Click this link to see another blog,
http://www.cryingmanupdate.blogspot.com
Have a nice day!
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Activist: This area among worst for CO2 pollution
Self-described ‘regional radical’ says people can act CANNELTON — Indiana is the worst state in the nation for carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, self-described environmental “radical” John Blair told the approximately 45 people who gathered April 3 in the Cannelton Community Center to hear him speak. Additionally, he said, this area of Indiana is a contender for worst of the worst.As bad as the situation is, however, Blair’s presentation came amidst several significant developments in the environmental realm, and he said people can take steps to mitigate the threat.
Regulation of the earth’s temperature occurs through a natural balance, he said in defining the “greenhouse effect” said to be behind global warming. “The sun shines, and warms the land and water. The rest of the (sun’s) energy is bounced back into space.”When the atmosphere becomes thick with pollutants such as carbon dioxide, sunlight can be prevented from escaping the atmosphere, and its heat builds up. Large areas of ice melts, raising sea levels. In a worst-case scenario, a 20-foot sea-level rise worldwide would put all of Miami and most of New York City under water. “I won’t say it’s going to happen,” Blair said, “but we need to do something.”The United States’ population comprises only 5 percent of the world’s inhabitants, but this nation emits 20 to 25 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, he said. “We live in the largest concentration of coal-fired power plants in the world. They burn 67 million tons of coal per year. In this valley, we sit with three of the largest 10 coal-fired power plants in the world.”That might be easier to accept if burning coal resulted in the efficient production of electricity. The energy needed to transport coal to power plants, Blair said, and the distances the power is sent once it’s produced make it an incredibly inefficient resource. The American Electric Power plant at Rockport, for example, gets coal from Wyoming and transmits the power it produces to Fort Wayne and South Bend.
“Coal is inefficient,” Blair said. “It takes about 10 percent of the energy in coal just to get it here.”Approximately 35 percent of the remaining 90 percent of the mineral’s energy is captured in its burning, he continued, resulting in about one-third of its original potential, and transmission to Fort Wayne saps another 7 percent for every 100 miles of the 300-mile trip. Little of the original potential energy remains when it reaches an electric device, he said. If it goes to an older appliance operating at less than 100-percent efficiency, the waste is even greater.Mike Brian, corporate communications manager for Indiana-Michigan Power, an AEP subsidiary running the Rockport plant, said Friday low-sulfur coal from Wyoming was chosen before the plant was built because “it’s better for the environment and cheaper, keeping the cost of energy lower.” The alternative was installing costly “scrubbers.”He also confirmed the loss of energy potential in burning coal, saying the material is converted into thermal, then mechanical, then electrical energy, and said, “there are some line losses” in transmitting electricity to Fort Wayne.He stressed, however, his company prides itself on keeping costs down while protecting the environment. AEP is pioneering technologies such as converting coal to a gas before burning it, which would allow emissions to be captured before it’s burned, and the “sequestering” of carbon dioxide underground.Part of the energy lost in the burning of coal dissipates as heat that could be put to good use, Blair said. If greenhouses were built around power plants, and the heat used to warm them, energy would be saved, jobs would be created and produce could be purchased locally year-round.“We’re bringing tomatoes from Chile in the winter,” he explained. “They’re put on a truck, then a ship, then a truck or train to go to a warehouse, then to a grocery store. I would bet 5 pounds of carbon dioxide are created so we can have that 1 pound of foul-tasting tomato.”Wind as an energy resource has gone untapped in Indiana, according to Blair. Areas to the north of the Ohio River Valley in Indiana have a potential of producing 40,000 megawatts of wind energy, he said.Indiana Michigan Power announced April 4 it would participate in an AEP request for proposals for tapping up to 100 megawatts of wind energy to serve its customers in Indiana and Michigan.The RFP is the first step toward AEP’s goal of adding 1,000 megawatts of new wind energy by 2011 as part of its comprehensive strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions, according to a company news release.The day before Blair’s Cannelton visit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal Environmental Protection Agency must begin regulating carbon-dioxide emissions unless it can prove that global warming causes no harm. The EPA ruled four years ago carbon dioxide could not be regulated as a pollutant, according to an Aug. 29, 2003, Knight Ridder News Service report.Four days after the Supreme Court ruling, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a 1,572-page report, prepared by more than 200 scientists, asserting the earth's climate and ecosystems “face inevitable, possibly profound, alteration” by the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, according to a New York Times report. Officials from more than 120 countries, including the United States, endorsed a 21-page summary of the IPCC report, the Times noted.The IPCC announced a consensus in February that global warming is a real threat and is caused by man.A photojournalist, Blair introduced himself as an instigator of an action committee formed in 1977 when a nuclear-waste dump was proposed for the Branchville area. The proposal was “beat back,” he said, after a courthouse rally demonstrated opposition to it.Environmental news and examples of Blair’s photography can be found at www.valleywatch.net, the Web site for an organization formed in 1981 in response to environmental threats in this area. At that time, “I became the region’s radical,” he said.Blair supports some proposals for alleviating pollution and rejects others. A “cap and trade” plan would require reductions and limit emissions by one company and allow it to buy credits from another that’s under its emissions limit.“I’m not a huge fan,” Blair said of that proposal. Sulfur-dioxide emissions were supposed to be reduced 50 percent by 2005. They were reduced by 35 percent, he said.Conservation measures encouraged for years can go a long way to cutting pollution, Blair said, noting, “I haven’t used my air conditioner in four years. It may require some sacrifices. Get off your butt and turn off a light.”The solution is not that simple, but will require a combination of actions, he added. They can include talking to elected representatives, which could lead to another period like the one surrounding the original Earth Day in 1970, when “a lot of good legislation was passed in about eight months,” he said.“Maybe by 2050 we can sit back and applaud a new world.”
Regulation of the earth’s temperature occurs through a natural balance, he said in defining the “greenhouse effect” said to be behind global warming. “The sun shines, and warms the land and water. The rest of the (sun’s) energy is bounced back into space.”When the atmosphere becomes thick with pollutants such as carbon dioxide, sunlight can be prevented from escaping the atmosphere, and its heat builds up. Large areas of ice melts, raising sea levels. In a worst-case scenario, a 20-foot sea-level rise worldwide would put all of Miami and most of New York City under water. “I won’t say it’s going to happen,” Blair said, “but we need to do something.”The United States’ population comprises only 5 percent of the world’s inhabitants, but this nation emits 20 to 25 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, he said. “We live in the largest concentration of coal-fired power plants in the world. They burn 67 million tons of coal per year. In this valley, we sit with three of the largest 10 coal-fired power plants in the world.”That might be easier to accept if burning coal resulted in the efficient production of electricity. The energy needed to transport coal to power plants, Blair said, and the distances the power is sent once it’s produced make it an incredibly inefficient resource. The American Electric Power plant at Rockport, for example, gets coal from Wyoming and transmits the power it produces to Fort Wayne and South Bend.
“Coal is inefficient,” Blair said. “It takes about 10 percent of the energy in coal just to get it here.”Approximately 35 percent of the remaining 90 percent of the mineral’s energy is captured in its burning, he continued, resulting in about one-third of its original potential, and transmission to Fort Wayne saps another 7 percent for every 100 miles of the 300-mile trip. Little of the original potential energy remains when it reaches an electric device, he said. If it goes to an older appliance operating at less than 100-percent efficiency, the waste is even greater.Mike Brian, corporate communications manager for Indiana-Michigan Power, an AEP subsidiary running the Rockport plant, said Friday low-sulfur coal from Wyoming was chosen before the plant was built because “it’s better for the environment and cheaper, keeping the cost of energy lower.” The alternative was installing costly “scrubbers.”He also confirmed the loss of energy potential in burning coal, saying the material is converted into thermal, then mechanical, then electrical energy, and said, “there are some line losses” in transmitting electricity to Fort Wayne.He stressed, however, his company prides itself on keeping costs down while protecting the environment. AEP is pioneering technologies such as converting coal to a gas before burning it, which would allow emissions to be captured before it’s burned, and the “sequestering” of carbon dioxide underground.Part of the energy lost in the burning of coal dissipates as heat that could be put to good use, Blair said. If greenhouses were built around power plants, and the heat used to warm them, energy would be saved, jobs would be created and produce could be purchased locally year-round.“We’re bringing tomatoes from Chile in the winter,” he explained. “They’re put on a truck, then a ship, then a truck or train to go to a warehouse, then to a grocery store. I would bet 5 pounds of carbon dioxide are created so we can have that 1 pound of foul-tasting tomato.”Wind as an energy resource has gone untapped in Indiana, according to Blair. Areas to the north of the Ohio River Valley in Indiana have a potential of producing 40,000 megawatts of wind energy, he said.Indiana Michigan Power announced April 4 it would participate in an AEP request for proposals for tapping up to 100 megawatts of wind energy to serve its customers in Indiana and Michigan.The RFP is the first step toward AEP’s goal of adding 1,000 megawatts of new wind energy by 2011 as part of its comprehensive strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions, according to a company news release.The day before Blair’s Cannelton visit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal Environmental Protection Agency must begin regulating carbon-dioxide emissions unless it can prove that global warming causes no harm. The EPA ruled four years ago carbon dioxide could not be regulated as a pollutant, according to an Aug. 29, 2003, Knight Ridder News Service report.Four days after the Supreme Court ruling, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a 1,572-page report, prepared by more than 200 scientists, asserting the earth's climate and ecosystems “face inevitable, possibly profound, alteration” by the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, according to a New York Times report. Officials from more than 120 countries, including the United States, endorsed a 21-page summary of the IPCC report, the Times noted.The IPCC announced a consensus in February that global warming is a real threat and is caused by man.A photojournalist, Blair introduced himself as an instigator of an action committee formed in 1977 when a nuclear-waste dump was proposed for the Branchville area. The proposal was “beat back,” he said, after a courthouse rally demonstrated opposition to it.Environmental news and examples of Blair’s photography can be found at www.valleywatch.net, the Web site for an organization formed in 1981 in response to environmental threats in this area. At that time, “I became the region’s radical,” he said.Blair supports some proposals for alleviating pollution and rejects others. A “cap and trade” plan would require reductions and limit emissions by one company and allow it to buy credits from another that’s under its emissions limit.“I’m not a huge fan,” Blair said of that proposal. Sulfur-dioxide emissions were supposed to be reduced 50 percent by 2005. They were reduced by 35 percent, he said.Conservation measures encouraged for years can go a long way to cutting pollution, Blair said, noting, “I haven’t used my air conditioner in four years. It may require some sacrifices. Get off your butt and turn off a light.”The solution is not that simple, but will require a combination of actions, he added. They can include talking to elected representatives, which could lead to another period like the one surrounding the original Earth Day in 1970, when “a lot of good legislation was passed in about eight months,” he said.“Maybe by 2050 we can sit back and applaud a new world.”
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Recycle papers on Earth Day
MOUNT VERNON — Area residents will get a chance to help the environment and receive a free gift again this year on Earth Day. The Mount Vernon News will be collecting newspapers and magazines for recycling from 8 a.m. to noon on Saturday, April 21, at the News’ loading docks on South Gay Street.
“Anybody who brings in newspapers, magazines and a coupon from the News or Shoppers Mart will get one free month of the Mount Vernon News,” said Circulation Manager Mike McNichols. “It doesn’t matter if you are a subscriber or not. Just pull in, we’ll unload your vehicle and you’ll be on your way.”
This is the second year for the Earth Day recycling event, and the third time the News has accepted newsprint for recycling. Last April close to 30 bins were filled with recyclable materials. Containers for this year’s event will be provided by SBC Recycling, which will also recycle the papers.
Recycling is not anything new to the News, though. The paper has been using a percentage of recycled newsprint for several years and has recycled old ink for nearly 20 years.
“Before, we had about half the upstairs full of barrels of bad ink that we had to get rid of. Now we have a machine that does all the work,” said Pressroom Manager Dean Hammons. “When we dip the ink out of the fountains, we put all the recyclable in the ink room, then add virgin black, it recycles and then is pumped back to the tank.”
The ink is recycled about twice a month and about 2,500 pounds of black ink is used in the nearly 100 jobs the pressroom prints each month. The newsprint is 100 percent recycled paper, which has become more reliable and a better product in recent years, according to Hammons.
“It used to be a yellowish sheet when we first received it (recycled paper). Now it’s a lot whiter and brighter. It makes the colors stand out better,” he said.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Justices side with Maine in two air pollution cases
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Bush administration must consider limits on carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles as a way to slow global warming.
The landmark decision, which divided the court 5-4, could lead to a range of federal regulations to fight climate change and could help bring more fuel-efficient cars to Maine dealerships as soon as next year.
It was one of two major air pollution cases decided Monday in favor of Maine and other states that have been pushing in the courts for stronger federal action on the environment.
The second ruling, a unanimous one, said the federal government must continue to use a strict standard for requiring added pollution controls at power plants that increase production. Maine and other states feared a loosening of standards could have meant more air pollution blowing into the state.
"These decisions represent clear wins for the health of the American people," said Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe, whose office submitted arguments in favor of both lawsuits.
The global warming lawsuit was filed by 12 states, including Maine, and 13 environmental groups. The lawsuit argued that carbon dioxide produced when motor vehicles burn gasoline and diesel fuel should be regulated as a pollutant because it contributes to global warming and rising sea levels.
The EPA argued that the states did not have legal standing, that Congress did not mean to cover carbon dioxide in the Clean Air Act and that regulating vehicle emissions won't stop global warming, among other things.
Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the EPA in the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the court's swing vote in the case.
"EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate," Stevens wrote.
EPA can't dismiss regulation because it won't reverse global warming or because there is uncertainty about the effects of climate change, among other arguments, he wrote. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Roberts wrote a minority opinion, arguing that he was making "no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem." But, he said, the states went to court because they did not get what they wanted quickly enough in the political process and that "redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is 'the function of Congress and the chief executive,' not the federal courts."
Although the decision was a close one, it also is clear, according to Rowe. "EPA sidestepped its obligations, and that's what the court found," he said.
The court did not order EPA to regulate the emissions, but said it must do so unless there is a scientific reason to decide against it. Rowe said he believes EPA will act. "If the EPA focused on the science of global warming, it would be forced to regulate," he said.
Environmental groups that joined the lawsuit issued statements hailing the decision.
"This will be a huge turning point in federal policy," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
"Today's ruling is not just about vehicle emissions," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. He said the ruling could force the federal government to fight global warming -- by protecting polar bears as an endangered species, for example.
Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation in Brunswick said the ruling will help Maine defend a state effort to require the sale of more fuel-efficient cars, starting with model year 2009.
The automobile industry is now challenging laws adopted by Maine and about 10 other states, saying the pollution laws interfere with federal fuel-efficiency standards.
"This decision unequivocally says that (carbon dioxide) is a pollutant and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act," Hinchman said.
Reacting to the court ruling Monday, automakers called for an across-the-economy approach to global warming, cautioning that no single industry could bear the burden alone.
EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court's ruling. She defended EPA's voluntary efforts to reduce emissions. "These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy," Wood said.
The second ruling Monday also was welcomed by Maine officials and environmentalists as having long-term implications for air quality in Maine.
The ruling hinged on when EPA must require power plants to increase their pollution controls. Existing federal rules require added controls whenever a plant increases the amount of air pollution.
Duke Energy Corp. and industry groups argued that improvements shouldn't trigger expensive pollution controls if the plants don't increase hourly emissions. Under that standard, a plant could operate for more hours -- increasing annual pollution -- without triggering the tougher standards.
Maine and others states, as well as the EPA, argued the federal government should continue to base the rules on annual emissions.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to a federal appeals court that had sided with Duke Energy.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The landmark decision, which divided the court 5-4, could lead to a range of federal regulations to fight climate change and could help bring more fuel-efficient cars to Maine dealerships as soon as next year.
It was one of two major air pollution cases decided Monday in favor of Maine and other states that have been pushing in the courts for stronger federal action on the environment.
The second ruling, a unanimous one, said the federal government must continue to use a strict standard for requiring added pollution controls at power plants that increase production. Maine and other states feared a loosening of standards could have meant more air pollution blowing into the state.
"These decisions represent clear wins for the health of the American people," said Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe, whose office submitted arguments in favor of both lawsuits.
The global warming lawsuit was filed by 12 states, including Maine, and 13 environmental groups. The lawsuit argued that carbon dioxide produced when motor vehicles burn gasoline and diesel fuel should be regulated as a pollutant because it contributes to global warming and rising sea levels.
The EPA argued that the states did not have legal standing, that Congress did not mean to cover carbon dioxide in the Clean Air Act and that regulating vehicle emissions won't stop global warming, among other things.
Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the EPA in the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the court's swing vote in the case.
"EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate," Stevens wrote.
EPA can't dismiss regulation because it won't reverse global warming or because there is uncertainty about the effects of climate change, among other arguments, he wrote. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Roberts wrote a minority opinion, arguing that he was making "no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem." But, he said, the states went to court because they did not get what they wanted quickly enough in the political process and that "redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is 'the function of Congress and the chief executive,' not the federal courts."
Although the decision was a close one, it also is clear, according to Rowe. "EPA sidestepped its obligations, and that's what the court found," he said.
The court did not order EPA to regulate the emissions, but said it must do so unless there is a scientific reason to decide against it. Rowe said he believes EPA will act. "If the EPA focused on the science of global warming, it would be forced to regulate," he said.
Environmental groups that joined the lawsuit issued statements hailing the decision.
"This will be a huge turning point in federal policy," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
"Today's ruling is not just about vehicle emissions," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. He said the ruling could force the federal government to fight global warming -- by protecting polar bears as an endangered species, for example.
Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation in Brunswick said the ruling will help Maine defend a state effort to require the sale of more fuel-efficient cars, starting with model year 2009.
The automobile industry is now challenging laws adopted by Maine and about 10 other states, saying the pollution laws interfere with federal fuel-efficiency standards.
"This decision unequivocally says that (carbon dioxide) is a pollutant and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act," Hinchman said.
Reacting to the court ruling Monday, automakers called for an across-the-economy approach to global warming, cautioning that no single industry could bear the burden alone.
EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court's ruling. She defended EPA's voluntary efforts to reduce emissions. "These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy," Wood said.
The second ruling Monday also was welcomed by Maine officials and environmentalists as having long-term implications for air quality in Maine.
The ruling hinged on when EPA must require power plants to increase their pollution controls. Existing federal rules require added controls whenever a plant increases the amount of air pollution.
Duke Energy Corp. and industry groups argued that improvements shouldn't trigger expensive pollution controls if the plants don't increase hourly emissions. Under that standard, a plant could operate for more hours -- increasing annual pollution -- without triggering the tougher standards.
Maine and others states, as well as the EPA, argued the federal government should continue to base the rules on annual emissions.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to a federal appeals court that had sided with Duke Energy.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Only a carbon tax can stop global warming
WASHINGTON — The global warming train finally is leaving the station with almost everyone onboard — except for a few die-hard deniers from ultra-conservative groups and the Flat Earth Society.Now comes the really difficult task — one that demands a thorough debate among all governments and all peoples: What can we humans do to prevent global warming and ameliorate its more negative impacts?The decisions we reach are vital; they almost surely will determine if our small, fragile planet survives and whether we Americans continue to enjoy all of the freedoms we hold so dear.There can be no doubt that Earth has entered a warming period — temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 120 years — and there is good evidence that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have played a significant role since 1940.The most recent report by the United Nations’ respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that — barring draconian remedial actions — global temperatures could increase as much as 11 degrees by 2100.If that is the case, the current mandates of the Kyoto treaty on climate change just won’t cut it. Fully implemented by its signatory nations, Kyoto would trim only one degree of warmth from the U.N.’s worst-case projection by 2100 — a decrease that matches the recorded increase in temperature since the latter-part of the 19th century.Unfortunately, Kyoto exempts such major emerging economies as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, which together are projected to account for more than 60 percent of the world’s man-made greenhouse gases by the year 2040.Even worse, most European Union nations actually have increased their emissions of carbon dioxide since the alliance imposed a system of emission trading credits that allows low-level polluters to sell their surplus carbon credits to highest.The idea underlining such a convoluted system is that low-level polluters will reduce emissions even further so they have more carbon credits to sell; and higher-level polluters will make reductions to avoid having to pay for credits.The failures of Kyoto’s mandates and the EU’s system of emission trading credits have caused consternation and confusion on Capitol Hill.Even Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the new chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who favored such remedies when the Democrats were out of power, now has backed off and is pursuing relatively small steps like increasing the energy efficiency of federal buildings.With the latest U.N. report declaring that global warming is all but unstoppable, such incremental measures seem ludicrous. Far bolder efforts than Kyoto and carbon trading credits will be required to blunt the impact of global warming, if the United Nations’ forecasters are correct.The fastest, surest way, of course, would be for the United Nations itself to impose a tax on all of its member nations that correlates with the carbon footprint of each.Populous, heavily industrialized countries such as the United States, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Mexico and the larger European states would pay through the smokestack, so to speak, while the poorer nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America would pay what amounts to chump change.The U.N. climate change panel call for a 4 percent global tax on advanced countries in it recent report.That is a small price to pay for saving our planet — especially for a super-affluent society such as ours. For most Americans, it amounts to sacrificing a few automobile trips, a month’s worth of Starbucks and maybe a dozen Big Macs. Given our national obesity epidemic, how can that hurt?The important thing about such a global carbon tax is that it would be eminently fair — taxing each nation according to their greenhouse gas emissions.Admittedly, getting a U.N. consensus to take even a trivial action is rough sledding. But every thought leader committed to a sustainable, survivable planet — from Al Gore to Tony Blair to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — ought to add their voices to a chorus calling for this global tax.Such a tax would be economically benign — adding up to only a small fraction of each nation’s Gross Domestic Product. That amount would be offset many-fold by the increased profits rolling in from the development of new “green” technology, not to mention the lower healthcare costs generated by a cleaner environment.The only alternative would be to sit tight, do nothing and hope that the United Nations’ predictions turn out to be bogus. Anyone want to buy some nice beachfront property in West Virginia?.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)