Connect with us

News

This skateboarding economist suggests we need more skateparks and less capitalism

Published

on

This skateboarding economist suggests we need more skateparks and less capitalism

A young skateboarder riding in front of the Ferry Building on the Embarcadero in San Francisco California.

Adam Hester/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Adam Hester/Getty Images

“The Skateboarding Ethic and the Spirit of Anti-Capitalism.” That was the title of an unusual paper presented at the annual meeting of American economists this year. The title was clearly a reference to a famous 1905 book by German sociologist and economist Max Weber, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. And I really wanted to know what this economist was going to argue, and, even more, who he was.

This year’s economics conference was spread out across hotels around San Francisco’s Union Square. On the first day of the conference, it was raining hard, and I ran from my hotel to another one down the street to see this paper be presented.

Sopping wet, I entered a small, basement conference room before the presentations began. “Is this where the skateboarding paper is being presented?” I asked the room.

Advertisement

Sure enough, a Gen Xer with baggy blue jeans, Vans skate shoes, and a tweed blazer with elbow pads — the only fashion item that screamed “I’m an academic” — stood up and turned around. “Yes, I’m presenting the skateboarding paper here,” he said.

This tweed-jacketed, Vans-wearing man was Thomas Kemp. He’s an economist at The University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. Kemp says he’s been skateboarding for 40 years, and he continues to skate every day he can (it gets harder to skate during Wisconsin’s winters, so Kemp says he snow skates as well).

For a long time, Kemp published pretty standard economic papers. Papers with titles like, “The Impact of Water Clarity on Home Prices in Northwestern Wisconsin” and “Estimation of product price elasticity of demand.”

“When I was a graduate student, I was actually going to write about skateboarding, but I was told ‘that’s not a good idea,’” Kemp says. But Kemp is more established now. In fact, he’s the chair of his economics department, so he’s more willing to ollie onto the topics he’s the most passionate about.

Kemp’s transformation began a few years back, when he discovered the burgeoning academic literature on skateboarding. “I was just blown away, like, ‘Wow, people are doing academic work on skateboarding,’” Kemp says. And that’s when he did his 180 kickflip.

Advertisement

“ I literally dropped everything else I was working on and started writing papers on skateboarding,” Kemp says.

The Value of Skateparks

Kemp has now published a series of economic papers about skateboarding. One paper, recently published in The Journal of Economic Analysis, is titled “Shred Central: Estimating the user benefits associated with large public skateparks.” Kemp estimated the consumer benefits of the Lauridsen Skatepark in Des Moines, Iowa. At 88,000 square feet, it’s the largest skatepark in the United States.

One of the issues with the economics of skateparks is they’re generally free to use, which makes it difficult to figure out how much they’re actually worth. This is a common problem for public goods, like parks, beaches, rec centers, and so on. Determining the value of a skatepark is important to figure out whether, for example, communities should build more skateparks, and how big and tricked-out those skateparks should be. Despite the popularity of the sport — estimates suggest there may be as many as 9 million skateboarders in the US — “public resources devoted to skateboarding lag far beyond other leisure activities such as softball, tennis, or soccer,” Kemp writes.

Kemp argues that the distance skaters (and BMXers, roller bladers, and other recreationists) are willing to travel to go to the skatepark provides a good way to estimate the value of it. Traveling requires time and money, so the distance users are willing to travel provides an indication of how much they think a skatepark is worth.

In “Shred Central,” Kemp surveyed skateboarders at Lauridsen Skatepark, and found they “will travel great distances at significant cost to ride a park of high perceived quality.” Crunching numbers on use of the park and travel distance, Kemp estimates that the user benefits of this skatepark are “$61 per user per day and roughly $488,000 annually.” This high estimate for the value of the skatepark suggests that there’s a shortage of high-quality skateparks around the country and that community leaders should build more of them. Rad!

Advertisement

“The Skateboarding Ethic and the Spirit of Anti-Capitalism”

In his 1905 book, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber argued that Protestant Christianity, especially Calvinism, promoted ethics, like thrift and hard work, that helped nurture the birth of capitalism and rapid economic growth in Northern Europe.

Like Protestants, skateboarders, Kemp argues, have their own set of ethics that can affect their economic lives. And, in Kemp’s view, these ethics can come into conflict with capitalism. For example, skateboarders are known to skate on private property and in front of businesses in search of cool, skateable features. It’s one reason why community leaders have been building skateparks: to encourage skaters to skate in sanctioned areas that are less disruptive to business.

Kemp sees a similar process in history with stickball and baseball. During his presentation, Kemp showed a picture of baseball legend Willie Mays playing stickball in the street when he was young. Like with skateboarding, Kemp says, many leaders saw stickball as a nuisance that disrupted commerce. Kids would shut down streets and disrupt traffic to play the game. They would hit balls and dent cars and break windows. This “irritation to commerce,” Kemp suggests, inspired communities to start building baseball diamonds in community parks and institutionalize the game into more organized and less disruptive baseball leagues.

Willie Mays playing stick ball with Harlem kids.

Willie Mays playing stick ball with Harlem kids.

Bettmann/Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Bettmann/Getty Images

“The drive towards creating skateparks appears to me to be on a similar trajectory to what we saw with stickball into baseball,” he says. “That said, we’re now 50-plus years into skateboarding history, and so far, skateboarding seems to be relatively immune from that institutionalization. It’s just as common to see kids skateboarding out in the streets as it is in a skatepark, perhaps even more so.”

Advertisement

Kemp was the last person to present a paper during this particular conference session. The paper presented before him was much less fun, highlighting physical and mental health problems plaguing our society, including the rise of depression, anxiety, and deaths of despair. The author blamed our economic and health systems, which “prioritizes profits over people’s health,” for making these problems worse.

In important ways, skateboarding is a product of capitalism. For decades, for-profit companies have developed and manufactured better skate decks, trucks, and wheels. They’ve marketed the sport. They’ve popularized it. They’ve made it more accessible. Kemp acknowledges that. But he also sees ethics within the culture of skateboarding that can help people overcome the challenges they may face in our capitalist society.

The skateboarding ethic, Kemp says, is “an ethic of resiliency. I fall, I get up, I do it again.” It’s an ethic of “self-betterment. The skateboarder is always trying to do another trick. They’re trying to do the trick better with more style. They’re trying to do it in different places. They’re comparing themselves to their past selves and not necessarily other skateboarders.” And it’s an ethic that isn’t really concerned with competition with others. Skateboarding, he says, is a non-zero sum game. “In other words, if I do the trick, it doesn’t matter that the other skateboarder didn’t do the trick. I’m not in competition with them. I don’t win, they lose, or I lose, they win. No, we’re all winning — hopefully — compared to our previous selves.”

Skateboarding, Kemp suggests, can help us become more resilient. It can help us build more pride in ourselves. It can help us fight isolation and build community. And it can help us exercise, alleviate stress, find joy, and escape the 9-5 grind.

“Skateboarding has something to show us about living life in these challenging times that we find ourselves in,” Kemp says.

Advertisement

Kemp’s presentation, appropriately, took place in San Francisco, which is widely recognized as one of the best and most hardcore skateboarding cities in the world. Skaters here are known to “bomb” hills like daredevils, reaching high speeds and doing incredible tricks. And the city has really come to embrace skateboarding. For example, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art currently has a skateboarding exhibit called “Unity Through Skateboarding” (which, apparently, my son and wife really enjoyed while I was attending this conference).

“San Francisco is legendary,” Kemp said. “Of course, this is a work trip. But, hopefully, I’ll get some skating in while I’m here.”

News

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Published

on

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

new video loaded: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

transcript

transcript

Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. A disaster. What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turn out are American citizens. I could talk about the culture that’s been created here. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, when I spoke to Alex’s parents, they told me that you calling him a domestic terrorist — this was directly from them — the day after he was killed, a nurse in our V.A., Alex — one of the most hurtful things they could ever imagine was said by you about their son. Do you have anything you want to say to Alex Pretti’s parents? Ma’am, I did not call him a domestic terrorist. I said It appeared to be an incident of — I think the parents saw it for what it was. In a hearing — recent hearing before the HSGAC committee, C.B.P. and ICE officials testified under oath that their agencies did not inform you that Pretti was a domestic terrorist — during that hearing, stated during that hearing, I was getting reports from the ground, from agents at the scene, and I would say that it was a chaotic scene. How did you think that calling them domestic terrorists at that scene was somehow going to calm the situation? The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.

Advertisement
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

By Christina Kelso and Jackeline Luna

March 3, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

Published

on

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

The Trump administration is sending pregnant unaccompanied minors to a South Texas shelter (above) flagged as medically inadequate by officials from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The facility is run by a for-profit contractor called Urban Strategies.

Patricia Lim/KUT News


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Patricia Lim/KUT News

The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas. The decision was made over urgent objections from some of the administration’s own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need.

That’s according to seven officials who work at the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which takes custody of children who cross the border without a parent or legal guardian, or are separated from family by immigration authorities. The children remain in ORR’s care until they can be released to an adult or deported, or turn 18.

All of the officials asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

Advertisement

Since late July, more than a dozen pregnant minors have been placed at the Texas facility, which is in the small border city of San Benito. Some were as young as 13, and at least half of those taken in so far became pregnant as a result of rape, the officials said. Their pregnancies are considered high risk by definition, particularly for the youngest girls.

“This group of kids is clearly recognized as our most vulnerable,” one of the officials said. Rank-and-file staff, the official said, are “losing sleep over it, wondering if kids are going to be placed in programs where they’re not going to have access to the care they need.”

The move marks a sharp departure from longstanding federal practice, which placed pregnant, unaccompanied migrant children in ORR shelters or foster homes around the country that are equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies.

The ORR officials said they were never told why the girls are being concentrated in a single location, let alone in this particular shelter in Texas. But they — along with more than a dozen former government officials, health care professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys — worry the Trump administration is knowingly putting the children at risk to advance an ideological goal: denying them access to abortion by placing them in a state where it’s virtually banned.

“This is 100% and exclusively about abortion,” said Jonathan White, a longtime federal health official who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program for part of President Trump’s first term. White, who recently retired from the government, said the administration tried and failed to restrict abortion access for unaccompanied minors in 2017. “Now they casually roll out what they brutally fought to accomplish last time and didn’t.”

Advertisement

Asked if the administration is sending pregnant children to San Benito to restrict their access to abortion, HHS said in a statement that the allegation was “completely inaccurate.”

In an earlier statement, the department said that “ORR’s placement decisions are guided by child welfare best practices and are designed to ensure each child is housed in the safest, most developmentally appropriate setting, including for children who are pregnant or parenting.”

But several of the ORR officials took issue with the department’s statement. “ORR is supposed to be a child welfare organization,” one of them said. “Putting pregnant kids in San Benito is not a decision you make when you care about children’s safety.”

ORR’s acting director, Angie Salazar, instructed agency staff to send “any pregnant children” to San Benito beginning July 22, 2025, according to an internal email obtained as part of a six-month investigation by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom, public media collaboratives that worked together to produce this story.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.
hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Several of the officials said a handful of pregnant girls have mistakenly been placed in other shelters because immigration authorities didn’t know they were pregnant when they were transferred to ORR custody.

Since the July order, none of the pregnant girls at the San Benito facility have experienced major medical problems, according to the ORR officials and Aimee Korolev, deputy director of ProBAR, an organization that provides legal services to children there. They said several of the girls have given birth and are detained with their infants.

But ORR officials interviewed for this story said they worry the shelter is only one high-risk pregnancy away from catastrophe.

“I feel like we’re just waiting for something terrible to happen,” one of the officials said.

‘Blown away by the level of risk’

Advertisement

There are dozens of ORR shelters or foster homes across the country that are designated to care for pregnant unaccompanied children, according to several of the ORR officials, with 12 in Texas alone. None of them could recall a time when all of the pregnant minors in the agency’s custody were concentrated in one shelter.

Detaining them in San Benito, Texas, doctors and public health experts said, is a dangerous gambit.

“It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are,” said Annie Leone, a nurse midwife who recently spent five years caring for pregnant and postpartum migrant women and girls at a large family shelter not far from San Benito. “So, to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”

The specialized obstetric care that exists in Texas is mostly available in its larger cities, hours from San Benito. And several factors, including the high number of uninsured patients, have eroded the availability of health care across the state.

Furthermore, Texas’ near-ban on abortion has been especially devastating to obstetric care. The law allows an exception in cases where the pregnant person’s life is in danger or one of her bodily functions is at risk, but doctors have been confused as to what that means.

Advertisement

Many doctors have left to practice elsewhere, and those who’ve stayed are often scared to perform procedures they worry could come with criminal charges. While Texas passed a law clarifying the exceptions last year, experts have said it may not be enough to assuage doctors’ fears.

Several maternal health experts listed the potential dangers for the girls at the San Benito shelter: If one of them develops an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus), if she miscarries or if her water breaks too early and she gets an infection, the emergency care she needs could be delayed or denied by doctors wary of the abortion ban.

Getting the care that is available could take too long to save her life or the baby’s, they added.

Adolescents are also more likely to give birth early, which can be life-threatening for both mother and baby. The youngest face complications during labor and delivery because their pelvises aren’t fully developed, said Dr. Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, an obstetrician in Washington state who specializes in adolescent pregnancy.

“These are young adolescents who are still going through puberty,” she said. “Their bodies are still changing.”

Advertisement

Pregnant girls who recently endured the often harrowing journey to the U.S. face even more risk, obstetrics experts said. Experts who work with migrant children say many are raped along the way and contract sexually transmitted infections that can be dangerous during pregnancy. Add to that little to no access to prenatal care or proper nourishment, and then the trauma of being detained.

“You couldn’t set up a worse scenario,” said Dr. Blair Cushing, who runs a women’s health clinic in McAllen, about 45 minutes from San Benito. “I’m kind of blown away by the level of risk that they’re concentrating in this facility.”

A history of problems

The San Benito shelter is owned and operated by Urban Strategies, a for-profit company that has contracted with the federal government to care for unaccompanied children for more than a decade, according to USAspending.gov.

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement

The main building, an old tan brick Baptist Church, occupies a city block in downtown San Benito, a quiet town of about 25,000. The church was converted to a migrant shelter in 2015 and was managed by two other contractors before Urban Strategies took it over in 2021.

On a fall day last year, there were no signs of activity at the facility, though children’s lawn toys and playground equipment were visible behind a wooden fence. A guard was stationed at one of the entrances.

“It’s pretty quiet, just like it is today,” said Meliza Fonseca, who lives nearby. “That’s the way it is every day.”

She said she occasionally sees kids playing in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Reached by email, the founder and president of Urban Strategies, Lisa Cummins, wrote that the company is “deeply committed to the care and well-being of the children we serve,” and directed any questions about ORR-contracted shelters to the federal government.

Advertisement

When asked about the San Benito facility, HHS wrote that “Urban Strategies has a long-standing record of delivering high-quality care to pregnant unaccompanied minors, with a consistently low staff turnover.”

But the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said that as recently as 2024, staff members at the shelter failed to arrange timely medical appointments for pregnant girls or immediately share critical health information with the federal agency and discharged some of them without arrangements to continue their medical care.

ORR barred the shelter from receiving pregnant girls from September to December of 2024 while Urban Strategies implemented a remediation plan, but the plan did not add staff or enhance their qualifications, the officials said.

Some of the officials said ORR’s leadership was provided with a list of shelters that are better prepared to handle children with high-risk pregnancies. All of those shelters are outside Texas, in regions where the full range of necessary medical care is available. Yet the directive to place them at San Benito remains in place.

“It’s cruel, it’s just cruel,” one of the officials said. “They don’t care about any of these kids. They’re playing politics with children’s health.”

Advertisement

‘A dress rehearsal’

Jonathan White, who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program from January of 2017 to March of 2018, said he wasn’t surprised to learn that the new administration is moving pregnant unaccompanied children to Texas.

“I’ve been expecting this since Trump returned to office,” White said in an interview.

He said he views the San Benito order as a continuation of an anti-abortion policy shift that began in 2017, which “ultimately proved to be a dress rehearsal for the current administration.”

Scott Lloyd, the agency’s director at the time, denied girls in ORR custody permission to end their pregnancies, court records show. Lloyd also required the girls to get counseling about the benefits of motherhood and the harms of abortion and personally pleaded with some of them to reconsider.

Advertisement

“I worked to treat all of the children in ORR care with dignity, including the unborn children,” Lloyd told the newsrooms in an email.

In the fall of 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Lloyd and the Trump administration on behalf of pregnant girls in ORR custody. The ACLU argued that denying the girls abortions violated their constitutional rights, established by the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Not long after the lawsuit was filed, White said, he received a late-night phone call from Lloyd, who had a request. He wanted White to transfer an unaccompanied pregnant girl who was seeking an abortion to a migrant shelter in Texas, where, under state law, it would have been too late for her to terminate her pregnancy. White said that he believed following the order would have been unlawful because it might have denied the girl access to legal relief under the lawsuit, so he refused. The girl was not transferred.

Lloyd, who has since left the government, acknowledged making the request but said he didn’t think it was illegal.

The lawsuit was settled in 2020; the first Trump administration agreed not to impede abortion access for migrant youth in federal custody going forward. Four years later, the Biden administration cemented the deal in official regulations: If a child who wanted to terminate her pregnancy was detained in a state where it was not legal, ORR had to move them to a state where it was.

Advertisement

That rule remains in place, and the agency appears to be following it: ORR has transferred two pregnant girls out of Texas since July, though the agency officials said one of the girls chose not to terminate her pregnancy.

But now that Trump is back in office, his administration is working to end the policy.

‘Elegant and simple’

Even before Trump won reelection, policymakers in his circle were planning a renewed attempt to restrict abortion rights for unaccompanied minors.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a politically conservative overhaul of the federal government, called for ORR to stop facilitating abortions for children in its care. The plan advised the government not to detain unaccompanied children in states where abortion is available.

Advertisement

Such a change is now possible, Project 2025 argued, because Roe v. Wade is no longer an obstacle. Since the Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision in 2022, there is no longer a federal right to abortion.

Upon returning to office, Trump signed an executive order “to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

Then, in early July, the Department of Justice reconsidered a longstanding federal law, known as the Hyde Amendment, that governs the use of taxpayer money for abortion. The DOJ concluded that the government cannot pay to transport detainees from one state to another to facilitate abortion access, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

And now, ORR is working to rescind the Biden-era requirement that pregnant girls requesting an abortion be moved to states where it’s available. On Jan. 23, the agency submitted the proposed change for government approval, though it has not yet published the details.

Several of the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear whether children in the agency’s custody who have been raped or need emergency medical care will still be allowed to get abortions.

Advertisement

“HHS does not comment on pending or pre-decisional rulemaking,” the department wrote when asked for details of the regulatory change. “ORR will continue to comply with all applicable federal laws, including requirements for providing necessary medical care to children in ORR custody.”

The day the change was submitted, an unnamed Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Daily Signal, a conservative news site, “Our goal is to save lives both for these young children that are coming across the border, that are pregnant, and to save the lives of their unborn babies.”

Experts who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear why the government would concentrate pregnant children in one Texas shelter, rather than disperse them at shelters throughout the state. But they said they’re convinced that the San Benito directive and the anti-abortion rule change are meant to work hand in hand: Once pregnant children are placed at the San Benito shelter, the new regulations could mean they cannot be moved out of Texas to get abortions — even if keeping them there puts them at risk.

“It’s so elegant and simple,” said White, the former head of the unaccompanied children program. “All they have to do is send them to Texas.”

Mark Betancourt is a freelance journalist and regular contributor to The California Newsroom.

Advertisement

Mose Buchele with The Texas Newsroom contributed reporting.

This story was produced by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom. The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets that includes NPR, CalMatters, KQED (San Francisco), LAist and KCRW (Los Angeles), KPBS (San Diego) and other stations across the state. The Texas Newsroom is a public radio journalism collaboration that includes NPR, KERA (North Texas), Houston Public Media, KUT (Austin), Texas Public Radio (San Antonio) and other stations across the state.

Continue Reading

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

Trending