Sunday, June 3, 2012

Overnight in China, the Australia women’s national water polo team beat the China women’s national water polo team 8–7 in the FINA Women’s World League Super Finals semi finals to qualify for the gold medal match later tonight against the United States women’s national water polo team who beat the Greece women’s national water polo team 7–6 in their own qualifying match.

Australia trailed the Chinese 0–2 at the end of the first quarter before coming back to win. They were down 0–4 at one point before battling back for the win. Australia finished the second period with 3 goals, scored 3 more in the third period with China only able to score 2, and beat China in scoring in the fourth period with 2 goals to 1.

In the qualifying game between the United States and Greece, Courtney Mathewson and Kami Craig led the United States in scoring with two goals each. Ann Arbor, Michigan based goal keeper Betsey Armstrong had seven saves in net for her team. Greece performed better than Team USA during power plays, capitalising on one of their three shots while the United States was unable to score on any of their six opportunities.

The gold medal game is to be played at 19:00 local time in Changshu, China immediately following the bronze medal match between China and Greece being played at 17:40 local time. It will be a rematch of the VISA Water Polo International final, which Australia won.

In other matches played yesterday, the Germany women’s national water polo team beat the Canada women’s national water polo team 15–13 in an overtime penalty shootout to qualify for the fifth place match in their inaugural appearance in the competition, while the Russia women’s national water polo team beat the Italy women’s national water polo team 17–4. The fifth place match between Germany and Russia is to be played at 16:20 local time, while the seventh place match between Canada and Italy are to kick off the final round at 15:00 local time.



Tuesday, May 4, 2010

The United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has completed its investigation into the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 into New York’s Hudson River. The fifteen-month probe began after the Airbus A320 performed a water landing when bird strikes damaged both engines in a move dubbed the “Miracle on the Hudson” by the media. Nobody was killed.

The NTSB’s final report, adopted after a board meeting today, concluded that a combination of safety equipment better than the mandatory minimums and good reactions by the crew were the main reasons the 150 passengers and five crew survived. The board stated that the aircraft’s equipment met the standards required for “extended overwater operations”, equipment that was not needed for the January 2009 flight.

The aircraft was equiped with escape slides that doubled as water rafts at the front and aft emergency exits, but the aft ones were rendered unavailable. Airbus assumed when designing the aircraft that only one engine would be inoperative during an emergency ditching, and current emergency checklists assume plenty of prior warning for dual-engine failure since the aircraft would be at a high altitude. The A320 was at just 2,700 feet when the incident occurred, having just taken off when it collided with a flock of Canada geese, almost completely removing the engines’ ability to generate thrust.

The final report has blamed a number of factors for extensive fuselage damage caused in the impact, which cracked a rear bulkhead and caused the aircraft to flood, as well as taking the rear slides out of action. The board said standards aircraft should meet in ditchings – set by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) – were inadequate, training in industry was not sufficient for ditchings and the high level of tasks the crew had to focus on made it difficult for the pilot to maintain his airspeed. The pilot’s decision to ditch was credited as being the best possible solution to the emergency.

The NTSB noted that while the rear rafts failed, 64 people climbed into the forward rafts, and said many of these people would have been immersed in the frigid river. The board claimed that this could induce “cold shock”, which can lead to drowning within minutes.

The report found that the good visibility, calm water, nearby ferries which provided rescues within twenty minutes and good cockpit resource management, allowing the crew to maintain control, were further factors that contributed to the survival of those on board. However, it also found that “more creative and effective methods of conveying safety information to passengers” are required after learning that most passengers had not paid attention to the in-flight safety announcement. It also noted that many passengers had difficulty putting on the life vests supplied under the seats.

The report further stated that the accident was hard to predict due to the fact that bird strikes tend to occur much lower, usually below 500 feet. It considered the possibilities of fitting engine screens or redesigning engines to mitigate bird strike risk, but these proposals were rejected after consideration since they were deemed unfeasable.

NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman described the circumstances as “a great example of the professionalism of the crewmembers, air traffic controllers and emergency responders who all played a role in preserving the safety of everyone aboard.” She further discussed the safety recommendations the report will contain when it is released. “I believe the safety recommendations that have come out of this investigation have an extraordinary origin – a very serious accident in which everyone survived. Even in an accident where everyone survives, there are lessons learned and areas that could use improvement. Our report today takes these lessons learned so that, if our recommendations are implemented, every passenger and crewmember may have the opportunity to benefit from the advances in safety.” A total of 35 recommendations have been made seeking improved checklists for emergencies, better certification standards for aircraft and their engines, advances in crew training, better safety equipment and improved safety briefings to passengers.

One result of these findings is that the board will likely ask the FAA to require emergency equipment for water landings on all commercial aircraft. The FAA has until now held that such a move would place a disproportionately high cost on airlines.



Wednesday, July 27, 2005

The crew of the Space shuttle Discovery – which launched successfully yesterday – have begun to make inspections of the exterior of the Orbiter.

They are checking for any damage that may have occurred during take-off – the Columbia was destroyed after a piece of foam falling from the external fuel tank split open a wing, allowing super-heated gas to enter the craft upon reentry, leading to its break-up.

The crew of Discovery are using a laserscanner mounted on the end of the shuttle’s 15 m (49.2 ft) long robotic arm. The inspection will consist of 90 minute sessions, during which a three-dimensional image of the surface of the nosecone and the leading edges of the wings will be built up.

NASA engineers are studying footage taken from a camera mounted on the external fuel tank, which appears to show a 1.5″ (3.8 cm) piece of tile falling away from on or near the nose landing-gear doors. There is also footage of an unidentified piece of debris which fell away as the solid rocket boosters were jettisoned, and did not appear to strike the shuttle.



Monday, September 24, 2007

Russ Aegard is running for the Green Party of Ontario in the Ontario provincial election, in the Thunder Bay-Atikokan riding. Wikinews’ Nick Moreau interviewed him regarding his values, his experience, and his campaign.

Stay tuned for further interviews; every candidate from every party is eligible, and will be contacted. Expect interviews from Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party members, Ontario Greens, as well as members from the Family Coalition, Freedom, Communist, Libertarian, and Confederation of Regions parties, as well as independents.



More Detail Here:

By Dr. Jay Orringer

Today, a wide variety of breast reconstructive options exist. An understanding of the basic concepts will help greatly in the decision making process. In general terms, there are two ways to reconstruct a breast. The simpler method involves the use of a temporary adjustable-volume implant called an expander. Salt water is added to the expander until a pleasing size has been achieved. The expander is then replaced with an implant. The more involved category of reconstruction involves the use of one’s own tissues, transferred from the back, abdomen or buttocks.

Expander, followed by implant, reconstructions have the advantage of being simpler procedures and the scars are limited to the chest. However, these devices require maintenance (replacement) over the course of time. When the chest wall tissues are thin following mastectomy, edges and ripples are more visible unless the padding over the implant is improved.

One common way to improve thickness over the implant is with the use of AlloDerm. This is a sheet up to 3mm thick, derived from human skin. However, it is treated such that the cells are removed from it and the patients cells grow into it. Because the original cells have been removed from it, it tends to be well-tolerated. It becomes, in essence, another layer of one’s own tissue. This may decrease the devices’ visibility and palpability. It has gained widespread use today.

YouTube Preview Image

A second way to improve the appearance and thickness over an implant reconstruction is with the addition of tissue transferred from the back. This is called a latissimus flap. A scar on the outer part of the back may be traded for a less conspicuous scar on the breast. The transfer of healthy tissue over the augmentation may increase the natural quality and the durability of this method of reconstruction, but the trade-offs must be weighed in discussion with your surgeon. Implant reconstructions often do not do well long-term following prior radiation, without the addition of healthy tissue as with the latissimus flap.

Breast restoration from the abdomen and buttocks may provide enough skin and fat to make a new breast without an implant. These options avoid maintenance issues, but are much more involved procedures. A potentially more natural and permanent reconstruction may result. However, a scar at the site from where the tissue was taken results. In addition, some weakness occurs from the transfer of muscle. This is usually well tolerated in most people, but each individual has a different experience. The TRAM flap was the first transfer of skin, fat and muscle to make a new breast mound. It has been followed by muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps and DIEP flaps.

The free TRAM flap takes less abdominal muscle and usually has a better blood supply than the traditional TRAM flap. However, it requires microsurgical expertise to perform the transplant and it is not always successful. In an effort to take muscle-sparing further, the DIEP flap was developed. This flap spares more muscle, although the abdominal muscle is not totally spared of damage. The blood supply of the DIEP flap may not be as hearty as that of the muscle-sparing free TRAM flap. The traditional TRAM flap, muscle-sparing free TRAM and DIEP flap are all good options in selected patients.

The gluteal or GAP is the least commonly done and most complex option. It involves the transfer of buttock skin and fat to make the breast. It is usually done in women with little abdominal fat or in those having undergone previous tummy tuck, especially those with chest wall radiation damage. GAP flaps are currently done at limited centers. Again, in the well-selected patient, it can be a very good option.

Skin-sparing mastectomies involve removal of the nipple and underlying tissue while leaving most of the skin. Newer types of skin-sparing incisions may simulate a breast lift, avoiding the less aesthetic scar on the inner aspect of the reconstructed breast. In the appropriately selected patient, this procedure has improved greatly the cosmetic appearance of both implant and tissue reconstructions.

Whether to undergo reconstruction with expander and implant with AlloDerm or latissimus flap or whether to have a reconstruction with your own tissue without an implant is a question that must be carefully considered with your surgeon. The type of reconstruction and incision should be discussed in detail prior to the procedure. A well thought out plan will more likely produce a result that appears most aesthetic and is optimally pleasing to the patient.

About the Author: For most women in Beverly Hills, breast reconstruction is a vital part of recovery from breast cancer. Dr. Jay Orringer has more than two decades of experience performing breast reconstruction and is constantly evaluating techniques for the most natural-looking results.

drorringer.com

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=334990&ca=Womens+Interest



Tuesday, January 21, 2014

In late 2010 a geological expedition to Antarctica drilled through the Ross Ice Shelf so they could send an ROV under it. What they found was unexpected: Sea anemones. In their thousands they were doing what no other species of sea anemone is known to do — they were living in the ice itself.

Discovered by the ANDRILL [Antarctic Drilling] project, the team was so unprepared for biological discoveries they did not have suitable preservatives and the only chemicals available obliterated the creature’s DNA. Nonetheless Marymegan Daly of Ohio State University confirmed the animals were a new species. Named Edwardsiella andrillae after the drilling project that found it, the anemone was finally described in a PLOS ONE paper last month.

ANDRILL lowered their cylindrical camera ROV down a freshly-bored 270m (890ft) hole, enabling it to reach seawater below the ice. The device was merely being tested ahead of its planned mission retrieving data on ocean currents and the sub-ice environment. Instead it found what ANDRILL director Frank Rack of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, a co-author of the paper describing the find, called the “total serendipity” of “a whole new ecosystem that no one had ever seen before”.

The discovery raises many questions. Burrowing sea anemones worm their way into substrates or use their tentacles to dig, but it’s unclear how E. andrillae enters the hard ice. With only their tentacles protruding into the water from the underneath of the ice shelf questions also revolve around how the animals avoid freezing, how they reproduce, and how they cope with the continuously melting nature of their home. Their diet is also a mystery.

What fascinates me about sea anemones is that they’re able to do things that seem impossible

E. andrillae is an opaque white, with an inner ring of eight tentacles and twelve-to-sixteen tentacles in an outer ring. The ROV’s lights produced an orange glow from the creatures, although this may be produced by their food. It measures 16–20mm (0.6–0.8in) but when fully relaxed can extend to triple that.

Genetic analysis being impossible, Daly turned to dissection of the specimens but could find nothing out of the ordinary. Scientists hope to send a biological mission to explore the area under the massive ice sheet, which is in excess of 600 miles (970km) wide. The cameras also observed worms, fish that swim inverted as if the icy roof was the sea floor, crustaceans and a cylindrical creature that used appendages on its ends to move and to grab hold of the anemones.

NASA is providing funding to aid further research, owing to possible similarities between this icy realm and Europa, a moon of Jupiter. Biological research is planned for 2015. An application for funding to the U.S. National Science Foundation, which funds ANDRILL, is also pending.

The ANDRILL team almost failed to get any samples at all. Designed to examine the seafloor, the ROV had to be inverted to examine the roof of ice. Weather conditions prevented biological sampling equipment being delivered from McMurdo Station, but the scientists retrieved 20–30 anemones by using hot water to stun them before sucking them from their burrows with an improvised device fashioned from a coffee filter and a spare ROV thruster. Preserved on-site in ethanol, they were taken to McMurdo station where some were further preserved with formaldehyde.

((Wikinews)) How did you come to be involved with this discovery?

Marymegan Daly: Frank Rack got in touch after they returned from Antarctica in hopes that I could help with an identification on the anemone.

((Wikinews)) What was your first reaction upon learning there was an undiscovered ecosystem under the ice in the Ross Sea?

MD I was amazed and really excited. I think to say it was unexpected is inaccurate, because it implies that there was a well-founded expectation of something. The technology that Frank and his colleagues are using to explore the ice is so important because, given our lack of data, we have no reasonable expectation of what it should be like, or what it shouldn’t be like.

((Wikinews)) There’s a return trip planned hopefully for 2015, with both biologists and ANDRILL geologists. Are you intending to go there yourself?

MD I would love to. But I am also happy to not go, as long as someone collects more animals on my behalf! What I want to do with the animals requires new material preserved in diverse ways, but it doesn’t require me to be there. Although I am sure that being there would enhance my understanding of the animals and the system in which they live, and would help me formulate more and better questions about the anemones, ship time is expensive, especially in Antarctica, and if there are biologists whose contribution is predicated on being there, they should have priority to be there.

((Wikinews)) These animals are shrouded in mystery. Some of the most intriguing questions are chemical; do they produce some kind of antifreeze, and is that orange glow in the ROV lights their own? Talk us through the difficulties encountered when trying to find answers with the specimens on hand.

MD The samples we have are small in terms of numbers and they are all preserved in formalin (a kind of formaldehyde solution). The formalin is great for preserving structures, but for anemones, it prevents study of DNA or of the chemistry of the body. This means we can’t look at the issue you raise with these animals. What we could do, however, was to study anatomy and figure out what it is, so that when we have samples preserved for studying e.g., the genome, transcriptome, or metabolome, or conduct tests of the fluid in the burrows or in the animals themselves, we can make precise comparisons, and figure out what these animals have or do (metabolically or chemically) that lets them live where they live.
Just knowing a whole lot about a single species isn’t very useful, even if that animal is as special as these clearly are — we need to know what about them is different and thus related to living in this strange way. The only way to get at what’s different is to make comparisons with close relatives. We can start that side of the work now, anticipating having more beasts in the future.
In terms of their glow, I suspect that it’s not theirs — although luminescence is common in anemone relatives, they don’t usually make light themselves. They do make a host of florescent proteins, and these may interact with the light of the ROV to give that gorgeous glow.

((Wikinews)) What analysis did you perform on the specimens and what equipment was used?

MD I used a dissecting scope to look at the animal’s external anatomy and overall body organization (magnification of 60X). I embedded a few of the animals in wax and then cut them into very thin slices using a microtome, mounted the slices on microscope slides, stained the slices to enhance contrast, and then looked at those slides under a compound microscope (that’s how I got the pictures of the muscles etc in the paper). I used that same compound scope to look at squashed bits of tissue to see the stinging capsules (=nematocysts).
I compared the things I saw under the ‘scopes to what had been published on other species in this group. This step seems trivial, but it is really the most important part! By comparing my observations to what my colleagues and predecessors had found, I figured out what group it belongs to, and was able to determine that within that group, it was a new species.

((Wikinews)) It was three years between recovery of specimens and final publication, why did it take so long?

MD You mean, how did we manage to make it all happen so quickly, right? 🙂 It was about two years from when Frank sent me specimens to when we got the paper out. Some of that time was just lost time — I had other projects in the queue that I needed to finish. Once we figured out what it was, we played a lot of manuscript email tag, which can be challenging and time consuming given the differing schedules that folks keep in terms of travel, field work, etc. Manuscript review and processing took about four months.

((Wikinews)) What sort of difficulties were posed by the unorthodox preservatives used, and what additional work might be possible on a specimen with intact DNA?

MD The preservation was not unorthodox — they followed best practices for anatomical preservation. Having DNA-suitable material will let us see whether there are new genes, or genes turned on in different ways and at different times that help explain how these animals burrow into hard ice and then survive in the cold. I am curious about the population structure of the “fields” of anemones — the group to which Edwardsiella andrillae belongs includes many species that reproduce asexually, and it’s possible that the fields are “clones” produced asexually rather than the result of sexual reproduction. DNA is the only way to test this.

((Wikinews)) Do you have any theories about the strategies employed to cope with the harsh environment of burrowing inside an ice shelf?

MD I think there must be some kind of antifreeze produced — the cells in contact with ice would otherwise freeze.

((Wikinews)) How has such an apparently large population of clearly unusual sea anemones, not to mention the other creatures caught on camera, gone undetected for so long?

MD I think this reflects how difficult it is to get under the ice and to collect specimens. That being said, since the paper came out, I have been pointed towards two other reports that are probably records of these species: one from Japanese scientists who looked at footage from cameras attached to seals and one from Americans who dove under ice. In both of these cases, the anemone (if that’s what they saw) was seen at a distance, and no specimens were collected. Without the animals in hand, or the capability of a ROV to get close up for pictures, it is hard to know what has been seen, and lacking a definitive ID, hard to have the finding appropriately indexed or contextualized.

((Wikinews)) Would it be fair to say this suggests there may be other undiscovered species of sea anemone that burrow into hard substrates such as ice?

MD I hope so! What fascinates me about sea anemones is that they’re able to do things that seem impossible given their seemingly limited toolkit. This finding certainly expands the realm of possible.



Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a program of the United Nations and a global authority on human health. In an interview with Wikinews, the WHO tells about the current H1N1 pandemic.

The organization’s 93rd update as of March 26, 2010 states 213 countries, territories, and other communities have laboratory-confirmed cases and there have been at least 16,931 confirmed deaths, including 4,653 deaths in Europe and 7,673 in the Americas.

Wikinews reporter Mike Morales talks with Karen Mah, a media relations representative for the WHO, and asks her several questions.



Saturday, April 17, 2010

Journalist, counselor, painter, and US 2012 Presidential candidate Joe Schriner of Cleveland, Ohio took some time to discuss his campaign with Wikinews in an interview.

Schriner previously ran for president in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but failed to gain much traction in the races. He announced his candidacy for the 2012 race immediately following the 2008 election. Schriner refers to himself as the “Average Joe” candidate, and advocates a pro-life and pro-environmentalist platform. He has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles, and has published public policy papers exploring solutions to American issues.

Wikinews reporter William Saturn? talks with Schriner and discusses his campaign.



Tuesday, June 14, 2016

On Sunday, Team Penske driver Joey Logano claimed his first NASCAR Sprint Cup Series win of the 2016 season in the FireKeepers Casino 400 at the Michigan International Speedway in Brooklyn, Michigan. The 200-lap race began with Logano starting from the pole position, and featured nine cautions and fourteen lead changes between eight different drivers.

Despite starting first, Logano was quickly overtaken on the first lap by Furniture Row Racing driver Martin Truex Jr. Truex led the race until Logano reclaimed the first position on lap ten, a position he would keep until the the first cycle of green flag pit stops around lap 40. Logano’s teammate Brad Keselowski took the lead during the pit stop cycle by staying out on the track. Keselowski, low on gasoline, led until a caution came out for a spin by Truex around lap 46. During the caution, Keselowski pitted and returned the lead back to his teammate, who led the race until lap 93.

Two other cautions slowed the race between the first caution and lap 93. The first occurred when Kyle Busch’s engine failed around lap 53, forcing the driver to a last-place finish in the race. The other caution was caused by contact between the cars of Chris Buescher, Dale Earnhardt Jr., and A. J. Allmendinger ten laps later. Between laps 93 and 103, Kyle Larson, Ryan Newman, Keselowski, Jimmie Johnson, and Paul Menard led at least one lap. Logano returned to the lead on lap 104, a few laps before a caution when Jeffrey Earnhardt’s car caught fire. After the caution, Logano remained in first until Hendrick Motorsports driver Chase Elliott passed him on lap 117.

Elliott kept the lead until lap 149, when he was briefly passed by Logano. Elliott retook the lead for three more laps on lap 150 before returning the lead back to Logano, who led until the seventh caution was called around lap 156 for of a collision between Danica Patrick, Brian Scott, and Casey Mears. Logano held the lead on the ensuing restart and led through two more caution periods that were called in the final 50 laps. The first began around lap 164 because of a collision involving Johnson, Trevor Bayne, and Ryan Blaney, while the final caution of the race was called with about ten laps remaining after Denny Hamlin suffered a tire puncture on the front straightaway and collided into the SAFER barrier. On the final restart, Logano retained the first position and led the remainder of the race to capture the fifteenth win of his career.

After the race, Logano, who led a race-high of 138 laps, praised his team, saying “Team Penske gave me a great race car. Everyone did a great job figuring out exactly what this car was going to do. This is Ford’s backyard, Roger [Penske]’s backyard; this is a great win”. Elliott, who finished second in the race, expressed disappointment with his result, claiming he “messed up” by not using the correct gear. Larson, Keselowski, and Kevin Harvick completed the top-five finishers, while Carl Edwards finished in the sixth position. Tony Stewart finished seventh ahead of Austin Dillon and Jamie McMurray, who finished eighth and ninth. Kurt Busch completed the first ten positions with a tenth-place finish. In post-race inspection, Larson’s car did not pass laser inspection, prompting NASCAR to impound his car so it can be further evaluated. Any possible penalties are to be announced in the next week.

In the drivers’ championship, Harvick led Kurt Busch and Keselowski with 526 points. Edwards and Logano were fourth and fifth with 472 and 455 points. Elliott was sixth with 453, followed by Johnson with 441. Truex was scored eighth ahead of Kyle Busch and Matt Kenseth, who completed the top-ten. The 2016 season is scheduled to continue on June 26 with the Toyota/Save Mart 350 at Sonoma Raceway.

Unofficial 2016 FireKeepers Casino 400 Top-10 Race Results
Pos Grid No. Driver Team Manufacturer Laps Led Pts.
1 1 22 Joey Logano Team Penske Ford 200 138 45
2 10 24 Chase Elliott (R) Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet 200 35 40
3 7 42 Kyle Larson Chip Ganassi Racing Chevrolet 200 1 39
4 15 2 Brad Keselowski Team Penske Ford 200 10 38
5 29 4 Kevin Harvick Stewart-Haas Racing Chevrolet 200 0 36
6 11 19 Carl Edwards Joe Gibbs Racing Toyota 200 0 35
7 3 14 Tony Stewart Stewart-Haas Racing Chevrolet 200 0 34
8 8 3 Austin Dillon Richard Childress Racing Chevrolet 200 0 33
9 14 1 Jamie McMurray Chip Ganassi Racing Chevrolet 200 0 32
10 17 41 Kurt Busch Stewart-Haas Racing Chevrolet 200 0 31
(R) – Rookie



Thursday, April 17, 2008

Eric Bogosian is one of America’s great multi-dimensional talents. “There’s sort of three different careers, and any one of them could exist by itself, on its own two feet. There was that solo stuff, and then I started writing plays in the late seventies.” Although his work has spanned genres, most readers will recognize Bogosian for his acting, which has included a memorable performance in Woody Allen‘s Deconstructing Harry to co-writing and starring in the Oliver Stone movie Talk Radio (based upon his Pulitzer Prize-nominated play) to playing the bad guy in Under Siege 2 to his current role in Law & Order: Criminal Intent as Captain Danny Ross. They may not know, however, that he had collaborated with Frank Zappa on a album, worked with Sonic Youth, and was a voice on Mike Judge‘s Beavis & Butthead Do America. He started one of New York City’s largest dance companies, The Kitchen, which is still in existence. He starred alongside Val Kilmer in Wonderland and his play Talk Radio was recently revived on Broadway with Liev Schreiber in the role Bogosian wrote and made famous.

Currently at work on his third novel, tentatively titled The Artist, Bogosian spoke with David Shankbone about the craft of writing and his life as a creative.

Contents

  • 1 Bogosian’s view of his work
  • 2 How Bogosian approaches his writing
  • 3 How Bogosian works himself into his writing
  • 4 The future of the narrative
  • 5 Collaborations with Steven Spielberg and Frank Zappa
  • 6 Source


« Older Entries