Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
Sounding Off on Textbooks
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW

Sounding Off on Textbooks

BY ARmando Villifranca

AUSTIN - Some simply want Texas towns, rivers and regions marked correctly when mentioned in school textbooks. Others find the scant references to women's rights - and other civil right struggles - deplorable. And then there are those who seek the inclusion of little-known facts so obscure and trivial - such as San Antonio supplying meat to patriots during the American Revolution - that they are probably better suited for a board game about trivia than a young Texan's mind. Throughout Wednesday, teachers, citizen groups and public citizens sounded off on what they thought should be included in social studies textbooks during a hearing before the State Board of Education. "Citizens have pretty much been asleep at the wheel. We've complained a lot after the fact, but only a few citizens have over the years rolled up their sleeves, reviewed the textbooks and weighed in," said Peggy Venable of Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy. Concerns ranged from omissions to misrepresentations, especially about the cultural, political and racial landscape of the state. Texas, which has about 4.1 million students in its public school system, adopts new social studies books every eight years. The state will spend $ 344.7 million on the textbooks, which will be used in classrooms in 2003. The elected State Board of Education has no say over textbook content but can reject books because of errors or failure to follow the state curriculum. The board is scheduled to make its final decisions in November. Tony Bonilla, a Corpus Christi attorney and former League of United Latin American Citizens president, said state history textbooks were "woefully inadequate" when it came to depicting the role Hispanics played in state and national history. The list for public testimony included a contingent from the University of Texas-Brownsville that left the Rio Grande Valley at 3 a.m. to attend Wednesday's hearing. Venable said her group is focusing on ensuring that textbooks teach patriotism, free market and democracy in a favorable light. During the last round of hearings, her group sought the rejection of one textbook, but will not make such recommendations this year. An example of someof the problems, she said, was a reference in a sixth-grade textbook claiming that socialism and communism were good for all citizens. "We believe strongly that those are failed systems . . . and that sixth-grade students need that explained to them," she said.

07/18/2002
Texas Textbook Selection Under Scrutiny
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW

Texas Textbook Selection Under Scrutiny

BY Katherine Sayre

Two political groups debated the selection of public school textbooks Wednesday outside the Texas State Board of Education hearing on social studies texts. Groups that support the ban on the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools should not be involved in the selection of textbooks, said Peggy Venable, director of Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy. TCSE is a conservative activist group that claims to have found errors of omission and propaganda in textbooks. "We are here today as proud Americans who support teaching patriotism, democracy and the free market, as required by state law," Venable said. "We support the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools and stand in stark contrast to the so-called Texas Freedom Network, who has publicly opposed the pledge in schools." The Texas Education Code includes a provision that states that textbooks should promote democracy, patriotism and the free-enterprise system. That statute has served as the base of the TCSE's argument over textbook content. Samantha Smoot, the executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, arrived to defend the organization after Venable had stopped speaking. TFN, an organization that describes itself as fighting for freedom from the religious right, agrees with the recent ruling that bans the pledge in public schools. "I denounce that this group of self-appointed would-be censors are trying to inject their narrow political ideology into textbooks," Smoot said. Smoot said local school boards should be allowed to decide what textbooks are viable for use rather than censoring the books beforehand. This debate took place outside the day-long meeting with the Texas State Board of Education, which heard more than 100 speakers from organizations such as Daughters of the American Revolution and the Texas Justice Foundation. The speakers had reviewed textbooks that were up for approval by the board, and they argued for or against different textbooks. Each year, the board compiles a list of qualified textbooks for local school systems to choose from. Venable said textbooks should not contain favorable views of communist and socialist ideology and should instead promote patriotic and democratic ideals. Smoot said TCSE is a group made up of "extremists who want to decide for themselves what the rest of us have access to." Debate over the content of textbooks has happened before in Texas. In 2001, the debate over textbooks resulted in the removal of two science textbooks after conservative groups criticized them in front of the board. Venable also said the Texas State Teachers Association should end its "cozy relationship" with the TFN. "We further call on the Texas State Teachers Association-PAC [political action committee] to demand return of the thousands of dollars they have contributed to the Texas Freedom Network," Venable said. Richard Kouri, a spokesman for the TSTA, said the TSTA will not consider asking for the return of the donations. "What we do with our PAC money is none of TCSE's business," Kouri said. "[Texas Freedom Network] is an organization that we do agree with most of the time." Kouri also said the State Board of Education is responsible only for the factual accuracy of textbooks. "We'll be watching to see if the Board of Education is doing what they're legally bound to do," Kouri said.

07/18/2002
The Battle over Texas' Textbooks
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW

The Battle over Texas' Textbooks

Education process It is interesting to note that those checking for flaws in potential textbooks are themselves flawed ("New books, another battle," July 10). Their claim that Rosa Parks did not sit in the middle of the bus is inaccurate. According to the Rosa Parks Library and Museum, Parks sat in the front row of the "colored" section of the bus, which was behind the whites-only section. She was arrested when she refused to give up her seat in the colored section to a white man after the whites-only section filled. She did not sit in the front of the bus and the front of the colored section is arguably the middle of the bus. If the fact-checkers of our children's textbooks cannot get the facts correct, is there any real purpose to this process? The focus of improving our school systems should not be on minor errors in one tool of education, but the broader education process itself. DAVID ROBINSON Austin Get computers I read that the state of Texas will, over the next two years, spend more than $700 million on textbooks for public schools. Why? Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent every few years trying to decide which texts will be purchased. These books presented for consideration are filled with errors, omissions or worse. These same books must be replaced even more frequently now in selected subjects. These proposed texts are squabbled over, lobbied both for and against, perused by educators, hawked by publishers and yet still found to exhibit problems. I think it is time we moved the school systems in Texas in the 21st century. Schools should have a computer for every child in school, and those computers should contain their textbooks. Textbooks could consist of the same text and graphics they do now. The big plus is they could be as extensive or as brief as the educators so desired. They could continually be improved and or updated as needed. Let's get our legislators to make an investment in education of our children that will keep on paying off in years to come. NEVEL PATRICK HALEY Carrollton Unhealthy connection In the July 10 American-Statesman are two more baffling examples of the connection between right-wing Christian conservatives and anti-environment sentiment. One, a story regarding textbook selection in Texas discusses how in the past, conservative organizations previewing books have wanted to omit references to environmental degradation and endangered species, etc. In the second article, Marvin Olasky describes his trip (no doubt paid for by the oil company) to a refinery in Alaska and was pleased to find it wasn't nearly as dirty as he expected. He urged us to "dig in" and begin drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge soon. These same conservatives don't want their children polluted by any discussion of evolution but have no problem with their children drinking polluted water and breathing dirty air. The conundrum that these people should be facing is how they reconcile their stated love of God and God's creations, while bashing any attempt to educate this generation and the next about just how dire the state of this planet has become. DIANE HOGAN Austin Keeping our rights It is good that our federal and local governments are taking steps to prevent another terrorist attack. However, our civil liberties are slowly being taken away in the name of security. Our government should not have the power to hold military tribunals where defendants who are U.S. citizens cannot appeal decisions to a civilian court. Our government should not be allowed to hold military tribunals in secret. Our government should not be holding the alleged "dirty bomb" suspect in custody for an indefinite amount of time. The federal government has given enormous power to itself since Sept. 11. We need to try our best to prevent another attack. But this does not mean we should throw the Constitution out the window. And we should not throw out our system of checks and balances, either. We are made to feel unpatriotic or divisive if we bring up things like this to the government, but it is our responsibility to stand up for our rights. CHELSEA RIVERA Austin Price for security Marvin Olasky's June 26 column about the privatized social security system in Chile fails to inform us that it took a bloody military coup, thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousand exiled citizens like myself for Augusto Pinochet and others to impose such an "independence from government control." Olasky also fails to tell us that the funds in those private "libretitas" are guaranteed by all Chileans whether or not they choose to participate. For the operators of those funds, it is a profitable, risk-free business. I have lived and worked in the United States for 28 years. I own one "libretita" from 14 years of service with the Texas Employee Retirement System that will pay me a fixed pension guaranteed for life. The other half of my work life is invested in a well-managed, nonprofit mutual fund. That fund has lost about one-third of its book value in the past five years. At the rate we are going, we may get the autocratic government needed to impose such a system. RENATO ESPINOZA Austin Podiatrist power Re: July 2 article "Orthopedists denied a chance to go toe-to-toe with podiatrists": In 1986, I incurred a fracture to my left lower extremity. Various orthopedists, including an ankle specialist treated it as "a classic sprain." Their therapies included an air cast and my being told the pain was normal. In 1995, I was living in Corpus Christi and had the good fortune to become the patient of podiatrist Dr. Donald Rhodes. Based on the extensive X-ray series that he made, the fracture was at long last detected. He stated that there were also two bone chips, one the size of his thumbnail. I was casted to the knee until I healed. I will never let it be said that a foot doctor does not know enough to treat the lower ankle. More power to the podiatrists. ELSA POTTER Austin

07/17/2002
School Textbook Debate: Just the Facts or Rewriting History
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW

School Textbook Debate: Just the Facts or Rewriting History

BY Terrence Stotz

AUSTIN - Their line-by-line review is done, and textbook critics say they want these "facts" added to proposed history books for Texas students: *Indian tribes were as much to blame as fur traders and tourists for wiping out the great buffalo herds of the Plains by shooting the animals for sport. *John and Robert Kennedy did very little to help the cause of civil rights in the early 1960s - and actually took actions that undermined the movement. *All prayer in public schools was not really banned by the U.S. Supreme Court decades ago. Students still can pray in school. Those and hundreds of other changes should be made to new social studies books that will be used in Texas schools over the next six years, say conservative textbook reviewers who will press their arguments at a public hearing Wednesday. Their opponents are marshaling forces as well, saying groups seeking the revisions are trying to inject political biases into the books by misusing a state law that requires all textbooks be "free from factual errors." "These are groups that are determined to control what Texas kids are taught, based on their own personal beliefs and political ideology," said Samantha Smoot of the Texas Freedom Network, an organization that frequently squares off with social conservatives on textbooks and other education issues. Wednesday, the State Board of Education - made up of 10 Republicans and five Democrats - will hold the first of three public hearings this year on textbooks, and the proceedings are drawing national interest. That's because textbook decisions in Texas reverberate across the country. Among the states, only California buys more textbooks, and publishers whose books are adopted in the Lone Star State market them in dozens of other states. Lots of money is on the line. Texas alone is scheduled to spend nearly $ 345 million on social studies and other textbooks that will be adopted this fall and used in classrooms beginning in the fall of 2003. Ms. Smoot's group is leading a statewide campaign to urge the education board to leave the new textbooks alone - except for correcting what members call real factual errors - when they come up for final adoption in November. That would be a mistake, say conservative groups such as Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy, which has called on its members and other residents to pore over the new books, seek out mistakes and take their findings to the state board. "I think there has been a general frustration with the liberal academia who are writing our textbooks," said Peggy Venable of Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy. "This is one way for people to get involved and also express their frustration." Textbook battles were commonplace in Texas through the 1980s and early '90s when special-interest groups and board of education members argued over evolution, sex education and other politically sensitive subjects. But the Legislature stepped in and sharply limited the board's authority over textbooks in 1995, shifting more responsibility to local school boards. "I never believed that all the wisdom on textbook selection was embodied in these 15 people [on the State Board of Education]," said acting Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, a Republican who as a senator in 1995 wrote the massive school reform bill that stripped much of the board's power over textbooks. Then last fall, members of the board's GOP majority took a step to restore some of their authority by rejecting an environmental science book targeted by social conservatives. The book, given good marks by a review panel of professors at Texas A&M University, was criticized over passages that praise the Endangered Species Act and warn about global warming. History repeats This year, board members scheduled extra hearings, and with scores of textbook critics and supporters ready to testify - 70 have already signed up for Wednesday's hearing - it seems like old times have returned. State board members such as Republican David Bradley of Beaumont contend that the panel has always had broad authority over textbooks despite the 1995 law, which says the board can reject textbooks only for factual inaccuracies, not meeting physical specifications or not covering the required curriculum in a subject. "We're winning the battle," Mr. Bradley said recently, referring to those who want to see the board take a more active role in reviewing textbooks. Mr. Ratliff, who has been at odds with Mr. Bradley on the issue, said he is increasingly concerned about misuse of the law to "police" textbooks for political correctness. "The language in the law was not intended to allow these groups to police opinions," he said. "The law refers to factual errors - and that is meant in the true sense of the word. For example, if a book says the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1775 instead of 1776, that needs to be corrected." Perhaps the most ambitious review of this year's textbooks was performed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a group founded by San Antonio millionaire businessman James Leininger, a big GOP contributor and supporter of social conservatives on the state board. The foundation spent nearly $ 100,000 to hire 16 textbook reviewers - mainly college professors and classroom teachers - who examined 28 social studies books up for adoption. They say they discovered 533 factual errors in the books and also cited the publishers for hundreds more omissions - facts that the reviewers say should have been included. "Finding factual errors was a secondary mission of the project," said Michael Quinn Sullivan, a foundation spokesman. "Our primary mission was to find what the textbooks are lacking, what they are missing." Clinton vs. Nixon The group's review of one high school history book accused the publisher of showing favoritism to Democrat Bill Clinton when comparing his presidential impeachment proceedings with those of Republican Richard Nixon. The foundation did not give high marks to any of the proposed social studies books, but did indicate it will not seek to have any of the books rejected. "We have not, and will not, ask for content to be removed. Rather, we want content added to ensure that every topic is treated fairly and presented accurately," said Chris Patterson, director of education research for the group. Opponents said the group's suggestions, such as those dealing with the Indians and buffalo and the Kennedy brothers, are off base. The Texas Freedom Network also is having its members, including parents and teachers, review the textbooks so they can answer the criticism of the conservative groups. One of those is Phil Durst, an Austin laywer who said he is concerned that the critics are using their political clout to censor viewpoints they disagree with. "My children assure me that their textbooks can be made long and boring enough without the religious right's dogma on evolution, gender roles and their view of Christianity," Mr. Durst said. Publishers are sensitive to the criticism, but they contend that the books up for adoption this year have a high level of accuracy, particularly when one considers how much information they include. "We are always willing to correct any errors that are discovered," said Joe Bill Watkins of the Association of American Publishers. "But sometimes there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes an error."

07/17/2002
Sarbanes' Measure Is Overkill, Study Says
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW

Sarbanes' Measure Is Overkill, Study Says

BY Donald Lambro

The Senate-passed bill to crack down on corporate auditing abuses has been condemned by a bipartisan group of economists, who say it will result in regulatory overkill that will enrich trial lawyers and heap huge costs on U.S. firms "with little likely benefit." The bill, which passed the Senate on Monday 97-0, "goes far beyond what is necessary" to prevent corporate fraud, the economists said in a lengthy study of its impact that was conducted for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A copy of the study, which has not been made public, was obtained yesterday by The Washington Times as the House reversed itself and passed criminal penalties for corporate fraud in the aftermath of the Senate's action. The House bill, overwhelmingly approved in a 391-28 vote, calls for criminal penalties and jail sentences for executives of publicly traded companies who deceive investors. The criminal-penalties provisions were not in the original bill the House passed in April. Yesterday's action was seen as a move by House Republicans to strengthen their hand when differences between the two bills must be ironed out in conference, which could happen by the end of the week. However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's study questioned the effectiveness of recent legislation, saying that many of the provisions in the Senate bill authored by Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, Maryland Democrat, "go well beyond what is truly required to stem accounting and auditing abuses." While some aspects of the regulations "are advisable on economic grounds," many of the reforms "will likely impose significant new costs on American firms with little likely benefit. In addition, the new rules may significantly increase the exposure of firms and, particularly their managers, to litigation," the report said. In a separate broadside against the Senate bill, Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, said the Sarbanes bill was "a giveaway to a major financial backer of the Democrat Party - the trial lawyers." "All the Sarbanes legislation does is make it easier for class-action lawsuits to be filed against corporations," Mr. Beckner said. As for improving the ability of the government to uncover further corporate fraud, the chamber study said that "there is a strong possibility that the new rules will provide little help in sorting out the bad apples, in which case these extra costs would have little benefit." The Senate bill passed Monday would ban personal loans from companies to their top officials and directors, and would require company insiders to notify the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] more promptly when they buy or sell stock. The measure creates a new private-sector oversight board for the accounting industry with disciplinary powers, to replace the system in which the industry polices itself. The chamber study was written by economists Kevin A. Hassett and Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, and Robert J. Shapiro, a former Democratic Leadership Council economist. Among their chief conclusions: *"The bill imposes potentially large ... costs on U.S. firms, costs that Congress has to date made no attempt to quantify." *"The bill could introduce new inefficiencies into the normal operations of businesses and potentially new distortions into the reporting of their financial condition." *"The bill would create a largely unprecedented and unconstrained bureaucracy, with unlimited taxing power and authority when what is required is to allow the SEC to pursue the authority it already has." *The bill "would enhance the power of Congress to influence the establishment of accounting principles - a route that will lead to far greater lack of investor confidence in the securities markets than we have seen thus far." The study concluded that "the Sarbanes bill - in the tangible and intangible costs it will impose on the economy - goes far beyond what is necessary to address the significant questions about the quality of accounting and auditing raised by the collapse of Enron and other companies." The White House opposes the Sarbanes bill in its present form, charging that the new auditing oversight board it would create will overlap with the regulatory jurisdiction of the SEC. "What you would end up with is turf wars, finger pointing and things falling through the cracks," said White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey. Under the Sarbanes bill "the board would have much broader jurisdiction that would include getting involved in securities fraud, and we think the SEC should be the one that handles that. The Sarbanes bill muddies the waters," he said.

07/17/2002
Government Meddling Greater Threat to Social Security Reform than Corporate Misdeeds
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Government Meddling Greater Threat to Social Security Reform than Corporate Misdeeds

Because Republicans have been reluctant to discuss the issue of Social Security reform – particularly in the context of the 2002 midterm elections – the relationship between the declining stock market and proposals for personal retirement accounts has been an afterthought. Democrats may incorporate the supposed dangers of Social Security “privatization” into their “Republicans are too cozy with corporate crooks” election theme, but beyond that scarcely a word has been spoken about the relation between the two.

07/16/2002
People in Glass Houses
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

People in Glass Houses

For the first 18 years of his congressional career Dick Gephardt (D-MO) served in the majority. According to Gephardt’s own official web site, “as a House freshman, he was given the rare opportunity of serving on both the Ways and Means and Budget Committees, where he quickly became a national leader on health care, trade, and tax fairness.” Apparently, Gephardt considers himself something of a leader on national economic policy.

07/16/2002
Washington vs. Wall Street: Will New Rules Boost the Market?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Washington vs. Wall Street: Will New Rules Boost the Market?

This week, the Senate passed a bill creating more layers of oversight for corporate accounting while President Bush has announced tough new standards of corporate accountability. Unfortunately, the current rush for more regulation and increased federal oversight of market activity raises a number of questions while offering few solutions. It is not likely that political wrangling will have much effect on stock market jitters. If anything, excessive new regulations could hamper the workings of the equity markets without generating new information that is useful to investors or that boosts confidence in markets. Rather than more legislation or regulatory controls on accounting practices, a better approach would examine the fundamentals of the current market.

07/16/2002
Confirmation Of Smith May Herald End Of Judicial Nominee Gridlock
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW

Confirmation Of Smith May Herald End Of Judicial Nominee Gridlock

The Washington Times (7/16, Hudson) reports, "The gridlock over President Bush's judicial nominees eased yesterday with the confirmation of Judge Lavenski R. Smith to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the first action growing from a deal struck last week between Republicans and Democrats. Judge Smith of Arkansas was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote, after senators backed a measure to vote on his confirmation by a 94-3 margin. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, tentatively agreed to hold votes on judges in exchange for Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, releasing his hold on the nomination of Jonathan Adelstein, an aide to Mr. Daschle, for the Federal Communications Commission. . However, the objections of Sen. John McCain over a particular nominee are forcing Republicans and Democrats to proceed at a snail's pace to confirm 70 stalled candidates. . While Judge Smith was confirmed without conflict, the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla R. Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court came under fire yesterday. Her first committee hearing is set for Thursday. . Liberal special interest groups held a press conference criticizing the nominee, immediately followed by conservative groups defending her as a fair and qualified candidate. . The groups, which include the National Organization for Women, the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, want Democrats to reject the nomination." Coalition Decries Liberal Groups' Criticism of Owen. The Houston Chronicle/AP (7/16) reports, "The U.S. Senate should not allow any 'left-wing activist groups to hijack' the confirmation process of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, President Bush's nominee for a federal appeals court, several groups said Monday. 'She's just, very simply, an excellent, an extremely well-qualified and a very liked judge,' said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which says it specializes in the defense of religious freedoms and First Amendment rights. . Bush has nominated Owen for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which decides appeals from federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. A hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled for Thursday. Shackelford made his comments Monday as his and other groups pledged their support for Owen after a coalition of labor, consumer and women's rights groups last week labeled Owen an 'ultraconservative activist' who opposes consumer and reproductive rights. The groups last week pledged to battle Owen's confirmation. . Among the groups Monday that held the news conference in support of Owen's nomination were the Texas Justice Foundation, Free Market Foundation, Liberty Legal Institute, the Texas chapter of Concerned Women for America, Texas Eagle Forum, the Texas Home School Coalition, the Texas Christian Coalition, the Young Conservatives of Texas and Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy."

07/16/2002
Department of Homeland Security, Meet Government Bureaucracy
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Department of Homeland Security, Meet Government Bureaucracy

This Week – Homeland Security continues to dominate the House as nearly a dozen committees submitted their suggestions to a Select Committee that is working to create a bill implementing President Bush’s vision of a new Department. In the meantime the House is also moving through the Appropriations bills. This week they expect to have four on the floor – Interior, Agriculture, Legislative Branch and Treasury, Postal.

07/15/2002

Pages