[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com
fuck arizona
i mean, really.

http://m.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2013/01/proposed-us-loyalty-oath-for-students.html?page=all&r=full

im always shocked that some people think theres no discrimination against atheists.

sure, atheists are usually not part of minority groups--it seems (in the US at least) to largely be educated white guys, though obviously of the millions of atheists worldwide that are of various class and ethnic backgrounds.

it does seem that dumbfuck christians are unable or unwilling to let others be non christian. fucking idiots.

and this is why the GOP, that called itself, hezbollah, er, the party of god, is so fucking absurd.

instead of tackling the education problems in schools, lawmakers spend their time crafting a bill meant to deny a HS diploma to atheists.
fucking pricks.


oh, and lastly, one of the sponsors of the bill responded to a local paper, using the deadline to submit bills to explain that maybe some language might be changed to not rile everyone up.

link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/arizona-republicans-propose-bill-that-would-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

quote from rep thorpe is towards bottom of link

the bill is two fucking paragraphs long, you dipshit politician who doesnt think anyone will go find the bill you wrote/sponsored.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2467p.htm&Session_ID=110

jackasses, all of them.


Posted via m.livejournal.com.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
The following links are all behind a cut for the link-phobic:


cut for link-phobic )

And then there's this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/abortion-bill-arizona-terri-proud-witness-email_n_1368386.html

So.......can someone explain to me why the Tennessee and Arizona state GOPs seem to have a bigger collection of dumbass trolls than elsewhere? I realize that people might be offended at calling people trolls, but honestly if your idea of "pro-life" is making people witness abortions, my idea of making people carnivores would be to take them to see how those cows get turned into that meat on their plates. that kind of idea is creepy, counterproductive, and frankly seems more the politics of high school than what's theoretically supposed to be something run by people who left high school behind decades ago.

These days if an idea is offensive, reactionary, or frankly put too savage for Genghis Khan to think of it, it comes from these states. Why is that? Did South Carolina spread the whole too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum virus elsewhere?

Edit-to be fair, there are actually state GOPs whose leaders have some integrity and courage, and they should be given full credit for it. And from the state that brought us a con man arrested for defrauding the government as a state governor, that says a lot:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-sponsors-florida-stand-ground-law-george-zimmerman-arrested-article-1.1048164?localLinksEnabled=false
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com


From Statepress:

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.


‘I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,’ Lesko said. ‘So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.’


Jezebel points out that Arizona is an “at will” state. This means that bosses in Arizona will be able to fire women for being depraved enough to take birth control pills to prevent pregnancy.

As we all know, what made the Soviet Union infamous were not the gulags, its treatment of dissidents, and the rigid control over the press, but the fact that women could take pills for the purpose of contraception without fear of losing their jobs over it.

Yes, here it is -- the right wing's idea of "freedom" is a society where a woman has to ask her boss' permission to use oral contraceptives.

Does anyone else find this more than a little weird?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
[identity profile] ironhawke.livejournal.com
About a year ago now I moved from hippie-liberal haven Boulder, Colorado, to gun-toting, cowboy hat wearing, Republican Prescott, Arizona. Since then I've watched as the nation has become embroiled in issue after issue brought to life by the legislature here. Most notably of course was the famous immigration law.

The Arizona immigration law (HB 1070) made some sense to me. Arizona shares a border with Mexico, and so therefore (like other border states) bears the brunt of the problems that come with illegal crossings into the U.S. I didn't like it, but at least I could see why other people here do.

Now we come to a new law, passed by our benevolent reptile overlords who seem to have completely lost their minds.

http://washingtonindependent.com/106784/arizona-paves-way-for-abortion-discrimination-law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_arizona_abortion

Laws typically stem from something newsworthy, maybe an incident that raises awareness about a particular loophole in our legal system, or possibly a problem that became somewhat of a thorn in the side of a lawmaker. Frequently these laws are silly, but the average person can understand what the impetus was to enact it.

This law on the other hand, makes it a criminal offense for a doctor to perform an abortion he knows is being done on gender or racial reasoning. Basically: If you're aborting your child because he's half-black, or is a girl, not a boy, then your doctor could become liable for performing the abortion. (The woman having the abortion does not have any liability.)

This is complete, absolute, bat-nutz crazy. Doing my required 5 minutes of research (cus you know, theez be teh internetz. Everything worth knowing you can learn in 5 minutes) I wasn't able to come up with much rational besides this statement by the bill's author:

“No one – not even in the womb – should be subject to discrimination because they are a girl or a boy or are of the wrong race,” said Representative Steve Montenegro, the Republican sponsor of the bill. “That is just wrong,”

There has been no recordable incidents (that I've been able to find) in which a fetus was aborted because of it's gender or race. The lawmakers in Arizona have managed to create a bill for which there is no need. There has been substantial evidence that this sort of thing (gender selection mostly) is actively going on in countries like China or India...but in America? Is this really a problem?

As far as I'm concerned this is a complete shameless grab on the part of the Arizona legislature in an attempt to curtail woman's rights on abortion. There were several pieces of legislature proposed earlier this year, and most of them were defeated, unfortunately this one managed to sneak through. I am disgusted and ashamed at the people in the state that I reside, and sadly (much like a Republican living in Boulder) feel completely hopeless that the political tide will shift in this area anytime soon.

xposted to my journal.

EDIT: There have been no recordable incidents in Arizona that I've been able to find. Since this is a state law, it is reasonable to presume that the citizens in the state find it a necessary requirement to deal with a local issue, since there is no issue to be found, it follows that this is a law that has an ulterior motive.
[identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/arizona.double.killing/?hpt=T2

I don't advocate the death penalty but I shed no tears for this woman. Here's the crux of the story: an anti-immigrant militant attacked a Latino family, killing the father and 9-year-old daughter (as she begged for her life), and shooting the mother who only survived because she pretended to die from the gunshot.

The murderers thought the father was a drug dealer and they wanted his money to finance their budding hate group. I guess that would have been a nifty recruiting tool for extremists, their willingness to kill Mexicans to get things done. Nevermind the fact that the victims were American-born citizens, such details are irrelevant when racial bigotry is concerned.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you fan the flames of hatred, dehumanization is the predecessor to atrocity. I'm surprised this didn't get more attention from the mainstream media, I guess they aren't as liberal as so many seem to think.
[identity profile] malasadas.livejournal.com
In early 1994, I was walking through the Makiki neighborhood of Honolulu on my way to a weekend event at the high school where I taught. I was 24 and had been a teacher for all of half a school year. It was, to be honest, a hard transition having moved 6000 miles from home and having just lost my grandfather a month earlier, but I was growing to truly love my new home and my job.

So I was just about to cross one of the main roads, and I witnessed a group of boys -- about 11-12 years old or so -- taking turns running into the street, lying down and then getting up and running to the other side. They did this several times, even as cars were coming rumbling down the blind corner of the hill just to the mountain side of the neighborhood.

And I lit into them. Probably my first true moment of generational ranting and fueled by my own recent loss, I yelled at them for risking that, told them their parents would be crushed if they got hurt and what about a poor driver who'd have to live with hitting them if they kept up that nonsense? For good measure, I told them if they didn't leave right then and there, I'd get a cop and have them dragged home kicking and screaming. I'm not exactly a scary guy, but they left.

I found out later that there was either a popular TV show or movie that was out at the time that had people doing stupid stunts and that these kids were likely immitating it. Over the next years in the classroom, it was pretty evident that popular culture and discourse was pretty capable of working quite a lot of influence on people. Students of mine spent a disconcerting amount of time treating me to their renditions of Beavis and Butthead, and a generation of students who were familiar with the Ricki Lake Show and Jerry Springer betrayed signs of having become convinced that the person who shouts the loudest wins the argument. As a twenty-something college graduate, I was afflicted with the particular conceit that the media reflects rather than influences society, but my work teaching pushed the credulity of that.

I think it is obviously true that words and messages have impact. If they didn't American businesses would probably have better uses for the $125 billion (more or less) they spend on advertising. On a personal level, I am sure if words and images did not matter, I wouldn't find Progressive Insurance Company to be cute and perky despite my having no personal experience with the company beyond its advertising front:



Holy Crap, What Does This Have to Do With Gabrielle Giffords?? )
[identity profile] bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com
My only source for news is the Internet. Currently, most of the media outlets (websites) I'd visit in the event of a big news story have a photograph of the Arizona shooter's face on their main pages (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report have it up; MSNBC and NPR don't).

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Let's say we lack empirical evidence to answer the question. Is it not enough that making criminals famous may incentivize others to commit like crimes for media outlets to consider, you know, not making criminals famous?

How do decision makers in media justify making criminals famous? A journalist's duty is to provide the public information that the public is interested in?

What I'm saying is— cover the story, just do it in a tactful manner. This makes me consider why I'm able to see the Virgina Tech shooter's face in my mind's eye, or Tim McVeigh's, or Charles Manson's. Maybe there's a parallel dimension someplace with a society that doesn't repeatedly and consistently make insane people who do big bad things famous.

I'm sure many, maybe most, will disagree with my premise, but I'm looking at the portrait of that guy right now— at his crazy Manson eyes and his smirk, and I can't help but think that he appreciates and enjoys the attention, as McVeigh did, I'm sure, and Manson did and does. So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com



Representative Giffords with Speaker of the House John Boehner


Representative Giffords has been shot at a public event in Tucson, Arizona. Some news reports indicate Giffords was shot in the head at point-blank range. At least five others attending the event called "Congress on your corner" were injured as well.

Ironically, Gifford was one of Sarah Palin's targets on that controversial map for the 2010 congressional elections. I should feel bad for saying this, but when I read this happened in Arizona, why wasn't I surprised or shocked?

2:30 EST EDIT: CNN is now reporting Rep. Giffords has died.
4:00 EST EDIT: Reports have been confusing about Rep. Gifford's condition. Several outlets initially reported the Tuscon Sheriff's dept had reported Gifford's death, but now other outlets are saying she's in surgery. My apologies for any confusion.
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com
During the heated debate last summer over the proposed health care legislation, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama kept bringing to the media the phrase 'death panels', groups of people that would decide whether or not to "pull the plug on Grandma". While Palin was misguided in her analysis (as she was trying to say that end-of-life care or the living will system was the 'death panel' when it actually wasn't), she may not have been entirely off-base.

Stories have been featured recently through several media outlets of patients in Arizona and Indiana who have been denied life-saving surgeries in the past several weeks and months due to cuts in state Medicaid budgets. In Indiana, a six-month old infant named Seth Petreikis has complete DiGeorge syndrome. A surgery that was deemed "experimental" by Medicaid was denied to him, but the company that manages Indiana's Medicaid program has offered to pay for the surgery themselves. [Source]

In Arizona, 98 people who were already approved for transplants were later told they couldn't receive the surgeries because of recent cuts to Arizona's Medicaid budget. One man was set to receive a new liver, which was donated to him by a friend who'd recently passed away. Because he couldn't pay for the $200,000 surgery, the liver went to another patient. [Source] The reason for this? On October 1, 2010, the state of Arizona removed transplants from a list of medical services that can be funded through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Keith Olbermann is asking viewers of his show Countdown to donate in the hopes of funding the transplants. Meanwhile, Democrats in Arizona are now using the 'death panel' analogy as an attack against Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona Republicans, who agreed to Medicaid cuts to balance their budget, despite protests from Democrats. [Source]

The 'death panels' Palin referred to have little to do with federal government action and more to do with state government blunders. There should be some legislation on the table to mandate organ transplant surgeries be paid for through all health care providers, public and private.Transplant boards are still necessary to sort through the amount of transplant candidates but at least someone who's promised a chance at renewed life wouldn't have to worry about that promise being taken away.
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, June 27, 2010:

Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded.


Read more )
[identity profile] reality-hammer.livejournal.com
Just when you think the Obama administration disregard for the rule of law couldn't get any worse it sets the bar that much lower.
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

Gosh, in the same way that states pursuing bank robbers usurps the federal laws against bank robbery?

Obama & Co. also seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of state laws against activities that are illegal at the federal level. Are they going to argue that all of them are invalid?

Obama and holder are giving the Constitution the middle finger and violating the rights of states that are clearly defined in the Constitution as well as ignoring the duties and limitations of the federal government contained in that document.

Do Obama and Holder really think they can pull off something so egregiously anti-American?

I'd love to see counter-suits from states that recognize the federalism defined by the Constitution and which object to the callous disregard for the rule of law being perpetrated by the Obama administration.

It will be amusing to see how many people who claimed that Bush was "shredding the Constitution" stand up and object to a real raping of the rule of law.

So is this the lowest Obama and Holder can go or will we see worse by November?

ETA: court decisions and DOJ analysis. If you read carefully there's an out for Obama to play: declare that immigration laws are not being enforced at the federal level so states cannot enforce them either. It's a move that would satisfy the extremists on his side but pretty much cause a political tsunami against Democrats who continued to support Obama.
[identity profile] steve-potocin.livejournal.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061700008.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

Well I'm sure this will provoke the usual amount of indignant responses from the Leftist Elitists....who think they know better than the Common Man....now that most of America,not just Arizona,but thw majority of AMERICANS support Arizona's law...what will their excuse be? Will they call the majority of Americans racist? Does the Left really think they know better? HA!!....

"A further challenge for Democrats is that public disapproval over how President Obama is dealing with immigration has edged higher, with 51 percent of all respondents -- and 56 percent of political independents -- giving him negative ratings on the issue.

One unifying immigration concern is the widespread perception that the federal government is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country. Overall, 75 percent of those polled fault border enforcement, and 83 percent support using National Guard troops to patrol the U.S.-Mexico line.

Views about the government's performance on the border relate directly to assessments of the Arizona law: 67 percent of those who see inadequate federal action on the border favor the new law, compared with 31 percent of those who see sufficient enforcement along the 1,954-mile frontier. In all, 58 percent of Americans say they are supportive of the new law."

One thing is for sure....Obama will not be able to ignore this issue for long.....he might be dallying with BS like National Health Care and Don't Ask Don' Tell to avoid more important issues like Immigration....but the American people won't sit tight and wait.....
[identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. - George Orwell

Canadian Racial Profiling Bait for Arizona

Attorney General, Eric Holder, was recently chastised for condemning the Arizona Immigration Law and admitting that he didn't read the text of it.  I have read it.  If Mr. Holder had read it, I'm sure it would have invoked a stronger response from him than it did.  There has been much discussion about its impact on illegal  immigrants and will continue to be. 

However........ )

[identity profile] ironhawke.livejournal.com
I recently moved from Colorado to Arizona. We moved quite literally two weeks before the signing of the new immigration law. I also work in advertising, as such I have the opportunity to speak to quite a large number of Arizonian business owners, employees and patrons. After listening and speaking with these people over the past weeks, I've realized that most of the residents here support the bill, admittedly my perspective is skewed, I live near Prescott, AZ and the majority of people here are white, old, and pissed. However, in spite of the vitriol (and occasional bumper sticker of Obama pissing on the constitution notwithstanding)I've find a handful of points worth mentioning.

1: Arizona has 370 miles of border shared with Mexico, making in the second longest border behind Texas. For a number of years the state legislature has attempted to get the INS to take a stronger stance against illegal immigration locally, and has been rebuffed frequently.

2: There are an estimated 430,000 illegal immigrants in the state. When you take the 200 census numbers (5,100,000) it accounts for a SIGNIFICANT number of the people living in the state. While most people here believe that crime rates are increasing due to drug cartels, crime for the most part has stayed level and it seems that public opinion is largely dependent on the next big media story. (For example, a rancher near Yuma was killed recently by a group of drug runners crossing the border.)

3: As the economy has tanked, as it usual for people living in stressful times, people are turning to the bogeyman of "OH NOEZ TEH ILLEGLEZ!!" Turning public opinion against people here illegally. To be fair, it seems that justice isn't being served when people buying and selling identification, with little to no fear of INS or local police can flaunt their criminality by committing crimes and literally disappearing only to pick up another name. Stories of illegals making a joke of our legal system are rampant.

Bottom line, people are scared, and pissed.

FWIW, I've got my own set of opinions on the matter. Personally, I could care less if you're here illegally, as long as you are willing to do a MINIMUM set of requirements. You need to get a job, working whatever hours are necessary to support your family. You absolutely are disqualified from government assistance, I know this is heartless to an extent, but as in any country, our duty is to the citizens of our country first, and everyone else second. If you choose to come into the country illegally, or overstay your visa, what-have-you, you abdicate your rights to use government subsidies to support yourself. You NEED to learn the predominant language, which is English; refusing the put the effort forward to learn the language and use it commonly is unacceptable. Remember, you are here illegally, we are not required to cater to you. Lastly, Coming To America (remember that movie? Eddie Murphy, whatta kick!) is normally done to gain a piece of the American Dream(tm). The American Dream(tm) was founded on the backs of people willing to work harder, take more risks, and persevere in the face of adversity, that attitude is expected and required of you.

Obviously not all of this is reasonable to expect, but in light of my personal feelings on the matter. I'm willing to put my tentative support behind the immigration bill as long as it is followed in the manner that it is written. If the people screaming about racism and profiling end up being correct, then by all means, repeal the law, and start over. However, I would agree that something needs to be done, and sadly, it looks to be too far but I'm willing to give it a chance.
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Now that the Tea Party has taken the plunge to support racism in Arizona, the Party will have the obligatory split over policy. I see a division into two distinct Tea Parties: one of them based on black tea and the other based on green tea. The black Tea Party would continue to support racism (black represents the color of their heart). The green Tea Party will favor a more rational, natural approach to immigration.

What is your opinion of these two parties within the Party? Which other policy divisions can we look forward to?
[identity profile] readherring.livejournal.com
For a while now, I've been arguing that the Tea Party Patriot movement was not a racist movement. And after all of my hard work, what do they do to me? They go behind my back and get their racism on.

Yesterday, the TPP website sent out an e-mail showing their national support of Arizona's imigrant spot-check law.

From the e-mail: )
[identity profile] drblasphlemy.livejournal.com
A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed.

He tells 3TV, “I don't think it's correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”


Surprised that nobody has posted this yet.  It is making way on the infoweb pretty quickly.  I picked up from another journal this morning.  It looks as if the truck driver was in the right though I am curious to hear the other side of the story.

Is this a taste of things to come or just police upholding the law to the letter?  Did the police make a mistake and abuse their power?  Do you think that this guy has a case for a lawsuit?



Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | Arizona News

[identity profile] xforge.livejournal.com
The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Was... there formerly a problem with teachers in Arizona teaching classes that promote the overthrow of the US government?

Or any of that?

I'm kinda genuinely curious, in addition to wondering why this needed to be a statewide law. Don't local school boards control curriculum? Wouldn't that be something the school board and presumably the parent-teacher organizations would sorta say... hey can we not be teaching that to our kids please?
[identity profile] verytwistedmind.livejournal.com

I have heard and seen a lot of demagoguery over the recent Arizona immigration law.  Obama called the law  'Misguided'.   Ricky Martin said it was discrimination  , Shakira said “It is unjust and it’s inhuman, and it violates the civil and human rights of the Latino community”. Even Conservatives have spoken out against the bill Karl Rove,  Jeb Bush, . Scarborough even pulled a Godwin and compared it to the Nazi’s "let me see your papers".  I could supply a more examples but those were the most interesting to me.

If all of this is true, why has there never been an outcry over the Federal law governing immigration?

The Arizona bill mirrors the federal law. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states:

8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

In my research I found one powerful caveat that would undermine the authority of the Arizona law:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324

(c) Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

 

However, this power has not always been solely in the hands of Officers who report to the Attorney General. In 1996, the U.S. trained local officers to enforce national immigration laws under the   287(g)   program

The AZ law merely empowers State Officers to do the job Officers under the Attorney General are not. In fact AZ officials reached out to the feds for training assistance.

Another argument against this bill is Racial Profiling; the law specifically prohibits profiling people based on appearance or other characteristics. It requires police officers, who form a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant during a lawful stop, to determine the person's immigration status. A prime example of reasonable suspicion might be the inability of an individual to produce any valid U.S. identity documents. In addition, the law focuses on illegal immigrants who have committed more serious offenses by requiring police to check the immigration status for all people arrested and authorizes law enforcement agencies to transfer verified illegal immigrants into federal custody.  Additional Powers

x-posted

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Here is an article about protests against Arizona. There's a demonstration scheduled for San Francisco's Civic Center later today. There is even some discussion of the State of California boycotting Arizona.

At a meeting this morning, we heard a report from someone who recently returned from that state. One business owner who employs undocumented immigrants said that they are packing up to move to New Mexico. There is talk of a great migration out of the state as a result of its vicious legislation.

How about you? Will you be doing business in Arizona soon?

Addition:

Here is an interesting slide show of the demonstrations today. I recognize one photo as a scene taken outside of our City Hall. It features counter-demonstrators calling for a secure border. There were about 20 people taking part in the counter-demonstration. I've seen better participation by the opposition at anti-war rallies.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031