The Economist says "Make it Legal"

(First found at Boing Boing)

The Economist is saying:

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.

Here's why I doubt we'll be dropping this particular prohibition...

Look at the Kennedy legacy.

A single generation after prohibition and we had a political dynasty that was/is, arguably, the most powerful in America ever, but certainly within the 20th century.

And it was all built on the backbones of a fortune made in illegal alcohol sales.

The Kennedys made their money during prohibition; and when prohibition ended, they couldn't keep making money running booze. That's when they moved into politics.

BoingBoing seems to agree, to some respect:

But it won't happen, because the criminals don't want it, law enforcement doesn't want it, and the prison systems ... don't want it.

Read More...

Ze Germans

... are smarter than us:

(url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cgJgnG9YzY&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/&feature=player_embedded)


Read More...

Is Alochol Bad for Women?

According to Charlie Stross:

[A] lot of headlines and newspaper column-inches were devoted to the shocking findings of a recent survey of women's health that apparently indicated that drinking any alcohol at all correlated with an elevated risk of cancer:

Even small amounts of alcohol increase a woman's risk of cancer" (The Guardian)"

"Drink a day increases cancer risk" (The BBC)

"Even a little alcohol ups cancer risk in women" (Reuters)

Daily drink for middle-age women cancer risk (Washington Post, syndicated)

But were those reports accurate?


Stross says no, and provides some proofs. He goes on to sum up the abstract- which appears to be the only portion of the actual study the reporters looked at:

"Alcohol is evil. We know this because it is True. And it's especially bad for women because, well, women shouldn't drink. If you run a study to confirm this belief and the facts don't back you up, the facts are wrong. So tell the public the Truth (alcohol is always evil) and bury the facts; the press won't be able to tell the difference because they're (a) lazy (or overworked, take your pick) and (b) statistically innumerate."

There is a general sentiment, among many people, to accept what one group says or another. I'm choosing to accept what Charlie Stross and Sandy Szwarc have to say. Why? Read Stross's post, and the article at Junkfood Science. The numbers tell a different story than what some are reporting, and the paper's authors are trying to say. How could that be?

(from Junkfood Science, linked and cited in Charlie Stross' post)

“[Moderate drinking] is a level of consumption that generally has been found in scientific studies to be associated with a relatively low risk of harms,” said Robert Brewer of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.* “But low risk does not mean no risk.”

* The newspaper failed to disclose that Dr. Brewer is manager and director of the Alcohol Team at the CDC; serves as Principal Investigator for Alcohol-Related Disease Impact software, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; and has authored numerous publications on alcohol and alcohol-related health effects.

Drink. It's good for you- if you're a woman and have no more than 2 drinks every day.
Read More...

Story Time

"John Jacob Johnson, III was born on a farm in rural Alabama to Mitsy McCallister Johnson and John Jacob Johnson, Jr. He played football for Southern Redneck High School, and went to the University of Alabama on an athletics scholarship. Alas, he suffered a tragic, career ending, ankle sprain in his junior year.

"Forced to face the heartbreaking reality of working for a living, he switched his major from Athletics to Business. He threw himself into the books, trying desperately to earn himself a way off the farm in little Hickrape, Alabama. He got a part-time job, as an 'errand boy' for a local law firm. Undaunted by the proposition of blowing old conservative fruits for $3 a trick, he graduated Cum Laude and immediately applied to Law School. His impressive ability to suck a golf ball through a three foot section of garden hose impressed the registrars, and earned him one of the few coveted spots.

"It was there he met his wife Milley, whom he would marry and later kill- getting away with it because of his connections and experience as a trial judge. So thoroughly did he plan and perpetrate the murder, that he wasn't even a suspect. He used the 'grief' of the 'tragedy' as a springboard into a federal judiciary seat. Still willing to slurp down as many hot loads as it would take, 'Big Gay Jay'- as he was called behind his back- quickly climbed the federal ladder.

"None were surprised when the latest President gave Judge Johnson the nod for the Ultimate Bench. His confirmation hearings went through without a hitch- after all, Big Gay Jay personally knew the taste and proclivity of many a sitting Senator. So it was that three months ago, Judge Johnson, chin unusually dry, became Supreme Court Justice Johnson."

"Thank You for the history lesson, you plastic surgery enhanced sack of vacuousness, laugh vacantly while I glare at you in contempt."

Ah hahahahahah

"Good. We go now, to Justice Johnson's first news conference, a rarity for seated Supreme Court Justices."

"Yes, thank you all for coming- but, then, the huge erection erasing power of a name with a title as earth shatteringly huge as mine is hard to resist, isn't it? As you know, I'm Justice John Jacob Johnson, III; and I am the most junior member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I've called you all here today to lay out some basic facts, you sniveling retards. Pay attention, or I will use every ounce of my not-insignificant power to utterly fuck this Union, harder than any man since the current President's predecessor!

"You smug motherfuckers keep tossing around some drivel so often, I've found myself using it, and that is un-fucking-acceptable. The particular term I'm here to address is 'Activist Judges'. Since more than half of you are unable to find your assholes with both hands if you're given an eight finger head-start; I'm going to explain this to you again, in language a half retarded spider monkey could understand. Take notes.

"There are THREE branches to the Federal Government. The Executive, which executes the Laws; the Legislative, which makes the Laws; and the Judicial which ensures that the laws are- you know- legal. There are checks and balances placed between the branches, so that no one of them can become all-powerful and thereby negate either- or both- of the others.

"One of these checks and balances is the ability of the Executive to command the Armed Forces. One check is the requirements upon the Legislative should it seek to change the fundamental documents governing our federal government- like the Constitution of the United States of America. A different check is the Executives ability to appoint the members of the federal Judiciary. Another check is the ability for the Judiciary to deem a law unconstitutional, which would require the constitution be amended before such a law could be considered legal in the United States of America.

"This last, is pretty much what 99% of the time of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is consumed by: the legality of laws, their interpretations, and usage. In other words, activism. That's right, the Supreme Court (of the United States of America) is designed to be the Nine most activist judges in the land. In fact, almost all Federal Judges are, by design, ACTIVIST JUDGES, you brainless bags of syphilitic shit!

"Why? Because we make sure that the Executive- especially in its capacity as a police force- doesn't overstep the bounds, intents, or capabilities outlined in the laws the Legislature passes. That's why we're here. Guilt and Innocence are matters for juries to decide; judges make sure everything is legal.

"Thus endeth the lesson. But I will now answer one further question. A question that many of you have been wondering as you stare at me, red faced, ranting, with foamy spit spraying from my lips: Why are you doing this? I'll tell you why.

"Not only am I offended by how stupid and sheep like you idiot sons of bitches out there in the electorate are; but I am indescribably contemptuous of the manipulative fucks you domitable assholes allow to fill your heads with the rancid cow shit, you fucking douchebags are all too happy to spew at one another. I am a Supreme Court Justice. This post is for Life. That makes me gangsta. Know what a REAL gangsta does when he's given a podium, an audience, and the ability to speak? Rewind this tape.

"Peace, bitches!"

It is many weeks later before the Governor Goat Fucking scandal of Delaware replaces Justice Johnson's exit from the stage on the Mainstream News Networks. He throws the microphone down, and turns to march off, confident in the knowledge that no more dicks shall intrude upon the sanctity of his oral cavity, unless he so wants it. Some terse words are exchanged with a cameraman blocking the way, as the judge tries to exit. The sixty-three year old man, dressed in the robes of his office, throws a beautiful front kick into the waiting nutsack of the cameraman. This causes the man to fall over, grab his bleeding sack, and drop his camera; allowing the judge the room he needs to clear the stage. As the judge walks away, the camera picks up two distinct sounds accompanied by two distinct images. The first, the plaintive moans of the cameraman, his face twisted in ball busted pain. The second, the judge saying, "This is MY house, motherfucker!" and whistling as he walks away, his robes parting just enough for the entire world to get a small glimpse of sixty-three-year-old-ass-cheek.


----
The Civics Lesson, for kids! (c) Thomas Hand 5 March 2009
Read More...

MurdocSpace

For the last year, maybe 18 months, I've been dealing with MySpace telling me I'm- and treating me like- a spambot. Links are blocked, messages are blocked. I must enter Captcha at too many turns- like when I send a reply message.

The worst part? I have no recourse but to take it... except canceling the account. That's not an alternative, for me, because of who I have contact with there and no where else. So, I removed my formatting, turned the profile to FRIENDS ONLY, and will be adding no new content there. In other words, I'm using it as a very shitty email drop.

Has anyone else run into these issues?
Read More...

NEVER Talk to the Cops.

This goes along with my post a day or so ago.


Found At:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/02/15yearold-girl-beate.html

Notice the loving way he throws her down by her hair, punches her in the head and then picks her up by the hair? Aren't cops lovable?

"Aww, wook at da' wittle po-po. Who's the cutest wittle coppie woppie in all the land? It's you! Oh yes it is!"

Read More...

So You Say You Want a Revolution?

I've had an idea kicking around my cranial-meat for a while.

SYSYWAR ("Sissy War") will be an irregular introduction to gadgets. The point being as much to discuss new technological innovation you can hold in your hand and throw at bastards; as to discuss the meaning behind the technologies and how it works. (For long time readers, think "Culture for the Masstards" for techies.)

Today's installment, Radio Free Radio!


The idea was first massively advertised by the satellite radio stations. Essentially, it's "take everything you love about radio, subtract everything you hate, and CRANK IT UP TO 11!" The really nice thing? If you're willing to spend some initial time at it, it works (and your time spent tends to decrease the longer you participate).

The sites, and there are others; but these are the type I'd send my mom to- because I wouldn't be worried about her getting spyware and viruses from just going there:
(In no particular order)
Pandora
Jango
Slacker Radio

To give you an easy example, we'll take Jango. At the main page, I put "Nine Inch Nails". The program assumes I want to listen to NIN and similar bands. So, skipping ahead I get "Cherub Rock" from the Smashing Pumpkins, "Intermission" from Tool, "Opus Dei" from Laibach, and "Fell on Black Days" by Soundgarden. Additionally, it recommends other bands I might want to add to my new "station". Marilyn Manson, KMFDM, Tool, Smashing Pumpkins, A Perfect Circle, and Nirvana are its suggestions. Not bad, right? Confused on why? Essentially, the station is only playing tracks similar to NIN, I can add other bands to refine the sound I'm looking for- General 90s: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins; Industrial: KMFDM, Gothic: Marilyn Manson, A Perfect Circle; Metal(ish): Tool, KMFDM.

Pandora, as it loads, tells you that it's a means of placing the Music Genome Project into users' hands. The idea is the same for all of them. Add Groups you like, rate individual songs/groups and an algorithm sorts all listed tracks on the server sending you ones that are similar. It's radio, if radio didn't suck, and wasn't actually being pumped out of Durham, NC instead of down the block.

The real difference between the services is how customizable they are, and the extra features. Jango focuses on social networking, almost, and allows a general choice of "Popular Tracks, Happy Medium, or Wide Variety" for how obscure the track list should go. Pandora has more information about the bands and songs, will tell you WHY a song/band was selected, and a detailed list of what choices you've made for your station. Slacker allows more general customization- like obscurity, and era, for instance- and Slacker also has the slab of tech we're about to discuss. All have links to lyrics or artist info or to buy tracks. And all have the ability to create a station and share it with friends. Wil Wheaton has shared a station on Slacker Radio he created based on Bauhaus and similar bands, take a look/listen.

SLAB'O'TECH

The gadget to bring this technology out of your computer- should you be so inclined is the new Slacker G2 Personal Radio Player. Basically, it connects with Slacker radio when it finds a WiFi source and gets new music based on your previous tinkerings; but otherwise operates exactly like the website. So, going for a run/walk/jog/ride? Don't want to take along a laptop with an air card? Problem solved. (Wil Wheaton's review, which inspired this post.)

WHY THIS IS GOOD
I love radio because it exposes me to music I wouldn't normally hear if I was stuck with my playlist in [Preferred Mediaplayer] on Shuffle and Repeat All. Yet, I hate listening to radio- except for NPR News- because they play CRAP with a capital "UTTER-FUCKING-BULLSHIT-ASS-DRIPPINGS-RECTAL-PROLAPSE"! I can't stand 99% of what's on the radio stations available in my area. I want punk and metal stations, for instance, which we don't have at all. Now I can create them; and all of these services are free, or have very good free versions.

WHY THIS IS NEW
Technically, it's not; and I'm not concerned with that, too much. SYSYWAR, like CftM, is also about collating information and putting it into a place you can easily reference or send your friends. Now you have a post you can send your friends to, when they ask you what bands they should look into when they only like Echo and the Bunnymen, Leadbelly, and Snoop Dog. (Hint: Send them Here)

The G2, however, is fairly recent, so there's that.
Read More...

Angel of Death?

Remember Zoe Bell? Yeah, that Zoe Bell.

Ed Brubaker has created a TV series for the net, starring Zoe Bell as the assassin Eve.

Go watch it.


Read More...

Has Capitalism REALLY Hit the Fan?

Capitalism Hits the Fan: A Marxian View from UVC-TV 19 on Vimeo.

Analysis follows:


In short, the first 15-22min are instructive, the last bits are interesting; but fundamentally flawed.

In the comments- at vimeo- on this video, you can see a number of ideas discussed. Some (most? I didn't read more than the first handful) are marxist/socialist, some are capitalist (including the linked PDF from the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank's Letter from March 1997), some are anti-corporate, yadda yadda yadda. The thing that unites them is they each represent a fascinating singular viewpoint, and none of them do more than superficially present a straw man of any other views. But that's the comments (which we'll come back to), now for the video...

Are his facts accurate? Yes. He never claims they are more than generalizations- which they appear to be on closer inspection. For 150 years productivity, profit and wages rose each year. Was it always at the same rate? Probably not. Was it 1975 when wages started their stagnate/downward trend? Looking at the PDF linked above, it was 1972 when real hourly wages peaked. They explain the numbers they use:

"It is obtained by deflating the average hour earnings figure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) obtains every month from its Current Employment Survey (CES) of establishments by the BLS’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPIU)."

That seems a reasonable way of deriving the numbers; and the Newsletter continues with an analysis of why it's not if you care for that. (I'll dig deeper into that PDF in a moment).

Generally, Professor Rick Wolff's facts and analysis of the 150 years from 1820-1970 is correct- as you'd probably expect from someone at the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst. His assertion that this isn't a financial crisis is emotionally/politically motivated. This crisis may have resulted from many things- in fact, I think it's safe to say that it did- but to compare it to the body isn't very valid. Everything in life, today, is far more entwined than it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago a mechanics wasn't expected to understand basic nutrition, basic finance, basic law (and basic copyright law), basic electronics, and various other basics essential to navigating life in the modern era. That's not to say such understanding wouldn't help a mechanic 100 years ago, it's to say that they weren't expected by their society to know those things.

Today, the RIAA will crucify your grandmother if her granddaughter doesn't understand that torrenting music is illegal (basic copyright law). The MPAA will attempt to crucify anyone who doesn't adhere to the warnings they put on all VHS tapes and DVDs- on the DVDs you can't even skip their warning (even the one written in a language you don't understand). No more pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s, etc etc (basic- maybe even moderate- finance). A mechanic can get sued if he allows a customer to drive a car out of his shop- even if he fixed the one piece he was asked to fix (basic law). Undernourish your kids and see what DHS says (basic nutrition). Setup the router so you can safely navigate the internet for entertainment, education, and porn (technically entertainment; but SO much more, really); set up the flat screen 1080i television, the MP3 streaming wifi enabled home stereo and entertainment system, the cable box DVR, the DVD/Blu-ray player, etc (basic electronics).

Just because we're that entwined, doesn't mean this didn't start in the Financial sector. If we had done things differently, we MIGHT not have seen this crash happen, or spread as far as it did. That's a maybe; not a definite. If we had done things differently- say a dictatorial political system with a communist market- we may have been Russia in the early 1990s.

His fact that the American working class was the only one that could have been leveraged was new to me; and fit many things I had heard and read. For many years I wanted to move to the UK and live there awhile. I knew most people there rented- though I still don't know why exactly, tax law seems to have some effect on it. I knew that is the commonly accepted de facto living arrangement in Europe and Developed Asia: renting over buying.

His facts are solid, if general, and his ideas are fairly valid. Despite the fact that this started in the Financial sector, it's spread to many- if not all- sectors and is resulting in massive job losses. It's a world disaster/crisis/whatever.

His plan is interesting. Read the comments to see where it falls short from the marxist/socialist mindset. He's detailed cooperatives, not communists; but ignoring jargon and revolutions, it's an interesting idea. I doubt, as one commentor said, that workers already have the power. How can you "refuse low wages" when you're too broke to provide yourself food, water, and shelter? How can you refuse "higher prices" when it's milk, eggs, flour, rice, water, and shelter whose prices are increasing?

A digression on worker's power...

When I lived in Birmingham, I stayed at an Apartment for two years. When I got in, the price for that place was $675 a month (2 bed room, 1 bath, with water, sewer, and garbage included). When I left it was $725. When I left, the rented that apartment- to whoever moved in after me- for $750 + $30 for the included. The apartment wasn't in a bad neighborhood- though a prostitute did try to pick me up in the parking lot once, and many of the immigrants had their apartments invaded. (I was walking the dog one morning, barely awake, when I brushed through a piece of fishing line. It tripped a very loud, and annoying, alarm; designed to wake the families before thieves could make off with their kids' bikes or break down their doors). It was in Homewood, on Valley Ave, right off Green Springs. And the only place cheaper- on that road- was about $50-$60 cheaper a month, but about three-four times less safe. Imagine trying to walk to work from further away. I originally moved there from a place near Cahaba Heights that was 2 Bedrooms, 2 Baths, for $715 (garbage and sewer included). They arbitrarily raised rent rates every year- the longer the buildings stand the less is actually needed for the owners to turn a profit, until they're so old they should be torn down. Moving further away might have resulted in less rent; but more travel time to work, more gas in general travel, and basically less net gain.

Workers at the lowest end of the spectrum don't have much power. Look at who pays the most in taxes. Don't you think it's highly likely they're the same people spending the money on most non-essential (i.e. non-grocery, non-gas) supplies? They have the power, and they're not the middle class, they're the upper middle class and higher. This is where the ideals of a consumerist, materialistic, greed based value system fucks us. Plus advertising. In America, Taco Bell during the early to mid 1990s had a 59c, 79c, 99c menu. Wonder why they don't now? Because if you price something too low it's perceived value is always lower than it's price. Take the same item, price it at $1.09- instead of 79c- and its value seems greater, though the only thing that has changed is the price point. This works ont he psyche of people invested int he rat race, and who have won. People struggling to get by don't give a shit if it tastes a little funny and is half broken, if it's cheap and plentiful (and won't give them cancer today) it's gonna have to be good enough.

Back to his models...

Look at those silicon valley start-ups. As one commentator noted, venture capitalists supplied many of them with enough money to actually get the product out there. Then the VC's would, usually, own the largest portion of the company (compared to any other single investor, at least). Even if the VC's were bought out- control reverting to the workers- how did those companies end up? Oracle. Compaq. Google. Go look up which ones are publicly traded, and which ones make their Board of Directors public. Go see who is on those boards. Who is the CEO- and where did that person come from? It's not a pretty picture for the idea of cooperatives. Which might be a fault of the capitalist market, and the fallible human's need to indulge their greed; but if it is, we'd have to change the entire system before the cooperatives we were changing the system for could actually work in the long-term.

Lastly, the commentors. As I have said, I didn't read many of them. Comments can be useful; but they can also be rather useless. Most don't fully consider the ideas purported by others- even when they directly address those others. I did, however, go look at the Fed of Chicago's newsletter.

Let's be clear, I thought it would be the pro-capitalism view, and it is. It is also 12 years dated- which is significant in light of the last six months to a year. I didn't manage to make it through more than the first page.

There are, however, major methodological problems with using the average hourly earnings series to gauge long-term trends in wage rates. First, they cover only wage and salary compensation. Fringe benefits and contributions for social insurance programs, important parts of workers’ total compensation, are left out.

Because these components of compensation have been increasing more rapidly than wages and salaries over most of the period covered by figure 1, average hourly earnings understate compensation growth. The earnings data are also limited to production and nonsupervisory workers. The nearly 20% of workers excluded from the average are more likely to be highly skilled and highly paid. Because such workers have experienced more rapid wage growth since the early 1970s, their exclusion imparts another downward bias to the measured rate of average wage growth. Finally, though it covers a large fraction of employment, the CES is subject to substantial biases in sample selection; for example, it excludes workers at newly opened establishments.

In other words, because CEOs don't get covered- and their wages and benefits have grown vastly- the figure is inaccurate. My general refutation is: FUCK YOU!

Also, it doesn't cover NEW companies. Yet, it will soon; but more importantly: where do you think the new companies get their data for salaries from? Cause I'm betting established companies.

Fringe benefits are good; but they're also a crock of shit. In the 1950s you got a pension. Today, you get far less money, devoted to matching your 401(k) or IRA contributions. They have their benefits over the old style pensions- but mostly for upper middle class and above. Many people feel the "choices" and "freedom" of IRAs and 401(k)s are worth it; but I contest those "freedoms" and "choices" blow when compared to a pension for 90% of people. Health insurance could be worse if employers didn't help; but it's still ridiculous- even for Hospital employees. Why? Because of businesses we like to call the Insurance Companies (who are highly unregulated, and about the worst of the worst when it comes to greedy corporate fucks). Go look at what some sites that show median salary, and see how much higher they rate things like retirement packages and health care.

Don't get me wrong, Health coverage is even more expensive- a lot of the time- if the employer doesn't help with it; but it's not exactly like a benefit when a large chunk of salary gets pulled out of each check. What's the term for something that's not a benefit, but not a disadvantage, either? That's how I see health care compensation at most companies.

Do I have a solution?
Nope. But I'm not a professional economist, either. I think Professor Wolff makes some interesting points; but I also think he can (literally) afford to view things the way he does. I also think he knows quite a bit about what he's glossing over. All in all, it's definitely a must see lecture, because it illustrates an alternative viewpoint and sparks discussions. His solutions are maybe a little better- because of who they benefit- than most of the ones I hear currently; but they're also less likely. We're a hierarchical society, trying to disrupt the hierarchy isn't a small thing- and despite the benefit 99% of people will resist that change.

Of course, it'd be easier to substantially change if we could get those 99% to actually think about what/how/why the system is/does/causes the things/ways/beliefs it is/does/causes.
Read More...

NEVER EVER EVER Talk to the Cops.

I have a lot of friends who get into trouble. I get into trouble, too. Being as close to 7' as 6', and loud, and an asshole (read: blunt and intentionally tactless) I'm easily visible, and likely to be remembered. Unfortunately- as so many people have told me- I remind everyone of someone.

Enter the police. I remember one go-getter putting me in the back of a hot patrol car, while he tried to be super cop and get me to confess. The only problem: neither of us knew what the fuck I was supposed to be confessing. He had caught me buying smokes- I was 17- but there was an APB (maybe a "warrant", maybe just an "Action Alert", who knows what they really call 'em) for me for questioning.

Fortunately, for me, I liked to read these old hacker journals. Kult of the Dead Kow- still around, in a way, but they dropped the K's- 2400, etc etc. One of the issues I had discussed the case of a hacker. It was written, in a very compelling way, as a first-person account of his arrest, and how that later helped convict him of a lesser crime. The article was intended as advice for how to deal with the cops. Essentially, it said "Don't EVER EVER talk to cops. There is no 'off the record;' they can lie to you. Cops DO NOT have the authority to make a 'deal'."

Turns out, those 'zines I was reading 3-4 years after they had first been published, were right.

(After the cut, 2 videos- each about 22 minutes- the first being a criminal defense attorney and law school professor. The second being a cop, who affirms everything the professor says, and gives the cop's-eye version of why.)



Prof. James Duane of the Regent University School of Law:


Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department


Read More...