There have been reports in the press that DEFRA, a coalition government department, has been working with landowners, who organise pheasants shoots, to find a means of controlling the UK Buzzard population. One of the proposals is to capture and relocate live Buzzards and then destroy their nests. I would like to ask the question: why do pheasant shooting landowners want to do this? After years of persecution the Buzzard is just starting to re-colonise large areas of the UK from which they were completely eliminated by game keepers. I am now able to see Buzzards regularly in Kent. These magnificent birds have made a comeback because of legal protection.
The Buzzards is an indigenous species to the UK. The pheasant is not. Why should the pheasant be protected in this way? If we really want to protect the interests of the pheasant why do we not leave them alone to try to survive in their new environment without human interference. Twenty million pheasants are reared each year on private estates but under industrial farming conditions. They are then released for them to be shot for sport. Many of these birds escape into "the wild" and some of the weaker ones are taken by Buzzards. The pheasants' welfare is not taken into account; so what is wrong with a small proportion of these birds being caught by the increasing number of raptors. The activity of Buzzards hardly puts the commercial interest of landowners in jeopardy and to cull them to "protect" an alien bird species which will be shot anyway is simply immoral. Equally, a decision to cull Buzzards would be crass beyond belief. The RSPB has over one million members who could quite easily determine the result of a close fought election. Estate owners would be wise to recognise this as a change to conservation laws might affect more than a pheasant shoot. Members of the general population no longer "tug their forelocks" at the sight of a gamekeeper. Haven't the estate owners recognised this yet?
Why not live and let live. Let the Estates rear their pheasants but under strict animal welfare conditions and leave the Buzzards alone. This seems to be a fair trade off.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Monday, 21 May 2012
Financial Crisis
The Economies of the west are living dangerously. We are facing economic collapse not just in Greece and Spain but in Britain, France, Germany and even the United States. We are still suffering from the economic storms of 2008. Our governments do not know what to do. They are unable to stimulate our economies. They have allowed the bosses of Financial Markets to run economic policy for the last thirty years and this has been a disaster. Quite naturally these bosses think only of themselves not even their shareholders which they are meant to serve. They cannot be expected to think of the common good.
We are now at the stage where the world could once again be plunged into a great depression similar to that of the late 1920's and early 1930's. The causes of the Great Depression of the 20th century were very similar to the present one: too much uncontrolled credit.
Quite rightly the governments of Europe and the United States are trying to reduce government budget deficits but our governments have done very little to ensure that private and corporate debt is reduced. To some extent private and corporate debt is a bigger problem than government debt, as it is very much larger. For instance the private and corporate debt of the UK is three times our gross domestic product. Only Japan, in the "western world" has a higher per capita private debt. The UK economy is in serious trouble if any nation in the western world goes bankrupt as our exposure is so great. The UK Financial Sector has made so many bad loans.
To try and aid recovery the Treasuries of all of our economies have practised quantitative easing which is equivalent to printing money. The UK has printed 325 billion pounds. The European Central Bank has printed 1 trillion Euros , yes that is a million million Euros, 1 followed by 12 noughts. The US has also printed billions of dollars.
What has happened to this money? Well , it has been given to the very same Financial Institutions who got us into this problem in the first place.
In the aftermath of the Great Depression, in the last century, recovery in the USA was initiated by printing money as well. The difference was that the money was directed at public works which generated employment and growth in the economy. The Banks which helped caused the the financial crash were not treated so generously.
Quantitative easing will eventually create inflation because of the extra liquidity which has been generated. But if this money is not put to good use it will not stimulate our economies and we could be left with increasing unemployment, stagnation and rising prices.
To give so much money to Financial Institutions was a mistake. Some of that money should have been invested in private and public enterprise.When will a government be courageous enough to rectify this error.
To rely on financial cuts alone will not solve our problems. Of course we must save money and improve the productivity of all our nations. Billions and billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euros are there to be saved. But some of this saving needs to be re-invested in a programme to generate work in both the private and public sector. Money should be directed to projects which will create jobs. On the private sector side, I can think of a number of projects- broadband technology, aerospace and the revitalisation of the high street to name but a few. On the public sector side we should invest in public transport infrastructure which will be genuinely directed to reducing the numbers of cars and lorries on our roads. Why not to build the thousands of houses that are needed? This would apply to the UK only: Spain has got plenty of empty ones! We should also make it a national objective to make sure that every child leaves school being able to read and write properly, with, at least, a grasp of a foreign language and the ability to perform mental arithmetic.
All of our governments have the power to direct programmes aimed at reducing waste in the public and private sectors to free up investment to create jobs. Our Treasuries have become bookkeepers who are only concentrating on saving money. They should become real managers of the economy to ensure that the wealth of our nations is invested in productive activity. We need Treasurers with the imagination and courage to lead us out of a potential economic depression and deploy some of the saved money to reduce unemployment.
When there was no money at all, what did the community do when there was an economic problem such as a drought? No doubt the whole community got together to build an irrigation system which was for the common good. The farmers then promised the people who worked on the irrigation project a share of the increased food production. There was the political will to get something done. This is how humanity had learnt to survive and prosper for many millenia before actual money was invented. Money is just a means of exchange which lubricates economic activity and for thousands of years humanity survived without it. We now need a similar political will to revive our economies despite straitened times: there is no lack of money it is just in the wrong place. We need to release that money from the grip of the Financial Institutions and get it working for us again. Where is the political will to ensure that the Banks release working capital to the general economy? We the public allow them legally to operate as limited liability companies and we the public grant them the licences to operate as Banks. The public has the right to insist that all Banks consider the public good in their articles of association.
I propose a Four stage solution.
An immediate injection of cash flow to prevent Greece, Spain, Italy from going bust.
All western governments to invest some of their saved and printed money in private and public works to stimulate their economies and reduce unemployment to very low levels.
Immediate regulation of the Financial Services sector to prevent the problems of uncontrolled lending ever happening again.
A long term policy, to reduce substantially our reliance on borrowing to finance public spending.
We need another Franklyn D. Roosevelt to inspire us. Unfortunately no one is stepping forward. I fear that only a really severe crisis will prompt action. Where is the new deal going to come from?
We are now at the stage where the world could once again be plunged into a great depression similar to that of the late 1920's and early 1930's. The causes of the Great Depression of the 20th century were very similar to the present one: too much uncontrolled credit.
Quite rightly the governments of Europe and the United States are trying to reduce government budget deficits but our governments have done very little to ensure that private and corporate debt is reduced. To some extent private and corporate debt is a bigger problem than government debt, as it is very much larger. For instance the private and corporate debt of the UK is three times our gross domestic product. Only Japan, in the "western world" has a higher per capita private debt. The UK economy is in serious trouble if any nation in the western world goes bankrupt as our exposure is so great. The UK Financial Sector has made so many bad loans.
To try and aid recovery the Treasuries of all of our economies have practised quantitative easing which is equivalent to printing money. The UK has printed 325 billion pounds. The European Central Bank has printed 1 trillion Euros , yes that is a million million Euros, 1 followed by 12 noughts. The US has also printed billions of dollars.
What has happened to this money? Well , it has been given to the very same Financial Institutions who got us into this problem in the first place.
In the aftermath of the Great Depression, in the last century, recovery in the USA was initiated by printing money as well. The difference was that the money was directed at public works which generated employment and growth in the economy. The Banks which helped caused the the financial crash were not treated so generously.
Quantitative easing will eventually create inflation because of the extra liquidity which has been generated. But if this money is not put to good use it will not stimulate our economies and we could be left with increasing unemployment, stagnation and rising prices.
To give so much money to Financial Institutions was a mistake. Some of that money should have been invested in private and public enterprise.When will a government be courageous enough to rectify this error.
To rely on financial cuts alone will not solve our problems. Of course we must save money and improve the productivity of all our nations. Billions and billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euros are there to be saved. But some of this saving needs to be re-invested in a programme to generate work in both the private and public sector. Money should be directed to projects which will create jobs. On the private sector side, I can think of a number of projects- broadband technology, aerospace and the revitalisation of the high street to name but a few. On the public sector side we should invest in public transport infrastructure which will be genuinely directed to reducing the numbers of cars and lorries on our roads. Why not to build the thousands of houses that are needed? This would apply to the UK only: Spain has got plenty of empty ones! We should also make it a national objective to make sure that every child leaves school being able to read and write properly, with, at least, a grasp of a foreign language and the ability to perform mental arithmetic.
All of our governments have the power to direct programmes aimed at reducing waste in the public and private sectors to free up investment to create jobs. Our Treasuries have become bookkeepers who are only concentrating on saving money. They should become real managers of the economy to ensure that the wealth of our nations is invested in productive activity. We need Treasurers with the imagination and courage to lead us out of a potential economic depression and deploy some of the saved money to reduce unemployment.
When there was no money at all, what did the community do when there was an economic problem such as a drought? No doubt the whole community got together to build an irrigation system which was for the common good. The farmers then promised the people who worked on the irrigation project a share of the increased food production. There was the political will to get something done. This is how humanity had learnt to survive and prosper for many millenia before actual money was invented. Money is just a means of exchange which lubricates economic activity and for thousands of years humanity survived without it. We now need a similar political will to revive our economies despite straitened times: there is no lack of money it is just in the wrong place. We need to release that money from the grip of the Financial Institutions and get it working for us again. Where is the political will to ensure that the Banks release working capital to the general economy? We the public allow them legally to operate as limited liability companies and we the public grant them the licences to operate as Banks. The public has the right to insist that all Banks consider the public good in their articles of association.
I propose a Four stage solution.
An immediate injection of cash flow to prevent Greece, Spain, Italy from going bust.
All western governments to invest some of their saved and printed money in private and public works to stimulate their economies and reduce unemployment to very low levels.
Immediate regulation of the Financial Services sector to prevent the problems of uncontrolled lending ever happening again.
A long term policy, to reduce substantially our reliance on borrowing to finance public spending.
We need another Franklyn D. Roosevelt to inspire us. Unfortunately no one is stepping forward. I fear that only a really severe crisis will prompt action. Where is the new deal going to come from?
Friday, 27 April 2012
The Catholic Education Service
It has been reported that the Catholic Education Service has been urging pupils in state funded Catholic Secondary schools to sign a petition against gay marriage. I cannot understand why they are pursuing this policy even from the point of view of their own self interest. Why antagonise a secular society which has been happy to fund faith education. These funds could easily be withdrawn. Further restrictions could be imposed upon what schools can and cannot teach if public opinion becomes unfavourable to the concept of faith schools.
I am opposed to idea of faith schools, as I do not believe that any religion should proselytise its ideas using state funds. If parents want their children to receive a "faith" education they should send their children to a private school not funded by the state. Even so, such such schools should be obliged to educate their children to an approved educational standard and curriculum.
I am opposed to any form of unbalanced political activity or discussion taking place in a school. Political campaigning for any cause should be banned within the confines of a school.
In my view religious institutions should be allowed to campaign for their views to be heard by the general population. Indeed it should be their right. This right should be exercised responsibly, however, so religious bodies should be careful not to interfere in the political process by encouraging young people to sign petitions against gay marriage or abortions etc.
Why is the Roman Catholic church so opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage? Is it because they are holding onto irrational beliefs for which there is no evidence?
The state does not intend to impose gay marriages on religious institutions. Roman Catholics, who are heterosexuals, will still be allowed to marry as per usual in their church. The same applies to Muslims. Some very religious people do not recognise the state's involvement in marriage but they are free to live together as partners without state sanction.
There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being which is influencing the observable universe. Where is the proof? So how can there be a God's law which dictates that homosexuality is divinely illegal or immoral? It is simply irrational to believe that there can be any other law than that which human beings create for themselves. Secular society has deemed homosexuality to be legal and moral; the Church should accept this.
Stemming from the irrational belief that there is a supernatural being, is the opinion and that the Church is some how in touch with this being who endows absolute powers to the human priesthood. This priesthood is then allowed to dictate what we believe and what we do not believe and how we should behave. It is dangerous to believe that the church has the absolute right to intervene in political affairs. The concept of divine right is complete irrational nonsense.
The dangers of irrational thinking should not be allowed to penetrate state schools. Therefore, the opinions of creative design should not be taught in science lessons. Children and young people should only be taught facts for which which there is indisputable evidence. Children should be taught to distinguish between a fact for which there is evidence and an opinion for which there is not any evidence. The church cannot prove that there is a supernatural being so their claims are opinions only. Likewise, the church has not provided any evidence to suggest that people who are homosexuals or who do not want to get married in church or do not believe in the supernatural are sick.
Whilst we should be concerned about human rights and the freedom to worship we should be concerned about the dangers that organisations such as "Core Issues" represent. Their ideas that homosexuals are sick and can be cured are irrational. In my view their cures represent another form of witchcraft or sorcery. Any young person who is homosexual would do well to steer very clear of the ideas and quackery of this institution. The opinions of organisations such as "Core Issues" should be vigorously and critically examined at school so that pupils can determine their veracity for themselves.
I am opposed to idea of faith schools, as I do not believe that any religion should proselytise its ideas using state funds. If parents want their children to receive a "faith" education they should send their children to a private school not funded by the state. Even so, such such schools should be obliged to educate their children to an approved educational standard and curriculum.
I am opposed to any form of unbalanced political activity or discussion taking place in a school. Political campaigning for any cause should be banned within the confines of a school.
In my view religious institutions should be allowed to campaign for their views to be heard by the general population. Indeed it should be their right. This right should be exercised responsibly, however, so religious bodies should be careful not to interfere in the political process by encouraging young people to sign petitions against gay marriage or abortions etc.
Why is the Roman Catholic church so opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage? Is it because they are holding onto irrational beliefs for which there is no evidence?
The state does not intend to impose gay marriages on religious institutions. Roman Catholics, who are heterosexuals, will still be allowed to marry as per usual in their church. The same applies to Muslims. Some very religious people do not recognise the state's involvement in marriage but they are free to live together as partners without state sanction.
There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being which is influencing the observable universe. Where is the proof? So how can there be a God's law which dictates that homosexuality is divinely illegal or immoral? It is simply irrational to believe that there can be any other law than that which human beings create for themselves. Secular society has deemed homosexuality to be legal and moral; the Church should accept this.
Stemming from the irrational belief that there is a supernatural being, is the opinion and that the Church is some how in touch with this being who endows absolute powers to the human priesthood. This priesthood is then allowed to dictate what we believe and what we do not believe and how we should behave. It is dangerous to believe that the church has the absolute right to intervene in political affairs. The concept of divine right is complete irrational nonsense.
The dangers of irrational thinking should not be allowed to penetrate state schools. Therefore, the opinions of creative design should not be taught in science lessons. Children and young people should only be taught facts for which which there is indisputable evidence. Children should be taught to distinguish between a fact for which there is evidence and an opinion for which there is not any evidence. The church cannot prove that there is a supernatural being so their claims are opinions only. Likewise, the church has not provided any evidence to suggest that people who are homosexuals or who do not want to get married in church or do not believe in the supernatural are sick.
Whilst we should be concerned about human rights and the freedom to worship we should be concerned about the dangers that organisations such as "Core Issues" represent. Their ideas that homosexuals are sick and can be cured are irrational. In my view their cures represent another form of witchcraft or sorcery. Any young person who is homosexual would do well to steer very clear of the ideas and quackery of this institution. The opinions of organisations such as "Core Issues" should be vigorously and critically examined at school so that pupils can determine their veracity for themselves.
Contraception
The UK National Health Service is putting forward the idea that young women or teenagers, as young as thirteen years of age, should be allowed to obtain the contraceptive pill from trained pharmacists without recourse to a consultation with a doctor. Whilst the numbers of teenagers below the age of thirteen who might want to use this service is probably very small some important ethical issues are raised.
Some aspects of birth control involve medical prescriptions and procedures such as monthly contraceptive pills, the "morning after pill" and abortion. These medical interventions are for the most part being made on people who are not physically ill. Pregnancy, without physical complications, is not an illness. Most women who become pregnant are healthy individuals. I am of the opinion that we should be more careful when we give medical treatment to people who are not physically sick.
There is a legal age of consent which is sixteen. Surely, parents have some rights in this matter and would want to know if their daughters are engaging in under age sex and why.
There is the risk of sexually transmitted disease if anyone indulges in unprotected sex especially if one or both of the partners is promiscuous.
The very young women who are are indulging in under age sex may not be the best organised and might still get pregnant in spite of contraceptive pill usage. We need to see strong evidence that these proposals will in fact reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies.
What safeguards are in place to prevent "braver" young women visiting pharmacists to obtain contraceptive pills for their more timid friends? There is the possibility that young women could obtain this form of medication without any adult knowing.
It is my view that the handing out "off the shelf" solutions does not tackle the problems of unwanted pregnancies or other sexually related problems. Before any form of medication is dispensed to people who are physically in good health then there should at least be a consultation with a medical doctor who can discuss all of the physical and mental implications with the "patient". Where young people who are under the age of sixteen are involved every effort should be made to get the parents involved too.
We also need to do more to educate young people about the consequences of under-age sex and what to do if they are determined to indulge. Young men should also be encouraged to take their sexual activities seriously and use condoms when they have sex: not just to protect themselves but their partners as well.
I am not opposed to contraception or abortion but I think that we should exercise exceptional care especially where young women below the age of sixteen are concerned.
Just reaching out for a strip of pills to try to solve a complex problem is not acceptable for me. In my view our young people deserve something better.
Some aspects of birth control involve medical prescriptions and procedures such as monthly contraceptive pills, the "morning after pill" and abortion. These medical interventions are for the most part being made on people who are not physically ill. Pregnancy, without physical complications, is not an illness. Most women who become pregnant are healthy individuals. I am of the opinion that we should be more careful when we give medical treatment to people who are not physically sick.
There is a legal age of consent which is sixteen. Surely, parents have some rights in this matter and would want to know if their daughters are engaging in under age sex and why.
There is the risk of sexually transmitted disease if anyone indulges in unprotected sex especially if one or both of the partners is promiscuous.
The very young women who are are indulging in under age sex may not be the best organised and might still get pregnant in spite of contraceptive pill usage. We need to see strong evidence that these proposals will in fact reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies.
What safeguards are in place to prevent "braver" young women visiting pharmacists to obtain contraceptive pills for their more timid friends? There is the possibility that young women could obtain this form of medication without any adult knowing.
It is my view that the handing out "off the shelf" solutions does not tackle the problems of unwanted pregnancies or other sexually related problems. Before any form of medication is dispensed to people who are physically in good health then there should at least be a consultation with a medical doctor who can discuss all of the physical and mental implications with the "patient". Where young people who are under the age of sixteen are involved every effort should be made to get the parents involved too.
We also need to do more to educate young people about the consequences of under-age sex and what to do if they are determined to indulge. Young men should also be encouraged to take their sexual activities seriously and use condoms when they have sex: not just to protect themselves but their partners as well.
I am not opposed to contraception or abortion but I think that we should exercise exceptional care especially where young women below the age of sixteen are concerned.
Just reaching out for a strip of pills to try to solve a complex problem is not acceptable for me. In my view our young people deserve something better.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
NHS and the discharge of patients
At last the National Health Service is doing something about the abhorrent practice of discharging patients at night and have issued the following press statement by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh Medical Director of the NHS.
Once again, of course, we are treated to a PR statement in flowery language which does nothing to tackle the problem that some people working in the NHS do not care about the patients. No matter how much money we spend there will be no improvement in care whilst the attitude remains that patients can be discharged from hospitals as if they are vegetables being dispatched to a supermarket warehouse.
It is time for patients to be treated with all the dignity that human beings can be afforded. The tone of the PR release does not fill me full of confidence that the problem of inadequate care throughout the health service will be addressed quickly. It sounds as if inadequate care is not regarded as a problem but more of a "challenge" to be hidden away on a checklist.
Hospital and NHS reorganisations will fail if management are unable to realise that patient care should be the top priority and not the bottom one.It is clearly time for a change of attitude and some down to earth thinking rather than management theory and PR speak.
"While some patients may of course choose to be discharged during these hours, the examples highlighted of elderly patients being left to make their way home by themselves in the middle of the night are obviously unacceptable, and need to be addressed urgently... As health professionals we all agree that patients should be treated with compassion, so it is simply not acceptable to send people home from hospital late at night when they may have no family members nearby to support them".This situation should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. You do not need a degree in nursing or a doctorate in medical science to realise that discharging patients outside of normal working hours is unacceptable regardless of their age or whether family or friends are available to help them or not. This practice should be stopped immediately and there is no need for a review. The hospital staff should know better. It is obvious that this practice has to stop and there is no need for a consultation period. I fear that the practice will be allowed to continue and 75 year old men will be still discharged, at inconvenient hours, into the care of their 70 year old wives. You can see this happening by reading between the lines of the PR statement.
Once again, of course, we are treated to a PR statement in flowery language which does nothing to tackle the problem that some people working in the NHS do not care about the patients. No matter how much money we spend there will be no improvement in care whilst the attitude remains that patients can be discharged from hospitals as if they are vegetables being dispatched to a supermarket warehouse.
It is time for patients to be treated with all the dignity that human beings can be afforded. The tone of the PR release does not fill me full of confidence that the problem of inadequate care throughout the health service will be addressed quickly. It sounds as if inadequate care is not regarded as a problem but more of a "challenge" to be hidden away on a checklist.
Hospital and NHS reorganisations will fail if management are unable to realise that patient care should be the top priority and not the bottom one.It is clearly time for a change of attitude and some down to earth thinking rather than management theory and PR speak.
Friday, 13 April 2012
Gay advertising "battles"
Today Transport for London banned an advertisement by Core Issues, a christian group, to promote on buses the following: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!". Transport for London had previously accepted advertisements from Stonewall promoting: ''Some
people are gay. Get over it''. The Core Issues advertisement is clearly meant to be a spoof which is satirising the Stonewall claims. The Mayor for London averred that the Core Issues advertisement was claiming that homosexuality was an illness which can be cured. It was also his opinion that this type of advertisement is offensive.
Try as I may, I cannot see that the Core Issues' advertisement implies that gay people are sick. Their statement is as meaningless as the Stonewall one. The word gay is a colloquialism and it does not necessarily mean "homosexual" it can also mean "light hearted". "Get over it" is just a catch phrase. Two diametrically opposed campaigning groups are using meaningless language to promote their point of view and to criticise one another. Is this the silly season for public relations?
I could not care less whether someone is homosexual or not or whether they are proud of it or not. I am a heterosexual: I am what I am . I am not proud of it; why should I be? No one is going to convince me otherwise no matter what language they use. And I have no need to get over it, whatever that means.
What I do care about is the freedom of speech, the freedom to practise one's religion and the right to be a heterosexual or homosexual without fear or favour. I also believe in the right to be an agnostic or atheist without fear or favour.
Core Issues are not trying to interfere in the political process by their use of this advert. They are not proposing repressive laws either. They should be allowed to publish this advert. They are just as entitled to publish "tripe" as Stonewall is.
Try as I may, I cannot see that the Core Issues' advertisement implies that gay people are sick. Their statement is as meaningless as the Stonewall one. The word gay is a colloquialism and it does not necessarily mean "homosexual" it can also mean "light hearted". "Get over it" is just a catch phrase. Two diametrically opposed campaigning groups are using meaningless language to promote their point of view and to criticise one another. Is this the silly season for public relations?
I could not care less whether someone is homosexual or not or whether they are proud of it or not. I am a heterosexual: I am what I am . I am not proud of it; why should I be? No one is going to convince me otherwise no matter what language they use. And I have no need to get over it, whatever that means.
What I do care about is the freedom of speech, the freedom to practise one's religion and the right to be a heterosexual or homosexual without fear or favour. I also believe in the right to be an agnostic or atheist without fear or favour.
Core Issues are not trying to interfere in the political process by their use of this advert. They are not proposing repressive laws either. They should be allowed to publish this advert. They are just as entitled to publish "tripe" as Stonewall is.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Sperm Identity
There is talk in Britain of denying sperm donors their anonymity. The whole idea of sperm donation is that it should be anonymous. I suspect that not many men will want to donate sperm only to find that eighteen years or so later someone, who they have never been in contact with, is going to knock on their door claiming to be their son or daughter. Imagine the disruption especially if you are settled down with children that you do know. What would your wife or partner think, as well?
There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Britian who have not been brought up by their real father and it is probably best if they do not know.
Let sleeping dogs lie, if you want a constant supply of sperm donors.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Britian who have not been brought up by their real father and it is probably best if they do not know.
Let sleeping dogs lie, if you want a constant supply of sperm donors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
