Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Eagle Metal Cores Gold
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON REFERENDUM
The interviewee is John Guzzetta, constitutionalist, one of the promoters of the referendum. My personal position is not exactly his (honestly I have not decided what to vote, I see many risks to do), but read his answers may be useful to understand what we're going to vote June 21
1. Why electoral reform by referendum?
The approval of the electoral law (LN 270 of 2005) was accompanied from the outset by many critics, of which, however, nobody has been able to bear. Suggested improvements desired by all, not have been reflected in parliamentary debates.
tool referendum, therefore, seems the only one capable of achieving the twin goals of change, in the best sense, the law and at the same time to reopen the debate on the issue, in view of the possible legislative action.
Note also that the only systematic changes of electoral laws and political system have always been centrally approved by referendum (with the referendum of 1991 and 1993).
2. Do you not think that it is now impossible to reach a quorum?
I sincerely believe not. This referendum is a referendum whatever. Seeks, in fact, a law system, which is the basis the functioning of representative democracy. In other words, if you approve this referendum, parliamentary life work better and, therefore, would be less and less necessary to resort to another type of referendum, those involved when Parliament was not able to meet the needs of the country . Our initiative aims to undermine oligarchic idea and paternalistic policy, hitting the heart of the mechanisms of replacement of the ruling class, and meets the pressing demand for modernization aimed at this purpose. It is also consistent with the idea of \u200b\u200bItaly as a land of opportunity and income, competition and co-optation. Per questi motivi non vi è ragione di ritenere che l’elettorato non coglierà l’occasione per essere partecipe di tale auspicato processo di modernizzazione.
3. Qual è l’oggetto dei quesiti?
Il primo quesito riguarda l’abrogazione delle coalizioni (approfondimento).
Secondo l’attuale legge elettorale di Camera e Senato (così come introdotta con l. legge n. 270 del 2005) a beneficiarie del premio di maggioranza possono essere alternativamente “liste” o “coalizioni di liste”. Il I quesito si propone di abrogare la disciplina che permette il collegamento tra liste. In caso di esito positivo la conseguenza sarebbe che il premio di maggioranza verrebbe attributed only to a single list (and not the coalition's list) that has received the largest number of seats. And, consequently, would raise the thresholds for the barrier, which would have to be 4% to 8% and access to the House to be represented in the Senate.
A second question (depth) is related to the prohibition of multiple nominees in more than one constituency candidate for stress.
It aims to strike further aspect of the scandal represented by multiple applications and co-opted by the oligarchy of the political class. The service in most districts, cd. "Plurieletto" is indeed master of the destiny of all the other candidates, whose election depends, of course, the fact that he, choosing a seat that has won, leaving other. The phenomenon described is now large enough that it seems appropriate to speak of a real system disease. Suffice it to say that well 1 / 3 of parliamentarians currently in office sonop been "elected" the grace received. All this inevitably leads to attitudes of subservience and subordination to the availability of cooptandi, attitudes that harm the dignity and the strong nature of the parliamentary function. For this reason it is desirable to eliminate - always in a referendum - of the possibility of multiple applications in both the House and the Senate.
4. Quali sono i motivi ispiratori della proposta referendaria?
Unità e trasparenza.
Quanto al primo obiettivo, il sistema elettorale risultante dal referendum spingerebbe gli attuali soggetti politici a perseguire, sin dalla fase preelettorale, la costruzione di un unico raggruppamento, rendendo impraticabili soluzioni equivoche ed incentivando una significativa ristrutturazione del sistema partitico. Si aprirebbe, per l’Italia, una prospettiva tendenzialmente bipartitica, con conseguente eliminazione della frammentazione dentro le coalizioni.
La proposta referendaria va incontro, inoltre, ad un’esigenza di trasparenza, la quale è realizzabile tramite l’eliminazione della facoltà di candidature multiple in the House and the Senate.
5. What would happen to the Italian political system if it were approved the referendum?
The approval of the referendum would produce a radical renewal of the current electoral system - and, through that, the political system - capable of providing more transparency to the entire political context, the sides more unity, more opportunities for citizens to expend apply their skills and merits. The elimination of factionalism and the crumbling of representation would ensure a thorough restructuring of the party system. Who are more screwed up themselves and are reluctant to operate any parts.
select their own ruling classes on the basis of lack of transparency that often have nothing to do with the merit, capacity or disinterested passion.
parties also fail to achieve unity in the camps, with a creeping, continuous war of position and a clash of paralyzing vetoes within the coalition.
parties are divided and the current electoral law has further exacerbated the tendencies towards division and fragmentation.
This is a brake on change and avoids making ambitious policies that actually improve our quality of life of ordinary citizens.
The hope is to open items, sensitive to the flow of news from the company and better able to resist pressure from vested interests.
parties responsible, capable of achieving objectives, to innovate, to invent change.
Dynamic parts, which do not yield to the temptation to turn inward, to become oligarchies episodic deaf to the future.
For this, we believe that there is a better way to choose members of parliament, thus avoiding 'that hundreds of members are appointed by the grace received from those who have already been elected.
For this, we believe that the existing parties have to reinvest back into the game and its traditions into something larger and more cohesive: unit subject to stand as candidates to lead the country, using their time in achieving the promised goals.
6. Someone may object that the referendum would be useless because the parties come together to form a big plank and then split after the elections.
objection based on the assumption that electoral systems are totally irrelevant on the behavior of parties and voters. The Italian parties, in particular, would find a way to "circumvent the rules" then divide again after joining fictitiously. In other words: without the law find the loophole.
However, scholars are agreed that the electoral systems are not irrelevant to how you structure the party system and electoral behavior. You can discuss the incidence rate of the rules, but no one has ever doubted the connection between rules and policy.
I think that now the model of advanced democracies where two main parties vie for the political leadership of the country - an area subject to minor parties not merging - is now internalized in Italy
Find tab 15 symbols for a single party coalition (which is missing, however, symbol, name, and leader) is very different than finding a unique symbol, a name only, an indication of a single candidate for prime minister. Of course, parties may always "decouple" later. Especially in Italy until we introduce rules like those in Germany who interpret the principle of free parliamentary mandate in a less trasformistico. But what are the political costs of breaking combination sealed by voters who voted for the "whole" and not the individual parts? Not only that, but the absence of symbols of the individual parties to prevent them from power census consent. This is not trivial, because it deprives them of the power of blackmail so-called "certificate".
The referendum, ultimately, maximize the political costs of breaking up and reducing the litigation,
voters finally have already demonstrated on several occasions that they want unity, synthesis, single view. And they're willing to reward - the list of the Olive docet - who is able to convey these values.
7. The referendum is not against the small parties and against pluralism?
This referendum is not against anyone. And, above all, is not against pluralism. If anything is dynamic and modern Italy. The aim of inducing different political parties to merge into big parties shall not prevent the minority of instances have their own role within them. In all the great democracies, even when contending for the possibility of government are only two or three parties, there are souls and different currents within them. The fact that this might discourage the multi-extreme is not to blame. It is since the days of the Constituent Assembly, in fact, that deprecate the instability and fragmentation of coalition governments.
The electoral system that would result from the approval of the referendum questions is a challenge for all parties, large and small. The latter, in particular, would have to choose to defend their case within the wider party, adding, in a synthesis process, the identity of any of them or compete independently in the elections, which would still be possible, after passing the electoral threshold (del 4%e dell’8%). Sarebbe, in altre parole, comunque garantito a chi decidesse di competere al di fuori dei partiti unitari la possibilità di un ampio “diritto di tribuna”.
8. Non si tratta di un’iniziativa astratta d’ingegneria costituzionale?
Lo strumento referendario, per sua natura, non può introdurre nuove leggi, ma soltanto abrogare singole norme di leggi già esistenti. E se si riesce a far ciò in modo tale che la c.d. normativa di risulta sia migliore della precedente, può forse parlarsi di “ingegneria costituzionale”, ma la definizione non sarebbe affatto offensiva.
Basti, in tal senso citare, l’incipit di un saggio di Sartori (Comparative Constitutional Engineering): "Bentam once said that the great 'engine' (engines) of reality are the punishment and reward. And surely 'engineering' (engineering) is derived from engine. Putting together etymology and metaphor, I came to 'constitutional engineering' to make the idea first that constitutions are somewhat similar to machines or mechanisms that need to 'work' and that should still give results, and second, that it is unlikely that constitutions work properly (as they should), unless you deploy the 'motors' of Bentham, that is, punishments and rewards. "
If the term" engineering constitutional ", ie, alludes to the fact that, through the so-called" cut-out technique "obtaining or working on election law, legitimately, a better system than the current, I do not mind at all be considered a constitutional engineer.
9. It is fair to deprive the Parliament in this sensitive issue?
Parliament is not at all deprived. The referendum is an instrument in the availability of the electorate to bring an action for repealing the law, but the fact remains that the legislative body remains still and fully holds the power to regulate matters that they are concerned, in this case the system election. Rather, this instrument of direct democracy is demonstrated in terms of stimulating the political debate on the subject, which could lead even to propitiate a possible legislative action, and not crowd out the Parliament.
Of course, if Parliament will not be able to make a good reform and will remain paralyzed by vetoes, we say thank goodness that is the instrument of the referendum.
add that this referendum claim to intercept a push for change to the existing society. The aggregation process in the Democratic Party and and the prospect of the birth of the Party of moderates are waiting for a sign that the unit is very strong in society. The referendum is an instrument to give voice to this desire.
10. So the referendum is not just about election law?
No, the referendum expresses an idea of \u200b\u200bpolitics and society, as a society based on open competition on quality, enhancement of the merits and opportunities. A society where every citizen can feel of your own life.
The interviewee is John Guzzetta, constitutionalist, one of the promoters of the referendum. My personal position is not exactly his (honestly I have not decided what to vote, I see many risks to do), but read his answers may be useful to understand what we're going to vote June 21
1. Why electoral reform by referendum?
The approval of the electoral law (LN 270 of 2005) was accompanied from the outset by many critics, of which, however, nobody has been able to bear. Suggested improvements desired by all, not have been reflected in parliamentary debates.
tool referendum, therefore, seems the only one capable of achieving the twin goals of change, in the best sense, the law and at the same time to reopen the debate on the issue, in view of the possible legislative action.
Note also that the only systematic changes of electoral laws and political system have always been centrally approved by referendum (with the referendum of 1991 and 1993).
2. Do you not think that it is now impossible to reach a quorum?
I sincerely believe not. This referendum is a referendum whatever. Seeks, in fact, a law system, which is the basis the functioning of representative democracy. In other words, if you approve this referendum, parliamentary life work better and, therefore, would be less and less necessary to resort to another type of referendum, those involved when Parliament was not able to meet the needs of the country . Our initiative aims to undermine oligarchic idea and paternalistic policy, hitting the heart of the mechanisms of replacement of the ruling class, and meets the pressing demand for modernization aimed at this purpose. It is also consistent with the idea of \u200b\u200bItaly as a land of opportunity and income, competition and co-optation. Per questi motivi non vi è ragione di ritenere che l’elettorato non coglierà l’occasione per essere partecipe di tale auspicato processo di modernizzazione.
3. Qual è l’oggetto dei quesiti?
Il primo quesito riguarda l’abrogazione delle coalizioni (approfondimento).
Secondo l’attuale legge elettorale di Camera e Senato (così come introdotta con l. legge n. 270 del 2005) a beneficiarie del premio di maggioranza possono essere alternativamente “liste” o “coalizioni di liste”. Il I quesito si propone di abrogare la disciplina che permette il collegamento tra liste. In caso di esito positivo la conseguenza sarebbe che il premio di maggioranza verrebbe attributed only to a single list (and not the coalition's list) that has received the largest number of seats. And, consequently, would raise the thresholds for the barrier, which would have to be 4% to 8% and access to the House to be represented in the Senate.
A second question (depth) is related to the prohibition of multiple nominees in more than one constituency candidate for stress.
It aims to strike further aspect of the scandal represented by multiple applications and co-opted by the oligarchy of the political class. The service in most districts, cd. "Plurieletto" is indeed master of the destiny of all the other candidates, whose election depends, of course, the fact that he, choosing a seat that has won, leaving other. The phenomenon described is now large enough that it seems appropriate to speak of a real system disease. Suffice it to say that well 1 / 3 of parliamentarians currently in office sonop been "elected" the grace received. All this inevitably leads to attitudes of subservience and subordination to the availability of cooptandi, attitudes that harm the dignity and the strong nature of the parliamentary function. For this reason it is desirable to eliminate - always in a referendum - of the possibility of multiple applications in both the House and the Senate.
4. Quali sono i motivi ispiratori della proposta referendaria?
Unità e trasparenza.
Quanto al primo obiettivo, il sistema elettorale risultante dal referendum spingerebbe gli attuali soggetti politici a perseguire, sin dalla fase preelettorale, la costruzione di un unico raggruppamento, rendendo impraticabili soluzioni equivoche ed incentivando una significativa ristrutturazione del sistema partitico. Si aprirebbe, per l’Italia, una prospettiva tendenzialmente bipartitica, con conseguente eliminazione della frammentazione dentro le coalizioni.
La proposta referendaria va incontro, inoltre, ad un’esigenza di trasparenza, la quale è realizzabile tramite l’eliminazione della facoltà di candidature multiple in the House and the Senate.
5. What would happen to the Italian political system if it were approved the referendum?
The approval of the referendum would produce a radical renewal of the current electoral system - and, through that, the political system - capable of providing more transparency to the entire political context, the sides more unity, more opportunities for citizens to expend apply their skills and merits. The elimination of factionalism and the crumbling of representation would ensure a thorough restructuring of the party system. Who are more screwed up themselves and are reluctant to operate any parts.
select their own ruling classes on the basis of lack of transparency that often have nothing to do with the merit, capacity or disinterested passion.
parties also fail to achieve unity in the camps, with a creeping, continuous war of position and a clash of paralyzing vetoes within the coalition.
parties are divided and the current electoral law has further exacerbated the tendencies towards division and fragmentation.
This is a brake on change and avoids making ambitious policies that actually improve our quality of life of ordinary citizens.
The hope is to open items, sensitive to the flow of news from the company and better able to resist pressure from vested interests.
parties responsible, capable of achieving objectives, to innovate, to invent change.
Dynamic parts, which do not yield to the temptation to turn inward, to become oligarchies episodic deaf to the future.
For this, we believe that there is a better way to choose members of parliament, thus avoiding 'that hundreds of members are appointed by the grace received from those who have already been elected.
For this, we believe that the existing parties have to reinvest back into the game and its traditions into something larger and more cohesive: unit subject to stand as candidates to lead the country, using their time in achieving the promised goals.
6. Someone may object that the referendum would be useless because the parties come together to form a big plank and then split after the elections.
objection based on the assumption that electoral systems are totally irrelevant on the behavior of parties and voters. The Italian parties, in particular, would find a way to "circumvent the rules" then divide again after joining fictitiously. In other words: without the law find the loophole.
However, scholars are agreed that the electoral systems are not irrelevant to how you structure the party system and electoral behavior. You can discuss the incidence rate of the rules, but no one has ever doubted the connection between rules and policy.
I think that now the model of advanced democracies where two main parties vie for the political leadership of the country - an area subject to minor parties not merging - is now internalized in Italy
Find tab 15 symbols for a single party coalition (which is missing, however, symbol, name, and leader) is very different than finding a unique symbol, a name only, an indication of a single candidate for prime minister. Of course, parties may always "decouple" later. Especially in Italy until we introduce rules like those in Germany who interpret the principle of free parliamentary mandate in a less trasformistico. But what are the political costs of breaking combination sealed by voters who voted for the "whole" and not the individual parts? Not only that, but the absence of symbols of the individual parties to prevent them from power census consent. This is not trivial, because it deprives them of the power of blackmail so-called "certificate".
The referendum, ultimately, maximize the political costs of breaking up and reducing the litigation,
voters finally have already demonstrated on several occasions that they want unity, synthesis, single view. And they're willing to reward - the list of the Olive docet - who is able to convey these values.
7. The referendum is not against the small parties and against pluralism?
This referendum is not against anyone. And, above all, is not against pluralism. If anything is dynamic and modern Italy. The aim of inducing different political parties to merge into big parties shall not prevent the minority of instances have their own role within them. In all the great democracies, even when contending for the possibility of government are only two or three parties, there are souls and different currents within them. The fact that this might discourage the multi-extreme is not to blame. It is since the days of the Constituent Assembly, in fact, that deprecate the instability and fragmentation of coalition governments.
The electoral system that would result from the approval of the referendum questions is a challenge for all parties, large and small. The latter, in particular, would have to choose to defend their case within the wider party, adding, in a synthesis process, the identity of any of them or compete independently in the elections, which would still be possible, after passing the electoral threshold (del 4%e dell’8%). Sarebbe, in altre parole, comunque garantito a chi decidesse di competere al di fuori dei partiti unitari la possibilità di un ampio “diritto di tribuna”.
8. Non si tratta di un’iniziativa astratta d’ingegneria costituzionale?
Lo strumento referendario, per sua natura, non può introdurre nuove leggi, ma soltanto abrogare singole norme di leggi già esistenti. E se si riesce a far ciò in modo tale che la c.d. normativa di risulta sia migliore della precedente, può forse parlarsi di “ingegneria costituzionale”, ma la definizione non sarebbe affatto offensiva.
Basti, in tal senso citare, l’incipit di un saggio di Sartori (Comparative Constitutional Engineering): "Bentam once said that the great 'engine' (engines) of reality are the punishment and reward. And surely 'engineering' (engineering) is derived from engine. Putting together etymology and metaphor, I came to 'constitutional engineering' to make the idea first that constitutions are somewhat similar to machines or mechanisms that need to 'work' and that should still give results, and second, that it is unlikely that constitutions work properly (as they should), unless you deploy the 'motors' of Bentham, that is, punishments and rewards. "
If the term" engineering constitutional ", ie, alludes to the fact that, through the so-called" cut-out technique "obtaining or working on election law, legitimately, a better system than the current, I do not mind at all be considered a constitutional engineer.
9. It is fair to deprive the Parliament in this sensitive issue?
Parliament is not at all deprived. The referendum is an instrument in the availability of the electorate to bring an action for repealing the law, but the fact remains that the legislative body remains still and fully holds the power to regulate matters that they are concerned, in this case the system election. Rather, this instrument of direct democracy is demonstrated in terms of stimulating the political debate on the subject, which could lead even to propitiate a possible legislative action, and not crowd out the Parliament.
Of course, if Parliament will not be able to make a good reform and will remain paralyzed by vetoes, we say thank goodness that is the instrument of the referendum.
add that this referendum claim to intercept a push for change to the existing society. The aggregation process in the Democratic Party and and the prospect of the birth of the Party of moderates are waiting for a sign that the unit is very strong in society. The referendum is an instrument to give voice to this desire.
10. So the referendum is not just about election law?
No, the referendum expresses an idea of \u200b\u200bpolitics and society, as a society based on open competition on quality, enhancement of the merits and opportunities. A society where every citizen can feel of your own life.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
How Many Matches Did Jeff Hardy Win
CREATIVE FINANCE
speak of "creative finance" in a vortex communicational that more and more resembles a gigantic project of "psy-op" sounds like a provocation.
Yet the real finance, one that always moves "stay behind" every day that God sends to earth, build, create new worlds.
What the public exchange to finance the latter is the abuse by soldiers of the metastasis-state, corrupt and corrupting Hardly ideological, sorcerer's apprentice, upstart left, hungry and without basis.
The so-called crisis "financial" crisis of growth is, in fact, crisis control and secularization of sector which by its nature is discrete and elitist.
The supporters of "democratic" USA, part of a never dead, "Communist International", have used the drift of the process of "financial activities", a process that allows virtually anyone to use the property for money is not reinvest (or when negative debt) and raise its projection immaterial in this planet, creating new value and new reality for themselves and others.
Abusing the "financial activities" ideological madmen have praised the "home for all", but without questioning the responsibility and the risk that the transaction, can always entails.
They then speculated wildly on their knees currencies entire countries, where grand old men of finance, too soon put to the index, saving the same countries with Masonic lobby, and not only extended to the whole planet.
Other sorcerer's apprentice, novice usurers, have, by the swaps, in effect lent money with real compensatory wear, putting on his knees Italian local governments, provided that the infamous communist-leaguers have autonomy but with no brain.
CDOs managed by greedy upstarts have done the rest.
But behind all this there is the long arm of Islamic and Chinese have had and have an interest in bring down the prices to buy at as low and thus impose their dominance of the Middle Ages, this supported by Western dumbed down by drugs, by ideology, relativism and slavery also supported by low-cost, parasitism of oil, money and wear and tear incurred halawas brought by migrants to their misery by these oligarchies.
And who can believe that Madoff has a multi-level set that lasted over 20 years?
an escape from this resurgence of the Middle Ages is the living tradition, not the hypostasized and kept alive by the secret services diverted and what I call the "Fake Right" ("False Right"), which compares the tradition and horizon that has the freedom and the free market, which looks to the West and ahead, not back towards the East and that goes against the history and the laws of logic and physics.
and tradition of the Maritime Republics take the use of letters of credit, not more and not only used as a means of payment, but as a means of credit and commercial or financial leverage (use of loaned instruments, in joint venture or other similar forms).
And just as in the New Physics "infinite cakes are created in the Universe", continuing the action of the Marshall Plan and the creation of the MTN (Medium Term Notes) and BG (Bank Guarantees, Bank Guarantees treated as zero coupon bond with maturity deferred money and having a less than face value), authoring tools, we can build a new world.
This is the "creative finance, finance construction of the lever and the New Reality, a reality competition, the value of Liberty. 
speak of "creative finance" in a vortex communicational that more and more resembles a gigantic project of "psy-op" sounds like a provocation.
Yet the real finance, one that always moves "stay behind" every day that God sends to earth, build, create new worlds.
What the public exchange to finance the latter is the abuse by soldiers of the metastasis-state, corrupt and corrupting Hardly ideological, sorcerer's apprentice, upstart left, hungry and without basis.
The so-called crisis "financial" crisis of growth is, in fact, crisis control and secularization of sector which by its nature is discrete and elitist.
The supporters of "democratic" USA, part of a never dead, "Communist International", have used the drift of the process of "financial activities", a process that allows virtually anyone to use the property for money is not reinvest (or when negative debt) and raise its projection immaterial in this planet, creating new value and new reality for themselves and others.
Abusing the "financial activities" ideological madmen have praised the "home for all", but without questioning the responsibility and the risk that the transaction, can always entails.
They then speculated wildly on their knees currencies entire countries, where grand old men of finance, too soon put to the index, saving the same countries with Masonic lobby, and not only extended to the whole planet.
Other sorcerer's apprentice, novice usurers, have, by the swaps, in effect lent money with real compensatory wear, putting on his knees Italian local governments, provided that the infamous communist-leaguers have autonomy but with no brain.
CDOs managed by greedy upstarts have done the rest.
But behind all this there is the long arm of Islamic and Chinese have had and have an interest in bring down the prices to buy at as low and thus impose their dominance of the Middle Ages, this supported by Western dumbed down by drugs, by ideology, relativism and slavery also supported by low-cost, parasitism of oil, money and wear and tear incurred halawas brought by migrants to their misery by these oligarchies.
And who can believe that Madoff has a multi-level set that lasted over 20 years?
an escape from this resurgence of the Middle Ages is the living tradition, not the hypostasized and kept alive by the secret services diverted and what I call the "Fake Right" ("False Right"), which compares the tradition and horizon that has the freedom and the free market, which looks to the West and ahead, not back towards the East and that goes against the history and the laws of logic and physics.
and tradition of the Maritime Republics take the use of letters of credit, not more and not only used as a means of payment, but as a means of credit and commercial or financial leverage (use of loaned instruments, in joint venture or other similar forms).
And just as in the New Physics "infinite cakes are created in the Universe", continuing the action of the Marshall Plan and the creation of the MTN (Medium Term Notes) and BG (Bank Guarantees, Bank Guarantees treated as zero coupon bond with maturity deferred money and having a less than face value), authoring tools, we can build a new world.
This is the "creative finance, finance construction of the lever and the New Reality, a reality competition, the value of Liberty.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Nadine Jansen Getting Fat
FORUM POST OUR BANNER IN YOUR SITE OR BLOG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1983496/LOGO% 20VERTICALE.png
(Copy and paste the picture or, better quality, post the link below each image) 
LOGO HORIZONTAL
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1983496/LOGO.png
VERTICAL LOGO
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1983496/LOGO.png
VERTICAL LOGO
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1983496/LOGO% 20VERTICALE.png
(Copy and paste the picture or, better quality, post the link below each image)
Friday, January 30, 2009
Can You Wear Black Patent With Black Satin
redazione@teatrocontemporaneo.org
info@teatrocontemporaneo.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)