Leave a Comment Sagesse
New marriage ads running in Maine
November 22, 2011
By Adam Bink
Wrote about this in Quick Hits yesterday, but now that the new ads are out bumping up to the front page. New ads timed to run in Maine around Thanksgiving (SF Chronicle’s Joe Garofoli has the story, which includes a funny picture of Rick holding petitions to the Supreme Court urging the Court to allowing televised video of the Prop 8 trial). The ads:
What do you think of them?
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
62 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Johan | November 22, 2011 at 10:36 am
The clips are nice, but as long as the ads do not put same sex couples themselves, and their kids, front and center, we signal that we have to be hidden or talked about by others on or behalf. The ads are defensive, to generate sympathy by proxy. I think this reeks of cowardice, and it is a losing strategy. As long as we keep doing that, and not making the case ourselves, I even think we deserve to lose. Haven't we learned anything from the campaigns in 2008, and 2009?
2.
DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 10:41 am
The first one doesn't send a clear message at all. The comments about 'struggling with this issue' and 'it weighed heavily on our hearts' and 'we are not here to judge' do NOT do us any favors. They imply that these people feel that we are bad, that same sex marraige is bad, and that it somehow had some bearing on THIER lives. And the best they can do is refrain from judging those bad people. Whooppee.
And then at the end, almost as an afterthought, we toss in a very important point about how civil marraige has no effect on religion. That should have been the main point of this ad.
3.
Regan | November 22, 2011 at 10:51 am
I have to agree with the comments above. There is an inferred lack of legitimacy for gay couples and their children. As if gay people are something NEW as far as their presence and participation in the responsibilities of being a citizen and person are concerned. This strategy didn't work well in CA. I don't understand why anyone would think it could in ME.
Anywhere the popular vote was encouraged, and with ads just like this elsewhere, WE LOST.
There has GOT to be another strategy.
4.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 11:10 am
If this campaign anything like the campaign we had here in Maine in 2009, we will definitely have real gay Mainers on the ads.
5.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am
Perhaps this ad is crafted for the people of northern and western Maine, both areas that were heavily against keeping the same-sex marriage law we had in 2009. The sort of language and ideology that would speak to US would probably turn them off.
6.
Bob | November 22, 2011 at 11:19 am
until we come up with "another strategy",, I'm glad these ads are playing,,,,, and it is encumbent upon each one of us,, to take up these discussions around our own family dinner tables, when we come together with family,,,,, if nothing else,, these ads can be a starting point for our own discussions,, we each can personalize and make our own pitch in telling our stories,, at home…..
7.
Bob | November 22, 2011 at 11:23 am
the legitimacy comes from our personal ownership of our lives and honoring those truths in personal settings,,, WE PUT OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES FRONT AND CENTRE,,, in a very initimate way, in conversation's long overdue,,,,,,
8.
Sam_Handwich | November 22, 2011 at 11:39 am
Ad #1 … i've watched it three times, and find it plastic and creepy.
Ad #2 … i'm not sure that "We went to see a priest" (to discuss their daughter's sexuality) is great advice for those on the fence.
I'm personally sick of all the boring people with piano music in the background. It would be refreshing to see an ad along the lines of a tough talking dude in a hardhat at a construction site saying "There are bigger issuse facing my family, this state and this country than trying to stop my gay neighbors from getting married. Live and let live!"
9.
Ann S. | November 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Will watch when I get home — whenever that might be . . .
10.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kiByvu8R4
Remember, the ads have to speak the language of the target audience. Having Margaret Cho and Molly Ringwald tell people that there should be equality doesn't really say much to the people of northern, western, and Downeast Maine.
11.
Sam_Handwich | November 22, 2011 at 12:36 pm
But that's just more sterile people with hypnotic music!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrr
I guess the point i'm trying to make is that our side has these ads (piano music, neat white folks telling us that "gays aren't all that bad after all"), the other side has their ads (menacing music, "they're going to make your 3rd grader have anal sex in the classroom!!!"). Break the cliched cycle! Create! Compel! Try something new, see what works. Geico doesn't sell policies because they run boring ads with neatly groomed white folk discussing the ins and outs of insurance; rather, they grab your attention, entertain you and then briefly invite you to learn more by calling or visiting their website.
12.
Jim Detwiler | November 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm
As part of a comprehensive ad stradegy that I assume will include testimonials from gays and lesbians themselves, I think they're excellent. They present compelling role models of common sense and transcending love to viewers otherwise their spiritual and generational peers– the obvious target audience of these ads. Older Americans and people of faith tend to vote. We need to address them with messages tailored to their unique perspectives and give them a template argument they can use to help persuade our opposition on our behalf, which I believe these ads to extremely well.
13.
NJGuy | November 22, 2011 at 12:47 pm
I like the second one – but I have to ask, why isn't the daughter in the ad? Wouldn't it have been great to see the parents talk about how much they want to see the daughter get married, and then show the daughter and, perhaps, her girlfriend? This fight is not about allowing parents to go to their kids' weddings; it's about letting the kids get married!
As Sam_Handwich said, the other side will roll out the "gay marriage will ruin our kids" ads. The only way to counter that is by showing parents with their own healthy, well-adjusted gay kids who look like and act like the children of voters. That way, voters make the connection in their minds that those nice kids who want to get married are just like their kids.
14.
Jim Detwiler | November 22, 2011 at 12:49 pm
That might be an effective way to address tough talking, middle class working stiffs, but doesn't address the more reflective, seasoned contemplators of morality these ads target. Plastic, creepy and boring to you perhaps, but not to this targeted audience.
15.
Sam_Handwich | November 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm
But what evidence is there to support the claim that these sorts of ads change any minds? This brand of advertising apparently didn't work last time in ME, and certainly didn't work to stop Prop 8 in CA.
16.
Jim Detwiler | November 22, 2011 at 1:11 pm
But that's almost a pro-equality cliche these days and may not be as effective as it once was. These ads on the other hand employ a more forward-leaning marketing strategy that targets two specific groups – people of faith and the elderly – and speaks to them in their own language without resorting to propping-up pictures of gay people as if their normalcy or relationship with their families has anything to do with the transcending issues most important to these two demographics. These ads intend to move people who probably already know gays and lesbians are normal looking and are sitting on the fence, with a compelling sense of rightness they can carry with them in taking the final step.
17.
Jim Detwiler | November 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Exactly. This isn't about what WE find compelling, but what WORKS BEST to move enough members of these two intended demographics enough to increase the net margin of support state wide.
18.
Fluffyskunk | November 22, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I wish I could thumb this up fifteen times.
19.
Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Fully agreed. First off, it's not something that straight people should struggle with in the first place. The idea that there is some great inner conflict that needs to be resolved is completely absurd.
And do they think they deserve some kind of medal for being decent human beings?
20.
Fluffyskunk | November 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Jim, "reflective, seasoned contemplators of morality" will eo ipso vote FOR marriage equality. Targeting them is a waste of donation money because they're already on our side! We should be targeting the kind of people who make (usually poor) decisions based on emotion, because it is they who will be swayed by our opponents' campaign unless we start fighting fire with fire instead of sad piano music!
21.
Fluffyskunk | November 22, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Ugh, that comment didn't show up where I thought it would… it was supposed to be in reply to Sam Handwich. Sorry for the double post (now triple). Can a mod please delete my comment ("I wish I could…" and this one as well)? I don't have an edit/delete button…
22.
Martin Pal | November 22, 2011 at 3:01 pm
After the barrage of ads I witnessed during the Prop 8 campaign I can tell you that moral argument ads are worthless. The most effective ad during that campaign season was one to treat animals more humanely while they were waiting to be slaughtered and the effective ads showed animals in distress. Voters didn't want to see animals in distress and they reacted. I have come to believe we have to show gay people in distress. Show the hateful things people say about us and show how it hurts. I believe people will feel that and not want to vote to hurt people. You have to give people a reason to vote the way you want them to. They have to feel good about voting that way. Having a correct moral argument doesn't do that.
23.
Martin Pal | November 22, 2011 at 3:01 pm
The other side uses these tactics. They pull out the fear tactic of harming children and other stereotypes. Gay people need to pull out the clips of nom-types speaking their hate and have it countered with gay people saying "That's not me and my family." Parents saying, "That's not my son/daughter." Then maybe a gay celebrity saying "That's not me." Then on screen is written: "Is it you?" Meaning–does someone watching it think that they are the person who agrees with the hateful rhetoric/speech/action portrayed? Most will answer no and not want to vote to be associated with it. People don't want to think they are hateful or that they are hurting others. I don't know if I've made my point clearly or not.
24.
karen in kalifornia | November 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm
#1 is creepy…a religious couple mentioning that they ever had any doubts about equality is enough to give permission to whomever is creeped out by equality to say that way.
#2 is short and too the point…love is love. However the hypnotic monotone piano will not change anyones mind and as someone commented above…."asking a priest" is not a good idea at all seeing the re$ouce$ the Catholic Church will u$e to keep us down.
Where are the gay people being treated like $hit just for wanting to protect their loved ones?
25.
Adam Bink | November 22, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Along the lines of "we don't want to see people in distress," what you say is why I think the Mormons ad was the most effective of the Prop 8 campaign. Of course, it wasn't run by No on 8.
[youtube q28UwAyzUkE&feature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE&feature=youtu.be youtube]
26.
DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Show same sex couples who can't get health insurance for their kids. And get comments from the kids' grandparents about how much they worry about this.
Show the gay person describing how they weren't allowed hospital visitation rights or decisions in funeral planning. And let the gay person's parents describe how it hurt them to see their son/daughter being hurt this way.
Show the elderly gay couple who are waiting for marriage equality while their time is running out. And show their children who want so much to see them married.
Show the kids who, after the death of their biological parent, are taken away from their only remaining parent and tossed into foster care because the couple could not legally marry.
SHOW HOW MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION REALLY HURTS PEOPLE. And tell the voters they have the power to stop this.
27.
truthspew | November 22, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Yeah that's the one fault I place with the ads. No gay couples featured.
But that first one with the minister, I like that one.
28.
Jim Detwiler | November 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Like I said, as part of a COMPREHENSIVE ad campaign I think these two ads have a very valid place in targetting these specific demographics. Obviously they wouldn't be effective as the broad-brush message for everyone we're trying to reach. And similarly, a blue-collar type saying he's to busy to bother with same-sex discrimination discrimination won't persuade those who aren't.
The fence-sitters, a relatively small minority we need to reach to create the relatively small margin between success and failure, tend to be conflicted – and thus there persuadable. And among them is a significent number of older Americans and reasonable people of faith who truly want to do the right thing but are as yet undecided. The ads target them, not us. We've already decided.
I believe these ads are effetive in reaching them – nothing more, nothing less. I didn't hear sad piano music. I heard thoughtful people revealing the most intimate and (apparently) candid reasons they changed their mind. And while we can't relate to them, the target demographics can and that's the point. It isn't about us. It's about getting inside their heads. The objective is to win, not
29.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 5:09 pm
The fact that we didn't win outright in Maine in 2009 does not mean that these ads, and the rest of our strategy, didn't work in changing hearts and minds. Maybe they didn't change enough, but I don't think it's fair to imply that they didn't work at all.
I'm still not sure that slick and innovative advertising of our cause will in any way persuade the targeted audience. Having ads that announce that gays are "just like you people" will not persuade them because they don't want gays to be just like them. All we're looking for is the opportunity to tell them the the gay people in Maine want the same things they want, not that they ARE the same. The strategy has to appeal to that conflict that they might have.
There really are people that may feel uncomfortable with gays and the issue in general but have adopted a "live and let live" philosophy and that's who we want. We want ads that show those people, many of whom ARE religious. There are a lot of French Catholics in the targeted area and they need to be addressed in a way that will make them understand.
30.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 5:17 pm
This is only the beginning of what is going to be a very long and hard battle here in Maine.
As for the second ad-there are a LOT of French Catholics in northern and western Maine and these ads need to address them. It's a fact that some people do go to a Catholic church and yet are still conflicted on this issue. I've talked to many of them while canvassing.
Acknowledging that there are religious church-going people out here that do support us is a good idea.
31.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Give it time-most of the commercials we ran in 2009 featured real Maine gay couples and their children-something the no on 8 campaign didn't do.
Pastor Gray, by the way, is not just some random minister. He's been instrumental in getting this recent initiative going. Check out this article for more about him, our campaign, conflict within a person, and Maine: http://www.maineprogressiveswarehouse.com/diary/5…
32.
joe | November 22, 2011 at 5:56 pm
That list on Wikipedia of famous gay, bisexual, and lesbians was great. More people need to see that list. I wish I could have seen it when I was like 12. Maybe I wouldn't have lived most of my life hating myself and everyone else for that matter. hmmm… come to think of it, I still hate almost everyone else…. sigh. Stupid Klatu should not have stopped the robot…
33.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 6:47 pm
In a perfect world, you would be right. But the reality is that there are good people who do struggle with this. Not addressing those people and their concerns will not gain us anything in our lifetime.
34.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 6:49 pm
I wonder if demonizing an entire group is ever a good idea.
35.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 6:59 pm
More from the 2009 campaign. This one shows real Mainers from all walks of life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLirv1-vBY&fe…
This one shows a French Catholic mother, her son and his partner, and their child: http://www.youtube.com/user/ProtectMaineEquality#…
This one addresses the lies from the Yes on 1 campaign: http://www.youtube.com/user/ProtectMaineEquality#…
I see no reason why the campaign for 2012 should be any different from the campaign we had in 2009. These are not the only two ads we'll ever have.
Dave in Maine
36.
Steve | November 22, 2011 at 7:16 pm
It's only because religion has completely warped their sense of morality. Playing into that may work in the short term, but in the long run, the solution isn't to indulge their delusions and enable them, but to combat the superstition directly.
37.
Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Subscribing & sharing……
Gay pro bowler gets married: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/ne…
"Scott Norton and Craig Woodward were married Oct. 22, at the Surf & Sand Resort in Laguna Beach, Calif., thus forming a true pioneering milestone in the LGBT sports world."
Congratulations to the happy couple…….. <3…Ronnie
38.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 7:30 pm
That sort of intolerance will accomplish nothing for us.
There are Catholics who support us and even whole denominations that do as well. Calling religion a "superstition" will only alienate people and while they may not vote against us, they may also not vote for us.
Remember, we are celebrating diversity.
Dave in Maine
39.
dsc77 | November 22, 2011 at 7:34 pm
For more background on why these ads are the way they are, be sure to click on the link the Mr. Bink included in the first paragraph of this story.
40.
Steve | November 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Religion fits the dictionary definition of superstition. And that's what all of it is. Not just the competing religions a particular believer doesn't agree with.
But you misunderstood. "Long term" meant decades. Especially in such a highly religious country as the US. It's not going to happen over night and it's certainly not going to happen with ads.
But it has to happen, for the betterment of the entire human species. Less religiosity strongly correlate with more healthy societies. We'll never really grow as a whole until we move on. This isn't just about gay rights, but a whole host of other issues such as education, science and healthcare that are negatively impacted by it.
41.
Martin Pal | November 22, 2011 at 8:15 pm
I can think of a reason the campaign should be different from in 2009.
The campaign failed in 2009.
Also, the bowlers got married in California?
42.
Bill S. | November 23, 2011 at 12:27 am
Would it be at all possible to get a local television station affiliate to air a pro-gay documentary during the primetime access hour? Local stations typically get to program one hour of primetime themselves without being controlled by the network (typically between 7:00PM-8:00PM your local TV stations will run syndicated sitcoms, the ad revenue generated in this hour goes directly to them rather than the national ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.)
"Freeheld" is an absolutely outstanding documentary, and about only 40 minutes in length. "Trevor" is a fictional short film from the mid-1990s that is both charming and heartbreaking. These aren't campaign ads, these are real works of art that can cast this debate less as a campaign, but as a real human issue.
P.S., if you want to see the Academy Award-wining documentary "Freeheld," (Best Documentary Short Subjects, 2007) you can see it legally in its entirety here: I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT (you will cry).
http://www.logotv.com/video/freeheld/1632590/play…
43.
Thom | November 23, 2011 at 5:36 am
Steve,
Your comments are proving them the people at NOM correct. They have had a consistent message that gays are trying to destroy their religious freedom. That is certainly not something on my agenda. I simply want equal rights and for them to not be able to use their religion to create laws that impede those rights.
I don't believe we should be trying to turn people away from their beliefs, and to do so is providing them with more ammo in this fight.
44.
grod | November 23, 2011 at 9:11 am
David, let’s not forget the 2009 campaign was about big money: $9,996,300, 55% went on radio and TV ads. Of that big money, at least sixty percent was spent by Protect Maine Equality. California-based Schubert-Flint Public Affairs drove Stand-Up’s successful campaign..
45.
_BK_ | November 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
I like this ad. A lot.
46.
_BK_ | November 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
"Home Invasion" isn't demonizing anyone. Do you think it is?
47.
Seth from Maryland | November 23, 2011 at 9:44 am
i think we need to come out swinging and being more tough, i feel like we have sat and done nothing to counter nom, protect marriage any other group has spreaded a really misleading information every damn time, they are getting down and fighting dirty maybie its time we should to
48.
grod | November 23, 2011 at 10:19 am
Thom, I agree. In 2009 Stand up for Marriage Maine received 3.4 million, NOM provided more than $1.8 million and the Catholic Church $600,000 of that. While Civil Marriage Equality, like divorce is not about the Catholic faith, the Church has definite views on both. Rightly or wrongly, the Church leaders believe that if marriage equality comes to Maine, or other state USA, it will impact the church.
Nov 8 2011: "Obviously, the issues around same-sex marriage are putting the church on a collision course with the civil authority in many different ways," Boston's Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley told Catholic News Service.
Nov 11, 2011 The president of the USA RC Conference of Bishops, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, warned President Obama that his decision not to defend a federal ban on gay marriage could "precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions."
49.
grod | November 23, 2011 at 10:36 am
Dave Your Youtube ad impressed me. I've said to you before and I will say it again that New Brunswickers and Quebecers in the townships are not all that different than yourselves. Northern NBers 'culturally' are also French, and Catholic. Because these people have been living with marriage equality for all of six years, they may have insights not available to you if you were to look to NH, Vermont etc for suggestions.
50.
grod | November 23, 2011 at 10:51 am
Jim A lot of money was invested in 2009 into media advertisement. What this blog and others suggest that personal stories are a difference that makes a difference. In the communities outside the urban centers of Maine, is it not personal contact that is also a difference that makes a difference. You can influence your neighbours about the positive and negative impact about people they know or who you are related to. You need ‘straights’ who are your allies to help big time. Personal contact is a tall order and is time consuming. Different strategies for specific demographics are also a tall order. I agree that the influence-able middle is an important focus. No doubt Dave and his group understand this.
51.
grod | November 23, 2011 at 10:58 am
Dave you are being polite, Not the type of ad Easterners would welcome. G
52.
Gray Coyote | November 23, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Steve,
Please stop trying to co-opting your anti-religious politics into LGBT politics. Many used religion as a convenient crutch for supporting enforced segregation of the races, but the members of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1930's to 1960's did not react by attacking their religion. It was religious leaders like MLK who helped lead the movement, because to them it was as much a calling of g-d. He didn't react by becoming an atheist and attacking the religions of his oppressors….
1st amendment protects religion and lack thereof. We're still trying to fix the fact that we are denied licensing of a fundamental right because of the unnecessary questions asked about gender.
"No Religious Test shall ever be required" has been the constitutional law of our land since 1789. It wasn't until 2003 that the LGBT community had any recourse for attacking states firing us for employment purposes on a federal level. So stop co-opting us, Steve.
53.
Pablito | November 24, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Well, I stand in solidarity with you Steve.
And, to all the people who are afraid of the truth…and willing to "win at all costs" even to the costs of the truth, then great. But to think that our culture advances by continuing this silly "protection" of religion as so sacred as not to be challenged, you've lost already.
Imagine, if religion wasn't so much needing attack, but rather was as dismissed as people who ascribed to UFOs or better still that Elvis is still alive! That's what religion is…..nothing more
54.
grod | November 24, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Dave: On Election Day Equality Maine has said that it began with a GOTV (got-out-the-vote) universe of 270,000 voters; in an election they estimated would take 275,000 votes to win. Turnout was much greater than anyone predicted and in fact, it was a 40-year high of nearly 60% in an off-year election. While Equality Maine originally thought high turnout would benefit us, in the end it didn't.
Equality Maine turned out nearly 100% of its GOTV universe — 268,000 of 270,000 voters. It was not enough to balance the aggressive lobbying of the Roman Catholic Diocese, who heavily pressured their parishioners to vote Yes on 1. Had Equality Maine turned out the full 275,000 voters, Equality Maine still would have fallen short. The results of the election were:
YES = 299,808; NO = 267,785
The work done in 2009, and before, has allowed Equality Maine to identify 267,784 supporters. They know now that they need an estimated 325,000 marriage equality supporters. It needs to identify an additional 60,000 supportive Mainers to win this time. That is the challenge!
55.
Johan | November 25, 2011 at 7:56 am
Here's a good ad that doesn't treat us like lepers
[youtube _TBd-UCwVAY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY youtube]
56.
Johnny Z | November 25, 2011 at 8:38 am
This is an amazing, inspirational video…one, that I hope can melt the heart of those who might not normally give us a chance……thank you, so much, for sharing this video, Johan!..
57.
grod | November 25, 2011 at 8:55 am
Dave when I look at the polling numbers between first of September and 1 November, Equality ended where you started 46+%. In the five subsequently polls, Equality twice achieved 52% and twice was down around 47%. The remaining poll reported 50%, [ignoring the sampling techniques of different pollsters]. It would appear that the undecided in the final week went with Protect Marriage. What was the profile of the six percent undecided in the Oct 22 poll. In the post-vote analysis was any connection made to impact of either side's advertisement. After all approximately 55% of the $9,996,300went to radio and TV ads.
58.
grod | November 25, 2011 at 9:00 am
Johan excellent suggestion, engaging. Right message at the end!
59.
AnonyGrl | November 25, 2011 at 9:00 am
I didn't care for this ad. It made "Mormons" as a group look like Lex Luthor style baddies, and didn't move me at all. If you want to show people in distress, show REAL distress, not cartoonish, overblown villany. Show one partner not being allowed to visit another in hospital. Show an elderly person evicted from his home with nothing but a photograph of his now deceased husband of many years. Show people struggling to pay insurance bills because their marriage is not recognized. Show kids being removed from their adoptive parent's partner after a tragedy.
Yes, SOME Mormons were the bad guys. We know that. But this ad, for me, was too easy to dismiss as hyperbole.
60.
Johan | November 25, 2011 at 9:02 am
You're welcome. Hat tip goes to Andrew Sullivan.
61.
AnonyGrl | November 25, 2011 at 9:02 am
I wrote almost exactly the same post with the same points up above, before I got to yours.
62. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 28, 2011 at 9:38 am
[...] comparisons can be made to the No on 8 ads and the recent ads in Maine, although it is hard to connect with the viewer in just 30 seconds. That said, the format is [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.