Monday, March 02, 2009

This Changes Everything

I have less inside information on the financial challenges facing Annie Leibovitz than I do on how to choose the best sheep for slaughtering in a Central Asian bazaar, but if this is indeed true, then it behooves the mainstream press and the arts press to go back and correct the history written on her recently [from Julia Miranda's blog via a tip by Anonymous in this thread]:
[M]ost of her financial woes stemmed from her inheritance of her long time partner, Susan Sontag’s, estate. [...] [S]ame-sex couples do not have the same privileges as straight married couples when it comes to inheritance. If your partner passes away and leaves her estate to you, you have to pay up to 50 percent of the value of your inheritance in taxes. However, if you and your partner were recognized as a married couple, you wouldn’t have to pay a dime. And it is precisely this unjust double standard that got Annie Leibovitz into financial trouble.

When Sontag died in 2004, she bequeathed several properties to Leibovitz, who was forced to pony up half of their value to keep them. [...]

Some snarky commentators have remarked that Leibovitz is getting what she deserves for living beyond her means. In many ways, she probably could have prevented her current crisis, but I wonder how many of these “tough” commentators would feel if they suddenly had to pay half of the value of their homes to the government in order to keep on living there.

Marriage equality. Learn more here.

Labels: marriage equality.


Blogger kalm james said...

Big guberment is great, until the bill comes due.

3/02/2009 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger Mark Creegan said...

wow.This is exactly the sort of real, non-abstract consequence that needs to be more widely known and discussed-not just as it affects famous artists and such but ordinary couples as well. Thanks for the info.

3/02/2009 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Oriane Stender said...

I just posted this on the old thread, but now that you've got a new thread on this, I'm cutting and pasting it here.

Oriane Stender said...
Hey, this totally dovetails with the Maureen Mullarkey post. What synchronicity! Everything is connected to everything else.

I'm not sure about the complete legal accuracy of that account (the link above), but it's a good point that hadn't occurred to me - that because Annie could not marry her partner, when her partner died she had some inheritance tax issues that straight married people don't have. I take back my lack of sympathy for her financial problems. To lose your long-term partner (after a long and painful illness) and then have to cough up half the value of the estate in order to keep it must be very hard. I sympathize.

And to Maureen, if you're reading this, think about it. This is a concrete example of how denying gay marriage discriminates.

3/02/2009 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Putting all other issues aside for a moment, even if she did have to pay half the value of her inheritance, she would still have received more wealth as a gift than 99.9 percent of artists (and other people) will ever possess.

3/02/2009 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Oriane Stender said...

"she would still have received more wealth as a gift..."

Picture, if you will, a man and woman, married for 20 years, raised children, etc. Man dies, wife inherits his estate. The house, money, etc. that was in the husband's name, now belongs to the wife, and that's not generally considered a gift. The passage of the stuff into her name is the usual thing that happens, not something that she should be exceptionally grateful for. She just lost her husband!

3/02/2009 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

The issue for me is what is your art worth to you, the vicissitudes of civic life notwithstanding.

I stand by my snark.

Sure, no one should be able to use bullshit distinctions like sexual orientation to deprive you of your wealth discriminatorially. I agree.

I facetiously said art is more important than owning several homes.

I stand by my pronouncement.

Since most of Lebovitz's work (for Rolling Stone) is not art, but rather commercial portraiture, all of this is moot.

Surely they must have planned for this? If not, why not? Where is the not for profit Lebovitz-Sontag Foundation? Giving modest bridge grants of 1 to 2 thousand to those most in need?

What a hard, hard, hard salaried job that would be.

Charity pays dividends bro!

3/02/2009 01:29:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Oriane Stender: Ms. Lebovitz's loss of a loved deserves sympathy, of course. But the loss of half of her inherited wealth still leaves her very wealthy (by almost everyone's standards). So an injustice was done, but all things considered in her particular case, not that great of an injustice.

3/02/2009 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger John Hovig said...

Tom Hering: Disagree. There's a reason Americans put "taxes" in the same category as "death." If this story of Ms Leibovitz and Ms Sontag's inheritance is at all true, then it might be the first of many anecdotes that force Americans to see these issues in a new light.

3/02/2009 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Putting all other issues aside for a moment, even if she did have to pay half the value of her inheritance, she would still have received more wealth as a gift than 99.9 percent of artists (and other people) will ever possess."

If the estate consisted mostly of real estate or other non-liquid assets, then the "gift" could end up costing her more money than she has access to. She still has to pay the inheritance tax if she wants to keep any of it. Many people end up selling their cherished inheritance because they do not have the cash for the tax.

3/02/2009 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

Tom Hering,
Oriane (the queerest straight girl around; go, girl!)has already told you that you are missing the point, Now I will, too: You are missing the point. Wealth or not, Leibovitz has gotten screwed by a government that recognizes one form of marriage and not another.

And sacre merde, I'm agreeing with Zippy when s/he says they should have planned for this. I totally agree there.

3/02/2009 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

Gay marriage should be allowed. Period.

Having said that ...

The inheritance taxes would have been due in 2004/2005 time frame - and the death was not sudden - something does not add up that 5 years later her finances crumbled.

Unless Leibovitz could not bear to sell the properties to raise the cash to remain solvent - and relied upon increasing levels of debt. Or solvency depended upon a portfolio of stocks and funds - and with the financial meltdown, created a new economic reality for her.

Either way - the fact this is linked to the loss of her love - and that marriage if allowed would have helped keep things together - makes it doubly tragic.

Though I have to add, a lot of people are having similar rude shocks as half their wealth has evaporated with the financial meltdown - and I wonder how many people have gone through ruinous tax bills, loss of a home, divorce or some sort of medical catastrophe that was not covered by some sort of insurance.

My heart goes out to them all - and I pull further lessons from this - that when faced with a financial reality it is exceedingly difficult to adapt.

3/02/2009 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

John Hovig, it's because of the wealth involved (real or perceived) that I don't believe Ms. Lebovitz is suited for the role of poster girl for marriage rights. There's not much sympathy around these days for the financial troubles of the rich - gay or straight, and regardless of the exact cause of those troubles.

Joanne Mattera, I said "an injustice was done" so I do, indeed, get the point you're making. It's just not the point I'm making.

3/02/2009 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Let's get real.

Being a poster girl, or not, it is not the real issue. Equality, yes 'Fair rights' cannot care about the poster girl more than me.

Yes "me" For I am 'you' and you are 'me' My rights should be your rights, and they should be indistinguishable.

Focus on the issue.

3/02/2009 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These were investment properties, just like with straight folks it will be taxed. A single home that is considered the residence, if in both names are on the deed, would not be taxed, at least not here in Cali.

Inheritance is NOT for the spouse, it is for the kids. This is the key that both sides in this argument refuse to recognize, it is not about you. It is about the family. If a gay couple adopts kids, and they can do so together in some states, the money is not touched below a certain point, the same as straights.

Sorry if I dont feel for those with multiple homes, they should be taxed, just as with McCain not being able to remember how many he had. Only one will not be. As they have kids, they are the ones who will receive from those other properties, the main residence will be for the spouse. Talk about greedy, it has become so accepted now, we cry for those who have received far too much, while those who never had a chance are forgotten, and trampled underfoot.

We need to tax more, especially the rich, and that means many artists and especially their patrons. The dificit is gona kill us. Literally. Sorry if I dont get weepy eyed. This is about Family, that means kids, not adults. Get over it.

3/02/2009 11:59:00 PM  
Blogger CAP said...


3/03/2009 12:53:00 AM  
Blogger David Cauchi said...

What you need is something like this.

Unfortunately, it does not deal with other - more significant - inequalities, such as what happens if your partner gets incapacitated. As I understand it, if you're married, your partner can make medical decisions on your behalf. If not, and visits are limited to 'family' only, they may not even be able to visit you.

Any idiot married for a month has rights a de facto couple who've been together for decades will never have?

That's outrageous. This issue is a no brainer.

And, no, it's not about the kids. It's about individual human rights.

3/03/2009 07:54:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

George said "Focus on the issue."

Judging by Edward's post, the topic is: marriage equality in view of what happened to Ms. Leibovitz. The point I've made addresses one aspect of this topic. So I'm not off-topic. On the other hand, if all you're saying is that you think I'm wrong about the one aspect I'm addressing, well okay then - I accept the fact that you think I'm wrong.

3/03/2009 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

Having been married but childless, I was accorded all the benefits of being married during that time. I find it funny that a lot of people use "children" as the argument for marriage being straight only. If I died my estate would have passed to my spouse with very little tax consequences. But no kids, yet the laws were the same with or without. When I was in San Jose, one couple a couple fo doors down was a gay couple who adopted children - and guess what? They did more to help the "children" process than I ever did - yet they were just able to register as domestic partners and they were really tied up in knots on how to estate plan. Oh and I got divorced, and that couple is still together. How's that for commitment? I don't wanto belittle myself, but I don't think heterosexual or homosexual is any indicator of the ability of have a committed relationship.

So I really have one conclusion - we really need to expand the right of marriage to any committed couple.

I feel for Leibovitz, but based on the deal she put together, she is going to end up all right compared to many. Perhaps a better poster case would be someone who was unable to see his or her children that s/he raised. Undoubtedly it is out there.

3/03/2009 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Estate planning should be part of every artist's training. I have no clue how to do it.

3/03/2009 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Oriane Stender said...

What is this "poster girl" crap? Who cares if she's not the poster girl for gay marriage rights? She's not the poster girl for anything. She's a famous and very successful person, so she's not a typical example of any group. I think we can all agree that it's harder to be poor than it is to be rich. If you want to have less sympathy for a rich person who loses her spouse than a poor person who loses her spouse, that's your call. Yes, she should have done some estate planning (how many of us here have that all in order? Not me.)

I know very little about the laws of inheritance tax, so I don't know how to what extent her problems stem from those issues. You can feel less sorry for her because she owns several houses than you would for someone who owns no houses. (Tom, you think the fact that she does not have certain benefits that straight people have is less of an injustice than it would be if she were not rich? I don't think I would want you on the jury if I were on trial for something. 'Hmm, I don't think she committed the crime, but she's more successful than I am, so I don't feel sorry for her, it wouldn't be that big an injustice if she were wrongfully convicted.') How sorry you feel for someone is NOT THE POINT.

And Joanne, please, you're embarrassing me. I just have a hard time understanding why people treat gays as some kind of "other". If you know more than 10 people, chances are you know a gay person! If you have more than 10 relatives, well, you do the math. "They" are completely part of "us". (And if you grew up in San Francisco, multiply that by 3 or so. It must be something in the water there.)

3/03/2009 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Oriane, you said "... you think the fact that she does not have certain benefits that straight people have is less of an injustice than it would be if she were not rich?"

Yes, because the injustice did not impoverish her, the way it would have impoverished someone who was not rich. The not-rich can't get fifteen-million-dollar loans to see them through.

You also said "How sorry you feel for someone is NOT THE POINT."

I don't agree - if (if) you think Ms. Leibovitz's particular case can generate sympathy among the public for marriage rights. In the current climate, I think her wealthy status (her current worth of at least fifteen-million) would trump the story of her troubles in the eyes of most of the public.

3/03/2009 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Oriane Stender said...

Don't ask me why I'm continuing to engage in this ridiculous exchange (I guess I'm in that kind of mood today) but OMG can we hold more than one conclusion in our brains at one time? She is rich, richer than I'll ever be even if she loses her beach house and her townhouse. Am I losing any sleep over her financial woes? No. The rest of us are in worse shape. Am I angrier about a million other injustices? Yes. Do I think Annie's money problems are more important than the US economy, the job losses, unemployment, starvation in wherever people are starving, war crimes in wherever there are war crimes, terrorists, militias and plain old soldiers killing people all over the world? No. If I could change 10 things in the world, would I use up one wish on making sure Annie did not have to mortgage her beach house? No. If I were strategizing for a gay marriage rights PR campaign, would I use her on the poster? Is she a heroine to the downtrodden, a saviour of humanity, a Ghandi for our times? No. Does she deserve to be treated the same by the US government as a straight married person in similar circumstances? Yes.

Good day.

3/03/2009 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger Bill said...

Tom, what, you just have to be right? I mean you no offense, but I disagree with your posts.

I think Ed's point is the last sentence of his post.

Forget Liebovitz's name, fame, and (perceived) wealth. Please try and see the situation as just being about a fellow human being who's lost their spouse, and is being denied equal treatment/rights because theirs was a same sex marriage. It's unconscionable.

You seem to be holding her wealth against her when you write: "But the loss of half of her inherited wealth still leaves her very wealthy (by almost everyone's standards)", when that shouldn't factor in to this at all.

3/03/2009 02:04:00 PM  
Blogger critic said...

She looks horrible and one wonders if her former drug problems have not re-emerged and if that isn't the reason she is having such financial problems. Estate planning is a no brainer. Any gay lawyer could have set something up for them--a trust-a foundation-you name it. Marriage rights might have helped but didn't they break up over the nanny?
Having been to a few A list gatherings I can't say I feel really sorry for any of these folks. They courted celebrity, fame, adulation at the cost of just plain living and folks. If we were blown out financially I doubt any of us could generate the bucks she has--so NO I don't feel particularly sorry for her. It's not so much about the gayness as about how she saw herself over the years and what she did or did not do on a pragmatic level. We all know the score. She got more benefits than most so why didn't she/they protect themselves. It's not even the state's fault, although I do think gay marriage if one wishes it,would help.

3/03/2009 02:14:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Gee Tom, where does one draw the line? How poor is "too poor" and how rich is "too rich"?

Fair treatment, the idea of affording people equal rights under the law, does not preclude a graduated or indexed tax system. This, and the question about when does one start "feeling sorry for someone" are the types of argumentative directions one takes in order to avoid the real issues.

3/03/2009 04:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If both partners adopted that child there would be no issues whatsoever. In Cali there are no problems with estate issues, in others states yes, but as marriage is a State concern, not a national, that is the one true problem. If you stay in states with equal treatment things are fine. The Only case for homosexual marriage is that other states always recognize each other in matrimony, and this is why monies poured into Cali over Prop 8. Other states would have had to accept it whether they wanted to or not, when a homosexual couple moved in..

I was truly suprised it won, but, "Believe it or not....!", thats why it did. You can thank the Mayor of SF for Prop 8 winning, a 2% change is all that was needed to defeat it, that challenge to heterosexual marriage is what put it over the top. It would have lost if he had not been so arrogant and annoying. Truth, whether you like it or not!

And by the way, many homosexuals were for Prop 8, many no way in hell want to get married, and this would force their hand, so to speak. Many are commited couples, like the guy across the room from me who invited me to a protest after the vote, but didnt really want to watch a transvestite king and queen, cant we all just act normal sometimes? Does everything have to be a drama? This is exactly what turns many hetero's off. But this guy was at my wedding, wears a ring and been with his partner, with a home, for two decades.

However, in more raucus areas, with single partners and such, like WeHO, they were silently appauled at the new possibility of being forced to make a decision, many like the single lifestyle, and this gives them an out. No pun intended.

Marriage was created from the beginning of time for the protection of children, people died young, this gave a family structure and clear responsibilities, that built upward into clans and tribes. Now that people live longer, we have more than enough children, is why this is an issue. But marriage was never designed for a couple, for love, for human rights, it was about family.

Now we have the luxury to debate the nature of marriage, and redefine it. It will come about, unless idiots and those who relish "getting over" on straights are the face of the protests. Then gays will lose. Just be normal human beings, and it will eventually win over most.

And thats the truth,sppplllll.

3/03/2009 05:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, Is this "most of the public" the same as a "silent majority"?

Anyone who loses a partner/spouse has my sympathy.

And again, we all need a course in estate planning because whether we have any "valuable" property, we all have tons of art.

3/03/2009 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Anonymous asked "Tom, is this 'most of the public' the same as a 'silent majority'?"

I don't know. They never speak to me, either. ;-)

3/03/2009 10:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IMO, all marriages gay or straight should be civil unions from a legal standpoint, and if you want to call it "marriage" and have your religious institution of choice sanctify it, fine

but, as others have pointed out, something is fishy'd think she wouldn't have to pawn her life's work, taxes or no taxes.

3/05/2009 12:17:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Anonymous said "... something is fishy here ..."

Maybe. The possible answers begin here and here. Only 2% of the U.S. population will ever be subject to estate taxes (due to the Unified Credit). After the Unified Credit (up to $1.5 million in 2004/2005) and deductions (including debts and mortgages), no one actually pays 50% of an estate's value. Ms. Sontag died December 28th, 2004, and the estate tax would have been filed and settled in 2005 (usually within nine months of the decedent's passing). So what happened in the following three-to-four-years that made the 2009 loan necessary? The more I study this, the less likely it seems that Ms. Leibovitz's current woes are related to the Sontag inheritance and the discrimination issue. As Edward was careful to say, "If this is true ..." But I could be wrong. There, I said it. ;-)

3/05/2009 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger grovecanada said...

In Canada, we are now having some peculiar other major legal problems because we legalised same-sex marriages...Out west, there are two polygamous religious sects who have been importing underage girls into the country from the States & marrying & impregnating them...The Canadian government doesn't want to prosecute, because they say that if it is legal for two men or two women to marry, that they will have a hard time prosecuting heterosexual polygamy...or underage marriage...or sexual exploitation...

3/05/2009 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

According to Wikipedia and other sources, Sontag and Leibovitz never lived together. Leibovitz always kept an apartment of her own across from Sontag's. This means Leibovitz was never in danger - as Miranda's blog suggests - of having to pay the government half the value of her home in order to keep on living there. Because it was never part of Sontag's estate, but rather Leibovitz's own property. Also, this 2005 article reports that while Sontag left a contingent bequest to Leibovitz, she essentially left her entire estate to her son, David Sontag Rieff. Which means Sontag's son would have been responsible for all of the estate taxes, with the exception of the contingent bequest - which may or may not have been received by Leibovitz, depending on the exact nature of the contingency in the will. The "fishy smell," then, seems to emanate from the way Miranda's blog tries to link the $15.5 million loan to a current and very emotional political issue (re: California).

3/06/2009 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Hmm, the link in my last comment doesn't work. You can get there by searching for her death was no metaphor. This will take you to a site called "Trusts & Estates" and a 2005 article titled "Her Death Was No Metaphor" which mentions the petition for probate filed with the New York County Surrogate's Court.

3/06/2009 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

this is sad, but it only 'changes everything' if you were indifferent to the plight of gays facing a legal double-standards until you heard about an art world celebrity who suddenly wasn't so rich (or rather, propertied but not capitalized).

I'd also like to make the case for amnesty by pointing out that de Kooning was an illegal immigrant, but I bet the fact would just reinforce Tom Tancredo's view that illegal immigration leads to cultural degeneration. Philistines...

3/06/2009 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

Well ... the argument of Leibovitz financial difficulties related to the death of her partner where if marriage was legal between then AND they had got married - then the outcome would be different. It changes everything - meaning the discussion is about the right to marry not just the sales of someones life's work (past and future).

Still the fact the lion's share of the estate went to Susan Sontag's son, and they kept separate apartments, it really does give one pause if the origins of the financial difficulties were NOT her partner's death.

Perhaps it can change the thread from "gay marriage" to "poorly researched reporting"

While I think any committed couple should be able to get married, perhaps this is not the news story to give the story clear applicability? (Because "gay marriage and inheritance" is an abstract notion, but "Leobovitz's financial difficulties are a result of being unable to marry" is more concrete).

Plus given inheritance laws, it is likely to become far more "equal" when the exemption resets back downward in a few years.

3/06/2009 03:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

++++But marriage was never +++designed for a couple, for ++++love, for human rights, it was ++++about family.

Nah. Marriage, the proto-indo-european word, simply meant you can afford to protect someone else financially. The rest is cultural projection.

++++they will have a hard time +++prosecuting heterosexual +++polygamy...or underage ++++marriage...or sexual ++++exploitation...

Polygamy is a delicate issue but underage marriage or sexual exploitation...are you kidding me, or are you trying to spell "gay marriage = Sodom and Gomorrah"??? Do you follow EVERY rules of the Leviticus?? (and I do mean EVERY), or just the ones that coincidentally suits your values and opinions?

Cedric Casp

3/06/2009 07:35:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

It occurred to me that everyone is assuming the reason for the $15.5 million loan is financial troubles of some sort. But in an e-mail to The Telegraph (UK), Ms. Leibovitz has stated that her finances are, quote, "fine." So what's up with that loan? Well, Ms. Leibovitz gave birth to a daughter in 2001. She "gave birth" to twin girls through a surrogate mother in 2005. Those girls are now seven and three-years-old, respectively, and Ms. Leibovitz is now sixty-years-old. So, in her old age (okay, near-old age), she may simply be paying off debts, lawsuits and mortgages - and providing for her daughters' security in a way that is more certain than copyrights on works that may or may not retain their value in the future. Art Capital Group is taking a gamble, while Ms. Leibovitz may be setting up a sure thing for her girls. That's my speculation.

3/06/2009 07:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Casp said...

I have a question to ask to Tom and others...

Is Slumdog Millionaire a better film than Milk?

In other words: is a film about a state of global poverty more important and close to the deeds of humanity than a film about equal rights?

Is a film that lends a glance of the harsh reality of India to the rest of the world more important than a film whose every mention during the Oscar night was banned on India TV because the subject was deemed too taboo?

Did the Oscars made the right choice?


Cedric Casp

3/06/2009 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger grovecanada said...

Hey Cedric,

I was not giving my opinion...I was quoting from a news program I had watched the night before...But, that was obvious...So...If you go around insulting people, you realise that you polarize issues to the opposite of whatever you are saying...Also...If you weren't aware, Canada legalised same sex marriage- I was showing some facets to that change- namely, that now any sort of judgmentalism towards sexual preference has become hands off for prosecutors...Your anger at issues not prosecuted here regarding underage marriage & sexual exploitation - well, that's why I brought it up...I am not making the connection, but the law is...In terms of your rudeness, I should point out that apparently my country is far easier on sexual choice than yours- so who exactly is quoting Leviticus?

3/09/2009 03:48:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Cedric Casp, a better film than Milk is Citizen Kane.

I followed my hunch about the real reason for the Leibovitz loan a little further, and found this October 5th, 2008 report in The Sunday Times (UK). The relevant excerpts are, "[Her children are] at the centre of a personal reappraisal of her life and work" and "It's unstated but evident that Leibovitz worries her children may be left without her before they are grown up." Note that this was published in the months leading up to the loan, when Ms. Leibovitz must have been thinking about it - perhaps already acting on it. It's still speculation on my part, but what simpler or more powerful motive could a mother have for hocking her life's work than the welfare of her children?

Oh, and another film that's better than Milk is Lawrence of Arabia.

3/09/2009 04:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Casp said...

Grove, I never used an insult word.
I made a mistake, but I know the
stance of religious people claiming
that rights to gay marriage means
rights to bestiality,. etc.., so your post did read to me as coming from that angle. Sorry. And I am from Canada.

Wall-E is better than Milk, but
that wasn't the point.

Equal rights will never mean a thing until the minority has a right. You can embrace whole culture and religions under the pretext that these people constitute a larger part of humanity, but that is too easy. Equal rights begin when you look at those who are hidden behind doors, such as how it was for the Oscar ceremony in India.


3/10/2009 12:29:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home