Home > Analysis, media, Opinion > No Goodwill

No Goodwill

The recent “goodwill” game on August 18th between the Chinese basketball team the Bayi Rockets and the American college team the Georgetown Hoyas will unfortunately go down in history as an infamous case of unsportsman-like conduct. But the coverage of the game by the American press will also go down as an exemplary case of unabashed bias and sinophobic bigotry.

Even in the US’s long history of yellow(peril) journalism against China, coverage of this game is a salient example of lack of balance and outright prejudice against China and its people.

The background to the game seems harmless enough, even auspicious. Joe Biden Jr. was visiting China on a trip (his first official trip there) seeking to foster better political and economic ties. The Georgetown Hoyas were also touring China on a goodwill mission playing some local teams.

Since 9/11, American hostility towards a rising China have somewhat abated and shifted towards the Middle East and other Muslim countries. China’s economic, political, cultural growth and influence seem to have engendered more respect among Americans but with that perception of global power there also remains plenty of fear.

On the 18th, the Bayi Rockets hosted the Hoyas and during a game that saw the Hoyas commit 28 fouls and the Bayi Rockets 11 by the fourth quarter, a vicious brawl erupted.

Many reports from the US either did not mention the foul count or quickly tried to explain it away by claiming that rather than it suggesting the Hoyas were playing more physically aggressive than the Bayi Rockets, it indicated the hometown officiating was heavily biased against the Americans (the source for this claim is usually one of the US coaches or an observer of the game from the US side).

As can be seen from a professional camera‘s perspective, the fight started after a tall Chinese player was seen trying to defend a pass from a Hoyas’ guard near half-court. The Chinese player seemed to unintentionally foul the Hoyas player attempting to block his pass. It is then clearly seen in the video the Hoyas player walking up to the Chinese player and throwing a wild sucker punch at his face (missing).

The Chinese player then can be seen walking towards him and shoving him hard. Fighting immediately ensued among the other players on the court as both Hoyas and Bayi players rushed to the scene and many players and coaches off the court joined in the melee.

One Chinese player could be seen chasing down a Hoyas player and knocking him down to the ground and repeatedly raining down punches on him while he was on the floor (a technique known in mixed martial arts circles as the “ground n’ pound”). This was captured in a separate shakier and quite grainy video apparently taped from a member of the audience’s cellphone.

Certainly this whole fiasco is a shameful episode in China-US relations and in international sports. But how the US media handled it is even more shameful and the bias rhetoric expressed I would even say is dangerous.

Media headlines decried the incident as a clear instance of brutality by the Chinese team. The New York Times highlighted the beating the Hoyas guard received.

In the video, a Rockets player can be seen ramming the guard Aaron Bowen through a partition and pounding on him with fists as he sat on his chest. Before the Georgetown coach pulled his men off the floor and called the game quits, Chinese players and spectators threw punches, folding chairs and full bottles of water.

In many of the articles written in the US press on this incident rarely any of the Chinese players are ever mentioned by name. Instead the press is comfortable leaving their identities in the dark while naming, describing, and giving sympathetic portraits of the Hoyas players and coaches. The press were often quick to mention that the Chinese players were culled from the People’s Liberation Army, a nameless, faceless mass and portraying the Hoyas players as innocent kids caught up in a fight they did not wish to participate in.

Nearly all the reports did not show or even mention the existence of the clearer professional-grade video but repeatedly showed the cellphone video. Curious as the clearer video clearly shows a Hoyas player throwing the first punch precipitating the brawl but this occurred outside the camera’s frame in the cellphone video. The only exception was the ABC news channel which showed the tape and was where I got the video you see in the above link.

Reports mentioned that the game was “sent over the edge” by a “hard foul” from a Chinese player. Some reports claim the Chinese players “swarmed the court, kicking one Georgetown player on the ground.” Another report claimed a “group” of Chinese players chased “a Georgetown player down under the basket” and while “sitting on his chest” began punching him. These reports tried to give the impression that the Hoyas were victims of a surprise attack by overwhelming numbers of Chinese players. How this is possible considering that both teams have an equal number of players is of course left unanswered and from both the videos one can clearly see that there were plenty of players and coaches from both teams on the court.

The media also were quick to mention that even many in the Chinese online community seemed to be condemnatory or had “slammed” the behavior of the Bayi players posting angry comments on online forums. Angry messages from Chinese discussion or microblogging boards critical of the Chinese team’s conduct and accusing them of instigating the fight have been repeatedly quoted here and here, for example.

One wonders what these Chinese netizens would have said if they had seen the clearer video of what precipitated the events. Sadly, they probably received the same biased information as people in the west. However no mentions of any Chinese fans voicing alternative opinions supportive of another perspective are ever given.

Reports often mentioned that a Chinese player could be seen “wielding” a chair menacingly and that the Chinese fans threw water bottles at the US players and coaches. Of course, Washington Post reporter Gene Wang in his description of the game mentioned that the Hoyas player Moses Ayegba carried a chair onto the court but was quick to excuse it by pointing out that he had been “struck” and was merely acting in “self-defense.”

Wang additionally explains that the Bayi team were being “embarrassed by a college team” and they couldn’t “beat ’em squarely playing basketball” so they grew frustrated and instigated the brawl. This claim is oblivious to the fact that the score was tied at 64 apiece when the brawl started. Wang also claims that the foul by the Chinese player knocked the Hoyas guard down (as the videos show, this is false) and that when the player got up, he “had some words” with the Chinese player which then escalated into punches. Wang, of course, like the rest, fails to mention that the Hoyas player had more than just words for the Chinese player but a closefisted swing at his face nor did Mr. Wang ever show the clearer video.

Interviews from any of the Chinese players or coaches are completely omitted from the American press (though some of the players on the Bayi team apparently did microblog their side of the story claiming they were subject not only to intentional rough play risking serious bodily injury throughout the game by the opposing players but subject to their repeated taunts as well). Pictures, videos, accounts supportive of the Chinese player’s perspective are literally wholly absent from what I’ve read in the reporting in the US press. It’s as if an alternative perspective didn’t exist. It has been completely expunged from public consciousness.

The online community in the US was aghast with posters venting their sinophobic rage. Even most of the more moderate voices seem to simply take it as a given that the Chinese side started the fight and were the principle agents of misconduct.

One commentator, however, from the New York Times discussion forum, taking a seemingly solitary stance, begins his post with the question “IS EVERYONE BLIND HERE?” This poster then noted that a Hoyas player was the instigator of the whole incident and ended by adding this piece of good advice:

“everyone’s comments on this story shows how easy it is for people to jump to mistaken conclusions and onto a bandwagon swell. This is precisely how larger confrontations are born – with the blind leading the blind; add a little bias, nationalism along with some political extremist looking for votes and you have a foundation for a good war. My advice – get a pair of glasses, sharpen your perspective and avoid the war hawk mentality (unless you want to add another trillion dollars in military expenditures to our national debt).”

The really astounding thing in all this maybe the fact that in all its one-sided, fear-mongering, hatred-inducing coverage of this incident, this may simply be the norm and not the exception in the US’s China-related reporting and perhaps it is so for most of the countries in the west. I see no reason to suspect that the coverage here is biased beyond the usual. Readers who are critical and vigilant China-watchers may be all too aware of this. One wonders how people in the west will ever see China and its people on equal, respectful terms with coverage like this.

  1. October 6th, 2011 at 23:05 | #1

    Great post and I am glad you included that quote.

  2. JJ
    October 7th, 2011 at 01:11 | #2

    Also, I heard that the best Bayi Rockets players were not present at the time because they were with the Chinese National Team in another tournament.

    So the team that was playing was the second/third string players who have little international or even competitive experience.

  3. xian
    October 7th, 2011 at 03:18 | #3

    Overreported and overanalyzed on all sides IMO, it’s just a regular sports brawl
    There could be any sort of bad blood that leads up to this, even before anything violent happens. You just don’t know unless you’re the players. Normally things like this are forgotten in a month, but since it’s China vs America…

  4. jimmy
    October 7th, 2011 at 09:40 | #4

    The US public has always been deluged with lots of bigotry and falsehoods about China, thus people
    always view China with a much jaundiced eye – the sporting world included. At the 1996 Atlanta Games,
    the China team was subjected to alarm buzzer disturbances as a result. Read http://www.scribd.com/jimmyfung40 for more details.

  5. October 7th, 2011 at 17:59 | #5

    Poor, poor China. Everyone’s so mean to China. Everyone hurts China’s feelings. This was, as Xian says, just your typical sports brawl. I did a search, and most media did indeed mention the 28 fouls. Most did not interview American OR Chinese players. The NY Times article you reference goes out of its way to be fair:

    The Bayi Rockets, despite their military provenance, are not especially known as brawlers. Lin Kunyi, a veteran reporter for Basketball News China, said the team — the first part of its name refers to the founding date of the People’s Liberation Army — is better known for endurance. “The team is celebrated for what people call ‘the Bayi spirit,’ which means you are tough, you eat bitterness and you don’t leave the court even if injured,” he said.

    After watching footage of the brawl, Mr. Lin, too, blamed poor officiating and suggested the whole matter was best forgotten.

    By Friday afternoon, many of the players seemed to agree. After flying to Shanghai, members of the Hoyas and the Rockets shared the lobby of the Portman Ritz Carlton without any palpable tension. One Georgetown player shrugged off the contretemps. “Man, it’s just a game,” he said.

    The consensus of the article: this was an ugly moment but certainly no huge deal. The only ones who turn it into a big deal are those whose lives depend on proving the US hates China. You’ll have to do better than this.

  6. October 7th, 2011 at 19:04 | #6

    It seems that Richard is hurt because my analysis has shed light he is not familiar with and this has caused him some anguish. Anyway, there is no evidence that what I said here

    “Many reports from the US either did not mention the foul count or quickly tried to explain it away by claiming that rather than it suggesting the Hoyas were playing more physically aggressive than the Bayi Rockets, it indicated the hometown officiating was heavily biased against the Americans…”

    was wrong, Richard’s cursory google scholarship notwithstanding.

    But yes, the overall picture does indicate tremendous bias in this case as the evidence shows and it’s not relegated to this incident. Blind denials otherwise are just not convincing to me even when it is accompanied by fist-shaking and foaming-at-the-mouth sarcasm (and perhaps much pouting as well).

    It would be nice to forget things as most Americans would like to do regarding the propaganda they are usually fed (such as their original support for the propaganda their government spewed about WMD and Iraq-al Qaeda links etc) . Yes, let’s all forget the lies and roads these lies led us down. Why would they want to remember? Blind ignorance is so much more fun! Accountability sucks. How Orwellian.

  7. October 7th, 2011 at 19:40 | #7

    xian,

    the article above is not about the brawl.

  8. xian
    October 8th, 2011 at 04:38 | #8

    @melektaus
    Right, it’s about bruised national egos under the guise of media commentary

    I used to play junior league hockey up here in Canada, and brawls like this happen every few games. Every time we fight no one can really pinpoint the reason, and both sides blame each other for starting it with icing/sticking/checking/insults etc. I’ve come to realize that’s just how sports are.

    You’re right the American media has given way more attention than is deserved of this, and these kinds of things fall conveniently outside of their political correctness. That’s why even the liberal readership of the NYT will start posting hateful comments. But on the other hand I’ve also read bashing from Chinese commentators and more than a few Americans calling Georgetown “thugs”. In other words, run of the mill head-bumping between nations, very common in the world of sport itself. So, I don’t really think it’s that big a deal.

  9. October 8th, 2011 at 08:25 | #9

    @xian
    That’s the point isn’t it – journalism is not a sports fan club. It must have integrity. So, the problem I see in journalism as pointed out by melektaus is in fact nations can be cheer-lead into war; over the most idiotic things.

  10. xian
    October 8th, 2011 at 09:09 | #10

    @YinYang
    Agreed. Although I think this case only made the news because it had something to do with Biden’s visit. I remember there was some similar fight in Brazil, but there wasn’t much on it.

  11. October 8th, 2011 at 13:35 | #11

    @xian

    No, the last sentence of the first paragraph in the article gives it away.

  12. bayi
    October 10th, 2011 at 03:05 | #12

    “That’s why even the liberal readership of the NYT will start posting hateful comments.”

    Let’s be clear, Liberal americans are only liberal within the american, and more loosely, western civ. context. When it comes to China, they are as hateful and biased as any. They just sometimes take more pains to hide it or explain/excuse it. Krugman for example, is as anti-china as they come amongst the elites of america. Ditto for Schumer. In fact, with the corporate arm of the conservatives strongly pro-china trade, one could argue either way which group is actually more biased against china.

  13. perspectivehere
    October 16th, 2011 at 13:15 | #13

    @Richard / @melekatus

    The work that the OP did is useful in elucidating biases in reporting on the incident. Why is that not welcomed with dispassionate analysis but greeted with ridicule?

    Melektaus’ reading of the media coverage on the Georgetown brawl is consistent with the conclusions of research done in 1995 by the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles about televised sports reporting in America.

    See http://www.la84foundation.org/9arr/ResearchReports/ResearchReport4.htm

    “The study produced seven major findings:
    1. The sports productions covered attempted to provide racially unbiased treatment of all athletes.
    2. Race, ethnicity, and nationality were treated differently by each production.
    3. Black athletes were not represented negatively.
    4. Asian athletes often were depicted by cultural stereotypes.
    5. Hispanic were depicted positively, but often were described in terms of physical characteristics.
    6. Minorities were underrepresented in commentator and interviewer appearances.
    7. The television coverage reflected a nationalistic bias.”

    The findings most relevant to Chinese are No. 4 and No. 7, excerpts to follow:

    *************************************************
    “4. Asian Athletes Often Were Depicted by Cultural Stereotypes.

    Several findings suggest that Asian athletes were depicted in ways that drew upon stereotypical descriptions of Asians as stoic conformists and excessively hard workers who are fanatically concerned with success.

    First, although commentators avoided making overt references to race in the case of Black athletes, they seemed less constrained with Asian athletes. One weightlifting competition, described as the “battle of the Asian stars,” was introduced as follows:

    “The serenity, the calm, that is the East. The mystique of the Orient with its mysterious inner strength. That strength today transformed into the brutal power of Olympic weightlifting, where Asian strong men dominate the bantamweight division.”

    Other commentator statements portrayed Asian athletes as obsessive hard workers, conformists, and extremely self-disciplined. The overall Japanese approach to marathoning was said to be “a religion, it’s an obsession.” Others discussed the propensity of Asians to train fanatically, “to practice much harder than the Americans.”

    Second, Asian athletes were significantly more likely than Black and Caucasian athletes to be described in physical terms. Half of Asian athletes (N = 8) and 55% of Hispanic athletes (N = 11) were described two or more times in physical terms, while 25% (N = 12) of Black athletes and 29% (N = 22) of White athletes fell into this category (p < .005). Commentators made frequent references to the size of Asian athletes (e.g., "she's slight at 103 pounds," " look at the quadriceps, how they seem so overdeveloped and bowed," "she's a slight athlete, only about 100 pounds").

    Third, commentators were significantly more willing to talk about the emotions and personalities of Asian athletes. We tested for hypothesized differences between the use of psychological descriptors across racial and ethnic groups.

    Psychological descriptors were phrases or sentences that described or called attention to the inner emotional states or personality characteristics of athletes. Examples included "she's a nervous wreck," "he's disappointed," "quietly confident," "not very happy with that dive," "bubbly personality," "she's completely focused," "proud," "he has fantastic concentration," and "he's at least distraught."

    While some commentators called attention to the "remarkable concentration" and "business-like attitude" of Asian athletes, others voiced surprise when Asian athletes outwardly expressed their emotions (e.g., "normally you don't see that kind of emotion out of lifters, but he is very pleased with himself," or in reference to the Chinese women divers, "they seem a lot more emotional than in 1984").

    The representation of Asian athletes as unemotional or reluctantly emotional was amplified by several discussions about their mechanical or machine-like performances and training practices. For example, a personal segment with Chinese swimmer Lin Li, emphasized her methodical and repetitious training practices and also raised the issue of drug use by the Chinese swimmers. (2) We found that, once framed in the overall context of the machine metaphor, even positive descriptions of precise performance lent themselves to negative mechanistic images that dehumanized some Asian athletes and diminished their achievements.

    ….

    In conclusion, we are not proposing that commentators should present Asian athletes identically to Hispanic, Black, or White athletes. Non-prejudicial representation in sport media does not mean hiding cultural differences behind contrived sameness. In fact, cultural differences enrich global athletic events. Representations of Asian athletes as machinelike and unemotional, however, seem to call forth images that reflect and feed racial stereotypes harbored by many Americans. In the current context of political tension with North Korea and China and the trade war with Japan, it is possible that Asian athletes are being cast as adversaries as were Soviet bloc athletes of the Cold War period."

    *******************************************************
    7. The Television Coverage Suggested a Nationalistic Bias.

    Nationalism thrives on "we versus them" scenarios. In this regard, we found that commentators characterized athletes from Communist or former Communist countries in ways that suggested they are cheaters, machine-like, inhuman, and without feelings. In contrast, athletes from the United States and its allies were generally featured as warm, fair, and humane. Nationalism also produced inconsistencies in the commentary. While it was stated or implied that some nations bring a political agenda to international athletic events, the hidden message was that the United States had no such political agendas. Whereas doubts are raised about the state funding of athletes from other countries, problems linked to corporate or university sponsorship of athletes in the United States or other western democracies are unstated. Comments about drug use among Chinese or East German athletes ignored the fact that some United States athletes use drugs as well.

    Nationalist sentiments were reinforced by an aura of familiarity around United States athletes. While 61% of United States athletes were frequently referred to by first name only, only 41% of foreign athletes were so addressed (N = 161, p < .005). United States athletes also were more likely than their foreign counterparts to be interviewed and allowed to speak for themselves, 38% versus 7% (N = 161, p < .001). Commentators were twice as likely to refer to the families of United States athletes than foreign athletes; 31% and 15% (N = 161, p < .02). And finally, the openings and closings and personal profiles tended disproportionately to highlight United States athletes.

    Whereas the greater familiarity of commentators with United States athletes might be attributed to nationalism, other more mundane factors likely apply as well. United States viewers were the primary audience for these productions. Building viewer identification with the athletes serves the economic interests of the television networks by increasing ratings. Also, many producers, commentators, and interviewers are former athletes themselves, and they are more likely to be acquainted with United States athletes than foreign athletes. And finally the greater familiarity of the predominantly White, English-speaking American commentators and script writers with English names and North American geography would be expected in a production made for American television. Such familiarity might indicate some degree of unconscious nationalism, but probably is not a mark of conscious bias.

    These findings raise some interesting questions. As the globalization of sport and society continues into the next century, will commentators and producers increase their knowledge of foreign cultures and geography? As popular culture and mass media flows between all countries, will the aura of familiarity currently surrounding United States athletes spread to envelop athletes from other nations as well? Or will sport media reflect nationalistic strife and affiliation in the global arena?

    CONCLUSION

    In 1944, Gunnar Myrdal described racism as "an American dilemma." Racism also has been a dilemma for United States media, a site of vigorous debate concerning the topic of racial representation (Dates & Barlow, 1990; Montgomery, 1989). Sport media have not been immune to charges of racism.

    On one hand, the results of this study show that producers of televised international athletic events generally are attuned to issues of racial representation and cultural diversity. Part of this growing awareness has no doubt been kindled by the high visibility of Black athletes in the United States, the work of minority advocacy groups, and the availability of pertinent research. While previously documented patterns of media representation of Black athletes are being addressed, however, we now see biased treatment of Asian athletes.

    Issues of racial and ethnic representation in televised international athletic events are not limited to the ways that producers and commentators describe and visually frame the athletes themselves. The low numbers and visibility of Asian, Hispanic, and Black commentators and interviewers are also at issue. The genuine empowerment of racial and ethnic minorities in sport media will draw more fully upon their journalistic, production, and management skills as well as their athletic abilities.

    Nationalism is likely to remain a feature of televised international sports for some time to come. The "we-them" mindset, which is such a pronounced dimension of nationalism, is also a common denominator of athletic competition and sport culture. The very fact that individuals compete as representatives of their countries opens the door to nationalistic sentiment and bias.

    Fair treatment of all persons by sports television is likely to grow as long as United States media organizations offer programming that appeals to many different ethnic, racial, and national groups. Diverse audiences may be offended by stereotyped portrayals of race, ethnicity, and nationality, especially when members of their own races or ethnicities are disserved by media representations. As the 20th century ends, multiculturalism does not have only ethical value, it also has pragmatic value for building domestic and global audiences and increasing profits. Media producers can no longer simply conceptualize race and racism as an American dilemma to be played out in shades of black and white. They must become sensitized to racism's multiple nuances, and paradoxical global manifestations.

    Copyright: Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, November 1995.

    ***********************************************
    For me, the key takeaways from the above report are:
    1. Asians suffer from negative, stereotyped portrayals in televised sports. "While previously documented patterns of media representation of Black athletes are being addressed, however, we now see biased treatment of Asian athletes."
    2. American televised sports tend to take a nationalistic us-vs-them stance, especially with Communist and former Communist countries, which are portrayed negatively.
    3. While it was stated or implied that some nations bring a political agenda to international athletic events, the hidden message was that the United States had no such political agendas.
    4. Whereas doubts are raised about the state funding of athletes from other countries, problems linked to corporate or university sponsorship of athletes in the United States or other western democracies are unstated.
    5. Comments about drug use among Chinese or East German athletes ignored the fact that some United States athletes use drugs as well.
    6. [E]ven positive descriptions of precise performance lent themselves to negative mechanistic images that dehumanized some Asian athletes and diminished their achievements….Representations of Asian athletes as machinelike and unemotional, however, seem to call forth images that reflect and feed racial stereotypes harbored by many Americans.
    7. In the current context of political tension with North Korea and China and the trade war with Japan, it is possible that Asian athletes are being cast as adversaries as were Soviet bloc athletes of the Cold War period.
    8. Diverse audiences may be offended by stereotyped portrayals of race, ethnicity, and nationality, especially when members of their own races or ethnicities are disserved by media representations.

    With respect to televised sports by American media, the 8 conclusions above create a distinctly unappealing media diet for Chinese viewers.

    Why would a Chinese person want to watch American media televised sports of a Chinese athlete, when it is more likely than not to contain stereotyped, offensive and negative messages towards China and Chinese?

    Chinese will put up with a lot, but they are not that masochistic!
    ************************************************

    I think what is frustrating about comments that I have seen from Richard (and other commentators – you know who they are) is their refusal to acknowledge the biases that are evident, and how they go out of their way to ridicule the perceptions by Chinese of Anti-Chinese bias.

    For example, in response to the OP's post, Richard wrote: "Poor, poor China. Everyone’s so mean to China. Everyone hurts China’s feelings."

    That's racist and offensive. Would he have responded the same way to an African or a Jewish complaint about bias?

    Having witnessed the growth of "black power" in the U.S. and witnessed the profound changes in the portrayal of African Americans in the media, I find that these commentators often say the same things as whites who thought race relations in the 1980's had gone "too far", that the country was leaning over backwards to be nice to blacks, and the biggest racial problem in America is "reverse racism" against whites.

    These whites deny there is a problem (claiming mere objectivity, random chance, or innocent incompetence whenever evidence of institutionalized bias is brought up), blame the minority's complaints as being "too sensitive", or ridicule the persons making the complaints as deficient because they don't use proper grammatical english ("ebonics" in the case of African Americans) or don't have college degrees from top institutions etc.

    From the report:

    "Discussions of race relations within sport gained public and academic attention during the late 1960s. During the 1970s and 1980s, sport media organizations sometimes were criticized for racist depictions of athletes of color. These critiques served as a touchstone for the public, journalists, and broadcasters to discuss how racial prejudices are reflected in sport media. A number of research studies showed that televised sports sometimes reinforce racial stereotypes. Partly in response to growing public and scholarly interest as well as increasing pressures from minority advocacy groups, sport media professionals have looked more closely at racial issues in sports during the 1990s."

    I think there are three bases for change in media portrayal of Asians: (1) Spending power. The growth of Asia's economy means more spending power for Asian media audiences, and growth of media that is more acceptable to Asians, and only this will bring about lasting change; (2) Media ownership. If more media production and distribution is owned by Asians, this will have a tendency to reflect views of the ownership (although the audience views are most important); and (3) work of scholars and minority advocacy groups in raising bias issues and sensitizing viewers, writers and professionals to what is unacceptable bias.

    In this context, I think the work of minority advocacy groups in pointing out media bias is very important.
    We are used to hearing the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League making noise when the media makes negative portrayals of African Americans and Jews. We hear less from Asian organizations. Having Hidden Harmonies as a forum for discussion and sharing of news bias is an important voice and channel for bringing media bias issues to the surface.

    Keep up the good work, and Illegitimi non carborundum! (don't let the bastards get you down)!

  14. October 17th, 2011 at 14:35 | #14

    Great find, perspectivel!

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.