lose money.
Funneling more money into loan programs won't help stop spiraling tuition prices. Unfortunately, that will just continue to enable the spending sprees that have created the crisis we're in. NYU professor Andrew Ross, who has started the campaign for a boycott of loan payments, is, among other things, calling for private and for-profit colleges to open their books so the public can see just where all that tuition is going. The books of public colleges should be open, and citizens should demand to know which aspects of spending have priority.
Ross has also recognized, as he told the NYU student newspaper blog, "that my own salary is debt-financed. … There’s an element of complicity. It’s an incredible burden for faculty to bear.”
Now we need to hear that same sentiment coming from university presidents, along with some serious rethinking of spending priorities. When we do, we might begin getting back to a realistic balance between the cost of a higher education and the income students can expect after graduation.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Love Your Body/Love Your Uterus
Say what? Love your uterus? You'd better. We need to love our bodies, inside and out.
This post is part of the 2011 Love Your Body Day Blog Carnival sponsored by the NOW Foundation. The focus of this campaign is fighting self-hatred because we’re too fat, too old, too flat, too wrinkled, too unfashionable. But we need to look inside our bodies as well and love the "sacred" organs, as one enlightened doctor described them, that make us female.
The fact is that there is an ongoing epidemic of unnecessary hysterectomies in the U.S. In no other country in the world, developed or otherwise, do one out of three women end up without their uterus by the time they are 60, a toll of about 600,000 women a year. And about half lose their healthy ovaries at the same time.
The unnecessary loss of one's sexual/reproductive organs can cause a profound loss of self-esteem tied to real physical and sexual changes that can't be fixed with a diet, cosmetic surgery, a change in attitude or replacement hormones.
This post is part of the 2011 Love Your Body Day Blog Carnival sponsored by the NOW Foundation. The focus of this campaign is fighting self-hatred because we’re too fat, too old, too flat, too wrinkled, too unfashionable. But we need to look inside our bodies as well and love the "sacred" organs, as one enlightened doctor described them, that make us female.
The fact is that there is an ongoing epidemic of unnecessary hysterectomies in the U.S. In no other country in the world, developed or otherwise, do one out of three women end up without their uterus by the time they are 60, a toll of about 600,000 women a year. And about half lose their healthy ovaries at the same time.
The unnecessary loss of one's sexual/reproductive organs can cause a profound loss of self-esteem tied to real physical and sexual changes that can't be fixed with a diet, cosmetic surgery, a change in attitude or replacement hormones.
For far too long, American women, including myself, have been agreeing to let doctors cut out our organs because we didn't know the consequences and because the doctors told us we really didn't need them any more if we'd already had our babies. This attitude by doctors was born of ignorance but reinforced by sexism. Why would women past 40 need to worry about sex anyway? With replacement estrogen, after all, they could still have intercourse!
Sadly, this attitude is still prevalent, even among women gynecologists trained by a male-dominated medical establishment. Women with bleeding or pain problems too seldom learn about alternatives to hysterectomy, and even less often about the importance of our organ to our lifelong health and our view of ourselves.
Sadly, this attitude is still prevalent, even among women gynecologists trained by a male-dominated medical establishment. Women with bleeding or pain problems too seldom learn about alternatives to hysterectomy, and even less often about the importance of our organ to our lifelong health and our view of ourselves.
I first realized this when I heard a gynecologist speaking reverently about the uterus and ovaries. He actually called them “sacred!” I had never understood that the uterus is a powerful muscle even though it has to be. That’s how women push their babies out. Nor did I understand that the uterus is central to the structural integrity of a woman’s body, like the keystone in an arch that keeps everything together. Here’s a structural description, taken from the text of an informative video on the HERS Foundation website:
The uterus is attached to broad bands of ligaments, bundles of nerves, and networks of arteries and veins…The severing of the ligaments (done for hysterectomy) permits the pelvic bones to move and widen, affecting the hips, lower back, and skeletal structure.
The displacement of the pelvic bones results in compression of the spine.
Women report that as the spine compresses, the rib cage gradually drifts down until it sits directly on the hip bones. This compression is the reason why hysterectomized women have protruding bellies and little or no waist.
The bladder sits in front of the uterus, and the bowel sits behind it. The uterus separates them and helps keep the bladder in its natural position above the pubic bone and the bowel in its natural configuration behind the uterus.
Recent research shows that significant numbers of women are alarmingly ignorant about their reproductive/sex organs. A survey of 1,273 adult women this year found that 30% didn’t even know that removing the uterus would stop menstrual activity, and 13% didn’t know they couldn’t get pregnant without a uterus.
Dr. Oz Harmanli, the Springfield, Massachusetts urogynecologist who led the study, said in an interview that “younger women are almost clueless” about the functions of the uterus, cervix and ovaries. The purpose of the study, he said, was to highlight the need to give women more information so that they can make a well-informed choice about having a hysterectomy.
Dr. Harmanli, who is director of urogynecology and pelvic surgery at Baystate Medical Center and an Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Tufts University School of Medicine, is refreshingly candid about the penchant of American gynecologists to cut out women’s organs.
“I come from Turkey, been here over 20 years, trained here, started practicing here,” he told me. “When I go back to Turkey (for meetings), when I suggest hysterectomy for certain conditions, they look at me like I came from Mars.”
Dr. Harmanli, who is director of urogynecology and pelvic surgery at Baystate Medical Center and an Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Tufts University School of Medicine, is refreshingly candid about the penchant of American gynecologists to cut out women’s organs.
“I come from Turkey, been here over 20 years, trained here, started practicing here,” he told me. “When I go back to Turkey (for meetings), when I suggest hysterectomy for certain conditions, they look at me like I came from Mars.”
He continued: “The climate here created by practitioners, and by tradition in families (successive generations having hysterectomies) is that loss of the uterus has not been considered such a major loss compared to other cultures and countries.” He added that there are many complex factors behind the uniquely high rate of hysterectomies in the U.S. I believe that money is one of them: hysterectomies bring in enormous income to both doctors and hospitals; hysterectomies are the second most common women's surgery, behind only Caesarians.
Elsewhere on this blog I have described the serious health problems, shortened life span and sexual problems that result from hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries. There is simply no good medical reason why one-third of American women end up without a uterus compared to, for example, one-fifth of British women. The situation is outrageous, full of long-term implications for the general health of American women and the price women pay for health care via insurance premiums and out-of-pocket.
We’ve allowed gynecologists to define our organs as reproductive and therefore unnecessary once we’ve had all the children we want. But our organs are as central to our identity, our energy, our joy in life, as surely as men’s testicles are to theirs.
So learn more about these vital organs. Love your uterus and your ovaries even though you can’t see them in the mirror!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Doctors' Group Ignores Hysterectomy as a Cause of Incontinence; Urinary Problems Cost U.S. Women $13 Billion/Year
They call themselves Urogynecologists, women's doctors who do not deal with pregnancies or infertility or hysterectomies, only what they refer to as "pelvic floor disorders" including urinary incontinence. So you'd like to think they'd be upfront about the fact that hysterectomy is one of the major reasons why 40% of all U.S. women find themselves leaking urine by the time they hit the age of 60. (Interesting coincidence: that's the same percentage of women who undergo a hysterectomy by the time they are 60.)
In fact, a very large and long study of Swedish women found that a woman's chance of incontinence at least doubled after a hysterectomy.
This group of doctors has even put a price tag on what it costs women to deal with incontinence: an average of $15 a week for pads, laundry and dry cleaning. If you multiply that by the 17 million women--a low estimate--who have this embarrassing problem, and then by 52 weeks, you find out that incontinence is costing American women at least $13 billion a year. This calculation does not include the cost of the various prescription medications now being promoted by drug companies to relieve incontinence.
Yet, you can search the website of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUG) or their new information website, Voices for PFD, and you won't find a mention of hysterectomy. The closest you get is this statement with its vague reference to surgery: "Sometimes, very clear-cut events such as pregnancy, vaginal delivery, surgery, radiation or accidental injury can lead to these kinds of problems..." Notice that all of these causes of incontinence are essentially unavoidable--except surgery for hysterectomy, which is avoidable with other treatments in 70 to 90% of cases.
But wait, these doctors have a solution to incontinence, once you've got it: More surgery! Last year, the AUG released results of a study showing that two years after women had surgery to try to cure stress urinary incontinence, their cost per week had dropped to $4 from $15 while their episodes of incontinence dropped from 23 per week to 3. Hooray.
The final irony is that just a few days ago, the AUG released its own study of information about incontinence on various web sites and found them "inadequate." Two physician reviewers evaluated more than 50 websites and found them "not comprehensive, relevant or accurate."
I tried to reach Dr. Steven Minaglia, a Hawaii-based physician whose team reviewed the websites, but he had left for a trip to China. Perhaps when he gets back he can ask them to review why AUG's own website doesn't bother to tell women about the connection between hysterectomy and incontinence.
Perhaps he could start by having them review the Swedish study.
In fact, a very large and long study of Swedish women found that a woman's chance of incontinence at least doubled after a hysterectomy.
This group of doctors has even put a price tag on what it costs women to deal with incontinence: an average of $15 a week for pads, laundry and dry cleaning. If you multiply that by the 17 million women--a low estimate--who have this embarrassing problem, and then by 52 weeks, you find out that incontinence is costing American women at least $13 billion a year. This calculation does not include the cost of the various prescription medications now being promoted by drug companies to relieve incontinence.
Yet, you can search the website of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUG) or their new information website, Voices for PFD, and you won't find a mention of hysterectomy. The closest you get is this statement with its vague reference to surgery: "Sometimes, very clear-cut events such as pregnancy, vaginal delivery, surgery, radiation or accidental injury can lead to these kinds of problems..." Notice that all of these causes of incontinence are essentially unavoidable--except surgery for hysterectomy, which is avoidable with other treatments in 70 to 90% of cases.
But wait, these doctors have a solution to incontinence, once you've got it: More surgery! Last year, the AUG released results of a study showing that two years after women had surgery to try to cure stress urinary incontinence, their cost per week had dropped to $4 from $15 while their episodes of incontinence dropped from 23 per week to 3. Hooray.
The final irony is that just a few days ago, the AUG released its own study of information about incontinence on various web sites and found them "inadequate." Two physician reviewers evaluated more than 50 websites and found them "not comprehensive, relevant or accurate."
I tried to reach Dr. Steven Minaglia, a Hawaii-based physician whose team reviewed the websites, but he had left for a trip to China. Perhaps when he gets back he can ask them to review why AUG's own website doesn't bother to tell women about the connection between hysterectomy and incontinence.
Perhaps he could start by having them review the Swedish study.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Hysterectomy is a Feminist Issue: 1 in 3
The Ms. Magazine Blog now features an article I wrote that gives some of the shocking information about the epidemic of hysterectomy. I have been amazed for a long time that this most feminist of issues is not on the radar of feminist organizations despite the huge impact of these surgeries on women's health, well-being and relationships. I've struggled to understand why. Partly, I think, it's because the surgery is simply so common. Breast cancer advocates have made women very aware that their life-time risk is 1 in 8. But consider: 1 in 3 women 60 and older no longer has a uterus!
That's right, 1 in 3. It's just about a right of passage for older women.
But as I say in the Ms. blog, we who are the 1 in 3 have got to speak up. We can't let this continue. Keeping our condition a secret because we're embarrassed, afraid of being regarded as less of a woman, or as being too unaware to prevent our doctors from doing this to us--well, we've just got to get over that the same way women who've lost a breast have done so bravely.
That's right, 1 in 3. It's just about a right of passage for older women.
But as I say in the Ms. blog, we who are the 1 in 3 have got to speak up. We can't let this continue. Keeping our condition a secret because we're embarrassed, afraid of being regarded as less of a woman, or as being too unaware to prevent our doctors from doing this to us--well, we've just got to get over that the same way women who've lost a breast have done so bravely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
