If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   $1 billion in aid to Japan has reached... the pockets of the Red Cross   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 341
    More: Obvious, Red Cross, Japan, American Red Cross, Tokyo University, NHK, Fukushima, pockets, emergency management  
•       •       •

21824 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2011 at 5:32 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-03 06:25:11 PM
Red Cross (like United Way) = Shyster organization. Hopefully they DIAMFF.
 
2011-04-03 06:26:12 PM

1. Put snakes on plane: You sir, are a farking liar. Bring proof or STFU.


Shrug

Well, you've shown your colors.

Were only I as omniscient as you...
 
2011-04-03 06:26:16 PM

ukexpat: And don't get me started on the scam of all scams that is United Way...


The enormous megaconglomerate I work for has for the past five years donated no money to any organization other than the United Way. If your local charity isn't United Way worthy, too bad.

That said, the other morning I answered the doorbell and a Red Cross worked barged into my kitchen and peed in my cheerios. I was flabbergasted to tell you the truth.
 
2011-04-03 06:26:59 PM
Japan doesn't need money.

Well, maybe if they got it all in 1 cent coins and dropped it on the reactor...

But their problem is not financial, it's a rich country.


I would like if the Red Cross used the money where it's needed, but they're bound to use it on Japan where it won't make a farking difference. Which is a waste, and I pity the fools who thought they helped by donating to Japan.
 
2011-04-03 06:27:21 PM

beer4breakfast: Since we're on the topic of charities, what do you farkers think about the Avon Foundation? They do walks for breast cancer. I was going to donate but I'm a little hesitant since they are tied to Avon corporation.


Breast cancer receives wildly disproportionate funds compared to other, more dangerous cancers. Avon is a pyramid scheme corporation.

/Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw a Jerry Springer guest.
 
2011-04-03 06:27:23 PM

ThisNameSux: Welcome to Fark, a place where people donate to charity so they can tell you how awesome they are, not because they give a fark about the people in need.


Huh? when people donate, they want to make sure that their donations go to good use helping people on the ground, not to lining someone's pockets. charity mismanagement can hurt the impression potential donors have of all charities. that means less help on the ground. that's not cool.

none of that worry is about giving just to impress other people with one's giving.
 
2011-04-03 06:27:47 PM

LavenderWolf: I'm just saying whatever number buddy pulled out of his ass is irrelevant. Mass outpouring of donations + no need for additional blood = some blood destroyed because it goes bad before use.


Well, a good blood bank will look to sell as much of their surplus blood as possible in order to recuperate some of the cost of collecting and processing it. So while it seems likely that a higher percentage than usual was discarded immediately after 9/11 I'm guessing it is no where close to 90%.
 
2011-04-03 06:29:14 PM

randomjsa: Every damn time.

And when I say the Red Cross is a scam, people demand to know what the hell I'm on.

Do NOT donate to the Red Cross. Period. They are and remain some of the biggest scam artists in the history.

Doctors without Borders is a good organization so far as I know. Donate to them.


Okay, well as long as you're completely ignorant about doctors without borders, they must be trustworthy.
 
2011-04-03 06:29:20 PM
All these big box charities are out for themselves Im convinced
 
2011-04-03 06:29:20 PM

Rashnu: flamingboar: What is a good charity to donate to?

I like Doctors Without Borders. They're in Japan helping out, though not currently accepting donations specifically ear-marked for Japan aid.


Just make sure to get on their no-mail list... otherwise they will send you a tree's worth of mail each year.
 
2011-04-03 06:29:53 PM
As someone who donated his entire tax return to the Japanese relief effort, I'm not getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2011-04-03 06:31:33 PM

stuhayes2010: Gosh, I guess they should just fly over Japan and just throw money out the plane's windows.


Yes, I'm sure everyone here who has a problem with the Red Cross holding 1 billion in donations want to throw the money away by plane, you stupid farker.
 
2011-04-03 06:32:25 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk
"It would be glib of us to not send our charities!"
 
2011-04-03 06:32:58 PM

gaspode: The article is odd. Why would someone giving money to something like the red cross expect it to be given DIRECTLY, ie as money, to victims? I would expect money given to an organisation like that to be spent on supplies and medical/rescue etc etc not given out as cash.

Or am I missing something?


You're missing the Orlando Sentinel's need to sell papers.
 
2011-04-03 06:33:26 PM

whither_apophis: And in Islamic countries it's called the Red Cresent??


And in Israel, it's the Israeli Red Star of David (Magen David Adom). It only took 50 years for the IRC to recognize them and let them in as a member organization.
 
2011-04-03 06:33:37 PM

beer4breakfast: Since we're on the topic of charities, what do you farkers think about the Avon Foundation? They do walks for breast cancer. I was going to donate but I'm a little hesitant since they are tied to Avon corporation.


Walks for awareness? Feh. American women already generally drastically overestimate their risk of breast cancer. Awareness isn't a problem. This has been true for years. Coronary heart disease remains the leading cause of death for American women, beating all forms of cancer combined overall and most ethnic groups.
 
2011-04-03 06:33:55 PM

Dufus: Bathia_Mapes: Didn't the U.S. Red Cross do basically the same thing post-Katrina?

A Red Gross rep tried to shut down relief work at our local Baptist church after Katrina. The pastor listened patiently and quietly to her explain that it was not sanctioned by the Red Cross and must be shut down. Then he offered to let her tell the people waiting in line for hot meals and supplies that they had to go away and wait until the Red Cross finally got to our town.


Kicked.
Their.
Asses.
 
2011-04-03 06:34:16 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: ThisNameSux: Welcome to Fark, a place where people donate to charity so they can tell you how awesome they are, not because they give a fark about the people in need.

Huh? when people donate, they want to make sure that their donations go to good use helping people on the ground, not to lining someone's pockets. charity mismanagement can hurt the impression potential donors have of all charities. that means less help on the ground. that's not cool.

none of that worry is about giving just to impress other people with one's giving.


This.
 
2011-04-03 06:34:52 PM

LavenderWolf:
Maybe you're not understanding me. The guy who made the initial claim of "omg blood waste 90%" is not only not supported by the evidence, but even if he were right, it is irrelevant.


Cite your farking sources, alt asshole.
 
2011-04-03 06:37:00 PM

Tachikoma: LavenderWolf:
Maybe you're not understanding me. The guy who made the initial claim of "omg blood waste 90%" is not only not supported by the evidence, but even if he were right, it is irrelevant.

Cite your farking sources, alt asshole.


What the hell are you talking about?
 
2011-04-03 06:39:20 PM
The problem with blood donations around 9/11 was that there was so many donors with diseases. Some days it would take hours doing the requisite paperwork for them. These people didn't want to give money or help so they donated whole blood. They didn't listen when everyone said don't come in to donate. Cops had to be called several times when people were deferred because we stopped their god given right to spread disease. The worst thing is that platelets donations were down and no one would donate those.
 
2011-04-03 06:40:11 PM

Korovyov: beer4breakfast: Since we're on the topic of charities, what do you farkers think about the Avon Foundation? They do walks for breast cancer. I was going to donate but I'm a little hesitant since they are tied to Avon corporation.

Walks for awareness? Feh. American women already generally drastically overestimate their risk of breast cancer. Awareness isn't a problem. This has been true for years. Coronary heart disease remains the leading cause of death for American women, beating all forms of cancer combined overall and most ethnic groups.


My aunt is doing the walk so while it might not be the best way to donate to a health issue it isn't a purely practical choice. I was just wondering if anybody heard of any sketchy stories on the Avon Foundation. What I've read on the Red Cross has already convinced me never to donate to them. There are a lot more worthy organizations for international relief.
 
2011-04-03 06:40:29 PM
All charities are scams in one way or another.

Some just have a higher level of scamminess.
 
2011-04-03 06:40:35 PM
The image in TFA looks like part of a ransom demand. "Hold up the paper so we can prove today's date."



leaVE 5o0 mILLion yEN in a papER BAg at thE tRAIn 5tation IF yoU eVER WAnt to SEE Japan agaIN. EnClo$ED is its ear t0 prov3 we R seRIOus.
 
2011-04-03 06:40:45 PM

Lone Stranger: flamingboar: What is a good charity to donate to?

I'm starting a halfway house for girls who go all the way if you'd like to contribute.



Why would anyone want to go halfway?
 
2011-04-03 06:40:49 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Huh? when people donate, they want to make sure that their donations go to good use helping people on the ground, not to lining someone's pockets. charity mismanagement can hurt the impression potential donors have of all charities. that means less help on the ground. that's not cool.


So the American Red Cross is lining their pockets with donation money? Go do some research and get back with me. Hold on, I'll save you the time, 91.8% of all donations to the Red Cross go to helping the needy. That's pretty damn impressive for such a large organization.
 
2011-04-03 06:41:03 PM

Tachikoma: Of course, the downside to donating blood is that it leaves your arms looking like you're a junkie.


I thought you could only donate once every other month... the needle wound closes up in a couple of days, at least for me.

I'm missing something here.
 
2011-04-03 06:42:44 PM

Tachikoma: LavenderWolf:
Maybe you're not understanding me. The guy who made the initial claim of "omg blood waste 90%" is not only not supported by the evidence, but even if he were right, it is irrelevant.

Cite your farking sources, alt asshole.


Seriously I'm WTFing here. This account's been actively used since june 2004. That would be an impressive display of trollsmanship if I were an alt. Further, you and I don't even disagree. I have no idea what the hell your problem with me is. You have been responding to me with hostility for no reason.
 
2011-04-03 06:44:20 PM
From a RAND Corp. Study of 9/11 "Killed or Seriously Injured Civilians. The attacks killed 2,551 civilians (i.e., non-emergency-response personnel) and seriously injured another 215. The vast majority of these victims and their families sought compensation through the VCF. This group received a total of $8.7 billion in benefits, or an average of $3.1 million per recipient. Sixty-nine percent of the benefits came from the government, 23 percent from insurance, and 8 percent from charities."

Are you really going to give the Red Cross a hard time for wanting to save some of that money for a less $exy disaster?
 
2011-04-03 06:45:59 PM
The Red Cross in the UK set up a special tsunami fund which I donated to. I'll be very annoyed if that has not been distributed and instead siphoned off somewhere else. Anyone got any more reliable alternatives to RC ???
 
2011-04-03 06:46:37 PM

hardinparamedic: Dufus: Bathia_Mapes: Didn't the U.S. Red Cross do basically the same thing post-Katrina?

A Red Gross rep tried to shut down relief work at our local Baptist church after Katrina. The pastor listened patiently and quietly to her explain that it was not sanctioned by the Red Cross and must be shut down. Then he offered to let her tell the people waiting in line for hot meals and supplies that they had to go away and wait until the Red Cross finally got to our town.

She left. Still haven't seen anyone from RC around here since.

Bullshiat.


As someone that volunteered for the Red Cross during Katrina, I also call bullshiat. Salvation Army, Southern Baptist Convention, and the Red Cross were operating logistics from an old, empty Wal-Mart building in Baton Rouge. If one group was closer to the area, they were deployed there. It was a joint effort. A ton of the Red Cross supplies were served at churches (they have huge kitchens), some was delivered and served by the Red Cross trucks, some from the Salvation Army trucks, and some from random vans. I think there was also a biker group that did deliveries/kitchens. We didn't care who brought it or who served it.

If you got food, it was likely it came from a Red Cross or FEMA warehouse. If you got clothes, it was from Salvation Army (RC will not do clothes for whatever reason). Other supplies came from everywhere.

That said there was some waste\wackiness as you couldn't let food drop below a certain temperature (140 Fahrenheit I think). No reheats. So if there was someone complaining about the food from the Red Cross, it was about that. They probably wanted their name taken off it so they didn't get sued for food poisoning.

There was a lot of people unofficially handing out food that wasn't consumed that day and writing it off as being destroyed. There were also folks that were sticklers that if food was suspected of dropping below 140, whole line was dumped.

Another odd note - the Southern Baptist Convention rep in my logistics area had to deal with people refusing to take canned water because it was canned by a brewery. After a few face-palms, he said "I wish I could have a beer."

There were a lot of shenanigans by Red Cross workers though. After the initial deployment, they simply ran out of people properly trained and started sending people that took only couple day training classes. Some would get flown there and then get sent immediately back for asshattery of some sort.

Also, we weren't allowed to comment to any reporter on anything unless a special press rep was there. No defending the Red Cross, no slamming it. If you said anything you were sent home.

I have no clue how the Red Cross works on the large scale or internationally, so monetary donations are something I know nothing about. I just dealt with getting food and water and some random other items to various kitchens and shelters.
 
2011-04-03 06:47:10 PM

hardinparamedic: Dufus: Bathia_Mapes: Didn't the U.S. Red Cross do basically the same thing post-Katrina?

A Red Gross rep tried to shut down relief work at our local Baptist church after Katrina. The pastor listened patiently and quietly to her explain that it was not sanctioned by the Red Cross and must be shut down. Then he offered to let her tell the people waiting in line for hot meals and supplies that they had to go away and wait until the Red Cross finally got to our town.

She left. Still haven't seen anyone from RC around here since.

Bullshiat.


No, it's really not. I've seen this happen three different times with members of the Red Cross demanding that all aid within a certain area be put under their direct supervision. If anyone refuses, the Red Cross expects them to be shut down and asked to leave. In one instance they flat out refused to let their trucks approach the site until the local emergency management coordinator placed the Salvation Army, which was already there and working, under Red Cross "guidance". The organization is a well known bully in emergency management and the only reason they get away with it is because they have friends in high places.

fark the Red Cross.
 
2011-04-03 06:50:10 PM

ThisNameSux: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Huh? when people donate, they want to make sure that their donations go to good use helping people on the ground, not to lining someone's pockets. charity mismanagement can hurt the impression potential donors have of all charities. that means less help on the ground. that's not cool.

So the American Red Cross is lining their pockets with donation money? Go do some research and get back with me. Hold on, I'll save you the time, 91.8% of all donations to the Red Cross go to helping the needy. That's pretty damn impressive for such a large organization.


Even Red Cross execs can be needy. I saw one driving a $40000 car and it irked me. Couldn't find a $18000 Hyundai to do the same job?

Here's another scam. The American Cancer Society Relay For Life. I got paid for DJing the event, and that covered my assistants, not me.
 
2011-04-03 06:51:21 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Didn't the U.S. Red Cross do basically the same thing post-Katrina?

Post 9/11 too. Over 3bil donated. Only 3.2 mil allocated for recovery and assistance.
 
2011-04-03 06:52:02 PM
beer4breakfast:
My aunt is doing the walk so while it might not be the best way to donate to a health issue it isn't a purely practical choice. I was just wondering if anybody heard of any sketchy stories on the Avon Foundation. What I've read on the Red Cross has already convinced me never to donate to them. There are a lot more worthy organizations for international relief.


Fair enough. I was unduly harsh and not really answering your question in that post, which was unhelpful of me.

CN doesn't evaluate them yet (apparently they don't until they have 4+ years of 990's, and the Avon Foundation was a private group exempt from filing until lately.)

http://www.avonfoundation.org/financials.html lists their stated financials.

http://www.avonfoundation.org/assets/2009-irs-990-final-fr-odmd-pdf-by-nd-0512 10 .pdf goes to their 990 for '09.

The handy-dandy pie chart they put up (doesn't say what year) says that they only 71% of budget is for programs; %3 goes to administrative overhead and 26% goes back to fundraising. For comparison, they're not nearly as bad as say, the Disabled Veterans Foundation, which basically funnels all the money straight to the fundraisers; but not nearly as good as e.g. The Rotary Foundation (~7.4% fundraising, 4.1% admin) or the the American Red Cross.
 
2011-04-03 06:52:41 PM
Well, I'm glad I never give a dime to disaster relief. Thanks for justifying my miserliness.
 
2011-04-03 06:53:08 PM

LavenderWolf: Tachikoma: LavenderWolf:
Maybe you're not understanding me. The guy who made the initial claim of "omg blood waste 90%" is not only not supported by the evidence, but even if he were right, it is irrelevant.

Cite your farking sources, alt asshole.

Seriously I'm WTFing here. This account's been actively used since june 2004. That would be an impressive display of trollsmanship if I were an alt. Further, you and I don't even disagree. I have no idea what the hell your problem with me is. You have been responding to me with hostility for no reason.



Possibly a simple communications problem.
Misunderstandings happen.
Surely you guys will work it out amicably. :-)
 
2011-04-03 06:54:11 PM

jwbchuckd: The problem with blood donations around 9/11 was that there was so many donors with diseases. Some days it would take hours doing the requisite paperwork for them. These people didn't want to give money or help so they donated whole blood. They didn't listen when everyone said don't come in to donate. Cops had to be called several times when people were deferred because we stopped their god given right to spread disease. The worst thing is that platelets donations were down and no one would donate those.


Sounds like a long process. The paperwork from platelet donation sounds like it would take as long a time, if not longer. From the wiki:


---------------------
Platelet donation

After a short physical examination, the donor is taken into the donation room and sits in a chair next to the machine. The technician cleans one or both arms with iodine, or other disinfectant, and inserts the catheter into a vein in the arm. With some procedures both arms are used, one to draw blood and the other to return it. The process takes about one to two hours while blood is pulled into the machine, mixed with an anticoagulant such as sodium citrate spun around, and returned to the donor. "Double needle" procedures using both arms tend to be shorter since the blood is drawn and returned through different catheters, with "single needle" procedures a set volume is drawn and processed in the first part of the cycle and returned in the second part. The donor's blood undertakes 3-4 cycles of draw and return.

Side effects of the donation of platelets generally fall into three categories: blood pressure changes, problems with vein access, and effects of the returned anticoagulant. Blood pressure changes can sometimes cause nausea, fatigue, and dizziness. Venous access problems can cause bruising, referred to as a hematoma. While donating, the lips may begin to tingle or there may be a metallic taste; a supply of calcium antacid tablets is usually kept close by because the anticoagulant works by binding to the calcium in the blood. Since calcium is used in the operation of the nervous system, nerve-ending-dense areas (such as the lips) are susceptible to the tingling. The donation process can also cause more serious problems such as fainting, and nerve irritation.[citation needed] These problems are extremely rare, but apheresis donors are typically not allowed to sleep during the long donation process so that they can be monitored.[citation needed]

Aside from the procedure, donating platelets is different from donating blood in a few ways.

Firstly, the donor must not take aspirin or other anti-platelet medications for anywhere from 36 to 72 hours prior to donation. (Guidelines vary by blood center.) The reason for this is that aspirin can prevent platelets from adhering. Some blood centers also prohibit the taking of any NSAID (non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory-drug) for 36 hours prior. Other medications such as clopidogrel (Plavix) may also affect platelet function and may affect donor eligibility.

Secondly, one is generally allowed to donate platelets anywhere from every 3-28 days. This is a stark contrast to whole-blood donation, which has an eight-week (or longer) waiting period between donations. Along those lines, since platelet donation does temporarily remove whole-blood from the body, it may become necessary to wait eight weeks after a whole blood donation to donate platelets. In the US, a donor is only allowed to donate 24 times each year and may not lose more red blood cells or plasma in a year than they would from the maximum allowable number of whole blood donations.

Thirdly, additional tests may be required before becoming a donor for the first time. These tests are used to establish a platelet count, and also possibly to determine the donor's compatibility with particular recipients through an HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen) test. Multiparous women may be excluded from becoming donors due to heightened TRALI risk. The tests usually involve nothing more involved than the drawing of several tubes of blood.

---------

I don't know anything about it. How is platelet donation easier than regular blood donation, in real lie? What are the usual 'you cannot donates' for platelet donation, not covered above? Can gays donate platelets?
 
2011-04-03 06:55:27 PM
People need to donate to "the Human Fund". Their motto is "money for people"
 
2011-04-03 06:55:52 PM

mikdeetx: ThisNameSux: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Huh? when people donate, they want to make sure that their donations go to good use helping people on the ground, not to lining someone's pockets. charity mismanagement can hurt the impression potential donors have of all charities. that means less help on the ground. that's not cool.

So the American Red Cross is lining their pockets with donation money? Go do some research and get back with me. Hold on, I'll save you the time, 91.8% of all donations to the Red Cross go to helping the needy. That's pretty damn impressive for such a large organization.

Even Red Cross execs can be needy. I saw one driving a $40000 car and it irked me. Couldn't find a $18000 Hyundai to do the same job?

Here's another scam. The American Cancer Society Relay For Life. I got paid for DJing the event, and that covered my assistants, not me.


Red Cross execs are generally of the professional level that they could be execs at a publicly traded company. So of course it makes sense that they should except a pittance of a salary and drive a Hyundai. Just for appearances.

Because it doesn't matter how well they drive additional fund raising growth or how well they allocate funds to accomplish relief goals. What matters is appearance.
 
2011-04-03 06:56:03 PM
This is the organization I used to donate to Japan. Japan Society Earthquake Fund (new window)

They operate on a much lower overhead than Red Cross and 100% of the proceeds go directly to Japan for relief efforts.

Don't knock Red Cross too much. Their logic is sound when they say there are a lot of worthwhile causes that don't get tv exposure and thus get very little direct funding. A large organization like the Red Cross has quite a few logistical hoops to jump through.
 
2011-04-03 06:56:04 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: I don't know anything about it. How is platelet donation easier than regular blood donation, in real lie? What are the usual 'you cannot donates' for platelet donation, not covered above? Can gays donate platelets?



Can they not donate blood?
 
2011-04-03 06:57:20 PM

Rapmaster2000: Well, I'm glad I never give a dime to disaster relief. Thanks for justifying my miserlinesscommon sense and refusal to have my sympathies played upon.


FFaccuracy
 
2011-04-03 06:57:47 PM
Are the making Japan pay for the donuts?
 
2011-04-03 06:58:08 PM

BreezyWheeze: Yeah I haven't given a thin dime to the Red Cross since a whole slew of articles came out about mismanagement, waste, and fraud some time back in the mid-90's. I shifted my charitable contributions to organizations that do more long-term capacity building. Things like OxFam, Bill and Melinda Gates, etc. etc.


I heard nothing but bad about them back in the early 60s. Things don't change.
 
2011-04-03 06:58:54 PM
toychop.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-04-03 06:59:15 PM

Farker T: Can they not donate blood?


Anyone who has had homosexual intercourse may not donate, gay or not.
 
2011-04-03 06:59:47 PM

AbbeySomeone: Rapmaster2000: Well, I'm glad I never give a dime to disaster relief. Thanks for justifying my miserlinesscommon sense and refusal to have my sympathies played upon.

FFaccuracy


Good point. If your house floods or some shiat, it's your own dumb fault for living near water.

Why should I feel sorry for some dumb foreigner who probably doesn't even believe in Jesus. They should be blaming themselves for not bargaining for The Lord's protection.
 
2011-04-03 06:59:54 PM

mandingueiro: People need to donate to "the Human Fund". Their motto is "money for people"



"and chicks for free"?
 
2011-04-03 07:00:44 PM

gaspode: The article is odd. Why would someone giving money to something like the red cross expect it to be given DIRECTLY, ie as money, to victims? I would expect money given to an organisation like that to be spent on supplies and medical/rescue etc etc not given out as cash.

Or am I missing something?


It sounds like they're confusing two things - general aid to pay for rescue and rebuilding and various services (which has gone out, as the article mentions, teams are doing work) and then direct monetary aid to victims (including that which will come from the government).

The direct cash rebuilding assistance aid hasn't been distributed, and there's been some criticism of that (since it was faster after the Hanshin-Awaji quake disaster) but there ARE actual issues in deciding just how to distribute it, it very much isn't "everyone gets the same X amount."

Thing is, the disaster is so much larger than the Hanshin-Awaji disaster, and there's more crap that needs to get cleaned out before a lot of work can even start (notably, the the building of temporary housing - they have to find land for it all, get that area cleared, etc) so a direct comparison is kinda unfair.

...which is kinda apart from just Red Cross issues, but there ya have it.
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report