100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A U.S. District Judge said | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a violation of due process and First Amendment rights. Instead of being necessary for military readiness, she said, the policy has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services. To read the full article refer to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090907092.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 10, 2010; 1:31 AM Staff writer Craig Whitlock contributed to this report. Here are some highlights She granted a request for an injunction to stop the military from discharging openly gay service members, but allowed the government time to appeal the ruling. Phillips's decision is likely to put more pressure on Congress to act on pending legislation that would repeal the policy, which forbids the military to ask about a service member's sexual orientation but retains a ban on gays serving openly. The House voted in May to repeal the act, but the legislation is stalled in the Senate. … Meanwhile, even though President Obama supports the repeal, his Justice Department defended the law before Phillips. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he believes Congress should not implement a repeal until the military first completes a study on how to integrate gay men and lesbians into the ranks. A study on how to integrate gay men and lesbians into the ranks??? WTF!!! Gay men and lesbians integrated just fine through two world wars, the Korean and Viet Nam ‘conflicts’ and Desert Storm. NOW the Defense Secretary (who we would expect to know about military history) wants the government to continue to support institutionalized discrimination, allowing it to continue even after a Judge has declared the law unconstitutional? And the reason is to determine how to integrate gays and lesbians into the military when they have been serving in that capacity for over one hundred years? Is anyone familiar with how that worked out when Black citizens were finally allowed into the military? Well, in brief, it didn’t work out too well. Integrating Black soldiers was not integration at all rather, it was creating ways in which the Blacks could be further exploited, degraded, and discriminated against. Segregation at an institutional level IS discrimination. More from the article The ruling comes just over a month after U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco said a California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. And earlier this summer, a judge in Boston said the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Constitution. The act denies federal benefits to same-sex couples even in states where their marriages are legal. All the decisions will begin working their way through the federal appeals court system. It is expected that the Supreme Court at some point will be called upon to decide the same-sex marriage issues. But "don't ask, don't tell" might be disposed of through the political process. The California case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members. "As an American, a veteran and an Army Reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don't Ask Don't Tell statute violates the Constitution," said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't believe the damn thing passed in the first place. I was young at the time so I did not realize what it meant but once I did I couldn't help but think how stupid.
Now if you want to make all service people sexless and relationship free and say that it is against the rules for them to discuss or engage in anything relationship related on the job. That would be okay. Might be hard for the service people but it would be fair. Otherwise they need to accept that there are many different kinds of relationships and service people are individual and deserve that respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just another way obama dragging this country down the crapper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just another way obama dragging this country down the crapper The California case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members.
"As an American, a veteran and an Army Reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don't Ask Don't Tell statute violates the Constitution," said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,,
more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's 3 of those that should apply the most:
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. (14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. (15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
look it up - msharmony posted it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. and why is this important to you? are you planning on joining the military anytime soon? or is it that anything gay just perks your interest? there is a reason why they separate women and men, because they don't want romantic interests going on in the military. how do they separate the cupcakes in the barracks? or is that what your hoping for, so they can all be together? i do not think yall are thinking this through very well, and anyone else that says it is discriminating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. and why is this important to you? are you planning on joining the military anytime soon? or is it that anything gay just perks your interest? there is a reason why they separate women and men, because they don't want romantic interests going on in the military. how do they separate the cupcakes in the barracks? or is that what your hoping for, so they can all be together? i do not think yall are thinking this through very well, and anyone else that says it is discriminating. Unless our elementary educational system goes to the trouble of teaching kids how to extrapolate information, how to think critically, and how to formulate cohesive thought processes and express them logically, they waste a lot of effort, time, and money, in teaching kids how to read and write. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. and why is this important to you? are you planning on joining the military anytime soon? or is it that anything gay just perks your interest? there is a reason why they separate women and men, because they don't want romantic interests going on in the military. how do they separate the cupcakes in the barracks? or is that what your hoping for, so they can all be together? i do not think yall are thinking this through very well, and anyone else that says it is discriminating. Unless our elementary educational system goes to the trouble of teaching kids how to extrapolate information, how to think critically, and how to formulate cohesive thought processes and express them logically, they waste a lot of effort, time, and money, in teaching kids how to read and write. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh, BTW, that is a pretty pedestal you put yourself on...maybe someday you can climb down and see the real world, just as it is. maybe after your done trying to get all your special rights and freedoms...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Thomas3474
on
Fri 09/10/10 11:51 PM
|
|
I guess being gay is now a right?Should be intersting how the Supreme court handles that one.
If anyone had the slightest clue how the military worked you would know it discrimates on a whole grocery list of disqualifications before you can join or being dischared for some of the reasons below. Too tall. Too short. Too fat. Too skinny. Poor eye site. Color blindness. Poor hearing. Diabetes. Sleepwalking. Too young. Too old. Bedwetting. Police records. Felonies. Drug abuse of any kind including one time use. Depression. Can't run a mile in a specific time frame. Can't perform a minium amount of push ups. Can't perform a minium amount of sit ups. Alchohol problems. Not born in America. No high school diploma. Bad driving records. DUI. Poor job recomendations from former employers. And about 100 more I can't think of. You want to take off homosexulity off the discrimination list then you will have to take all those off as well.Because they all discriminate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know two people who were turned down because of simple things. One is slightly hard of hearing...rejected.
The other has carpotunnel in his wrists...rejected. But some buttslammers and pole smokers are allowed to join and stay!! LOL. I guess the PC'ness is just too much for the liberals to let go of. They'd rather trust our security to those who only have gay sex on their minds instead of defending our country at all costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they want to end discrimination in the military they have to end it all and open it up to everyone.Because every person who was rejected for(insert reason here)can say they were discrimanted against by the military.
The case is much more greater for people who are hard of hearing,poor eyesite,etc or some other problem because they may have been born that way and can not change it. Let the judges have their way.We can have crossdressing drill sargents and blind people loading bombs onto aircraft.As long as everything is equal,fair,and no discrimation we can have our military running like a one big cluster**ck with no standards,no morals,no qualfications,and no discrimination because everyone has a RIGHT to have a job in the military. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know two people who were turned down because of simple things. One is slightly hard of hearing...rejected. The other has carpotunnel in his wrists...rejected. But some buttslammers and pole smokers are allowed to join and stay!! LOL. I guess the PC'ness is just too much for the liberals to let go of. They'd rather trust our security to those who only have gay sex on their minds instead of defending our country at all costs. I nearly didn't graduate boot camp because I couldn't touch my toes!Touching your toes from a standing or sitting position is required and if you can't touch your toes you will be rejected. People think it is easy to get into the military.Far from the truth.It is even harder to stay in the military.I have seen people kicked out because they were late for work too many times.Seems stupid but in the Navy that ship leaves the pier at a certain time.They are not going to fly a helicopter to pick you up and drop you off at your ship because you are a hour late for work and the ship is gone.You better be there when that ship is leaving or you might as well kiss your military career goodbye!You miss the ship you are considered AWOL no matter what the excuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know two people who were turned down because of simple things. One is slightly hard of hearing...rejected. The other has carpotunnel in his wrists...rejected. But some buttslammers and pole smokers are allowed to join and stay!! LOL. I guess the PC'ness is just too much for the liberals to let go of. They'd rather trust our security to those who only have gay sex on their minds instead of defending our country at all costs. I nearly didn't graduate boot camp because I couldn't touch my toes!Touching your toes from a standing or sitting position is required and if you can't touch your toes you will be rejected. People think it is easy to get into the military.Far from the truth.It is even harder to stay in the military.I have seen people kicked out because they were late for work too many times.Seems stupid but in the Navy that ship leaves the pier at a certain time.They are not going to fly a helicopter to pick you up and drop you off at your ship because you are a hour late for work and the ship is gone.You better be there when that ship is leaving or you might as well kiss your military career goodbye!You miss the ship you are considered AWOL no matter what the excuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrast tommorows military, being full of gays and pole smokers, with yesterdays heros from the WWII era.
No comparison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they want to end discrimination in the military they have to end it all and open it up to everyone.Because every person who was rejected for(insert reason here)can say they were discrimanted against by the military. The case is much more greater for people who are hard of hearing,poor eyesite,etc or some other problem because they may have been born that way and can not change it. Let the judges have their way.We can have crossdressing drill sargents and blind people loading bombs onto aircraft.As long as everything is equal,fair,and no discrimation we can have our military running like a one big cluster**ck with no standards,no morals,no qualfications,and no discrimination because everyone has a RIGHT to have a job in the military. The whole thing is just a waste of time. Homosexuals can join the military. They can go outside the base and do whatever the hell they want. Officers and enlisted members aren't allowed to have sexual relationships. Fraternization is illegal under the UCMJ, but does anyone believe that it doesn't happen? Extra marital affairs is illegal under the UCMJ. If you are in the military and you are screwing another military members wife and you get caught you are in serious trouble. There are rules in the military that don't exist in the civilian world. You know that going in. |
|
|
|
|
