Prince Charles Promotes Totalitarianism
Prince Charles suggested Tuesday on a visit to the United Arab Emirates that banning McDonald’s fast food was crucial for improving people’s diets, a British news agency reported.
Charles made the comments while visiting the Imperial College London Diabetes Center in Abu Dhabi for the launch of a public health campaign, The Press Association reported.
“Have you got anywhere with McDonald’s? Have you tried getting it banned? That’s the key,” Charles was quoted as asking one of the center’s nutritionists.
I agree that banning a restaurant chain is pretty stupid and it’s certainly not something I’d sign onto. But what I’d like to know is what you think the government can and should do about the nutritional problems in the United States. I’m guessing your answer is “nothing,” but it might be an interesting discussion nonetheless.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 0920 hrs
I think that government regulation that requires restaurants and food vendors to disclose basic nutritional information upon request is fine and as far as government should go. It provides consumers with information to make a rational decision about their food consumption.
Posted by Owen on February 28, 2007 at 0938 hrs
is it really so different than stopping people from smoking a weed that God put on the earth, all in the name of health?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 0945 hrs
government regulation that requires restaurants and food vendors to disclose basic nutritional information upon request
I’m sure you’ll not be surprised that I find this inadequate. I’d like to see prominent (if not scary) labeling for food products that are known to promote poor health. If that bag of Oreos had to have a big red “unhealthy” badge on the front I bet Nabisco would find a way to tweak their recipe to get under that wire. And if they didn’t? At least people would have at-a-glance information so they know what they’re doing when they reach for it. At the same time I’d like to see regulation of advertising of unhealthy food to children. I’d also like to see taxes used as incentives for companies to produce healthier products.
Notice that none of this is about “banning” or “outlawing.” It’s information disclosure requirements, plus carrots-and-sticks to improve the nutritional milieu we Americans find ourselves in.
And that’s really what’s changed. People today are not hungrier or more irresponsible than people were in 1962. We are just living in an entirely changed food environment. Since it is not people who have changed, it is not reasonable to expect the solution to be solely about individual behavior.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 0948 hrs
My argument for the food nannies is thus:
When there are restrictions on sexual activity that reach the same level of hysteria as proposed restrictions on food, in the name of “health”, then we’ll talk about banning McDonald’s and Oreos.
At least people would have at-a-glance information so they know what they’re doing when they reach for it.
That’s what nutritional labels are on packages for. As far as I know, EVERY product on the market has nutritional labels on it. How much more “at a glance” do you need? It doesn’t take a degree in Food Science to interpret the information on the package.
Or are you suggesting there be a “Scarlet Letter” on food products the nannies disapprove of? To shame people into not eating treats?
At the same time I’d like to see regulation of advertising of unhealthy food to children.
There already are regulations. They’re called “parents”, and as far as I know, they still have the right, privilege, and responsibility to say no. Since when did advertisers become so powerful that a parent - who I presume controls a family’s finances - can’t refuse to buy a product they deem unhealthy?
Likewise, if I put a serving of cookies in my child’s lunch, I should not have the food nannies confiscating it in the name of “health”.
I’d also like to see taxes used as incentives for companies to produce healthier products.
If you’re talking tax breaks, then I’m all for it. It would encourage companies to make healthier food, sell it at a reasonable price (since the high taxes wouldn’t be passed to consumers), and make it more readily available to all.
I believe the free market works, ultimately. Which is why you see McDonald’s, Culver’s, and other places offering options like salads in addition to burgers and fries.
The only way today’s food environment has changed between 1962 and today is that we have vast access to information that we didn’t have in 1962.
In the past 15 years or so, we’ve also seen floods of information regarding the dangers of smoking, yet that has done little to dissuade people from smoking.
Likewise, people have floods of information regarding nutrition and food. I refuse to believe that people are so stupid or cowed by the market to not understand that what you eat affects your health.
So, ultimately, what this comes down to is choice and MODERATION. People have the choice to eat healthy or not. But there’s also no black/white parameters in this debate. An occasional cookie, cake, birthday treat, burger, etc. can easily be offset by a walk around the neighborhood. Learning to have two cookies instead of six - moderation - also helps.
I take umbrage with those who see food as an all-or-nothing policy. And that’s what Prince Charles - and his nanny cohorts - are doing.
Posted by Amy P. on February 28, 2007 at 1039 hrs
So you like nutritional labels, but you don’t want a “scarlet letter” requirement? It sounds like we agree in principle but not in degree. I want the information to be clear and actionable. I want it to be an incentive for the manufacturer to make better products, not the “fine print.”
And I knew I’d have to reiterate this. Let’s see how many more times I have to do it before this discussion is through. I do not want to ban any food or restaurant.
There already are regulations. They’re called “parents”
So I guess your theory is that parents today are just not as good as parents were 30 years ago. I don’t believe that for a second.
If you’re talking tax breaks, then I’m all for it.
So we agree on something. How about we try for one additional point. What about if we stop subsidizing food industries which are producing unhealthy food? Would you be okay with that?
offering options like salads in addition to burgers and fries.
I’m all for that, too. I’m not discounting it in any way. I just think if we wait for this type of phenomenon to right what’s wrong with us nutritionally, we’ll wait basically forever.
The only way today’s food environment has changed between 1962 and today is that we have vast access to information that we didn’t have in 1962.
This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin. The choices in the supermarket are vastly different than they were 30 years ago. The products were different, with different ingredients. And today companies spend billions to market these products in ever more manipulative and exploitative ways. And portions were much different then, too. No, the food environment is radically different now than it was then. And this is the fundamental cause of today’s nutritional problems. How can you see otherwise? it’s really the only factor that’s changed a lot.
Basically you believe people have changed. You believe people are different today than they were in 1965 or whatever. You think back then they were just morally superior to us. They had “moderation,” whereas we do not. But what’s really different is that we live in an age of multi-billion dollar ad campaigns, enormous food portions and entirely different (and decidedly less healthy) ingredients.
If you took restaurants and the supermarket back to 1950 Americas problem with obesity would be solved. (Just a thought experiment, not a prescription, mind you.)
So I want to do aggressive labeling, tax breaks for healthy food, end subsidies to unhealthy food, and maybe we could throw in some schoohouse rock-style PSAs or something as a cherry on top.
I don’t see where this makes me an enemy of freedom, or even of industry. What it makes me is a person who sees a role for collective action in the pursuit of solving a public health issue.
Prince Charles’s heart is in the right place. He sees a problem. His thoughtless comment simply indicates that he doesn’t know how to fix it.
You, on the other hand see no problem other than: people are simply irresponsible and none of us is under any obligation to “solve” anything. Typical conservative rhetoric: everything reduced to individual responsibility. Every man for himself.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1113 hrs
Prince Charles - one fry short of a happy meal.
I don’t need to be lectured by some royal family idiot who probably hasn’t had to worry since day one about what he eats, where his food comes from, and who pays for it.
SHUT THE *F* UP YOU STUPID OLD FOOL!!!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1120 hrs
Well that’s just a more angry way of saying what I just said above: he has no clue how to deal with the problem.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1129 hrs
Why is this a problem that government should solve?
Why is this a problem that government should be grated the power to solve?
Why should anyone tell me what to eat?
As for compulsary labeling, I realize I’m a nut on this, but I’m not even for that. Not listing your health info and ingredients is a reason to not buy something, so I fail to see how the market would fail to take care of the problem. For instance, Frito Lay has taken to adding a sunflower to their chips to advertise the fact that they do not use trans fats.
And Scott, for something like eating where the consequences are entirely internalized to the users, what justification is there to “help” them? I see as much reason to ban bungee jumping (a dangerous activity) at state fairs (unsophisticated clientele) as to legislate eating. The pot guy up above made as good of a point, as did the sex guy.
Eating, screwing, and fun should have nothing to do with politics. The government will just make it worse.
Take ethanol, for example, an allegedly eco-friendly solution. It’s much worse than the problem it purports to solve, and its basically a subsidy to ADM.
If the gov starts putting “Bad For You” signs on stuff, who will be targeted? Bad foods, or bad campaign contributors?
Posted by PaulNoonan on February 28, 2007 at 1136 hrs
Why is this a problem that government should solve?
Maybe it can’t solve it entirely. But it seems very clear to me that the problem isn’t likely to be solved without such collective action. And the actions that I’m proposing aren’t unconstitutional, do not involve banning anything, and does not involve the government preventing you from eating anything you want.
And no, the pot guy doesn’t have a point. I’m all in favor of legalizing it. There is absolutely nothing incompatible there to what I’m saying here.
If the gov starts putting “Bad For You” signs on stuff, who will be targeted? Bad foods, or bad campaign contributors?
And if the government regulates who can sell what drugs, where will it end?? Will they simply approve whatever snake oil their contributors put out there? C’mon. You know as well as I do that at last moderate government regulation is necessary in an otherwise free market - if only to ensure that those market forces are operating within parameters which serve the public interest.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1147 hrs
Scott,
I’m starting to think you don’t even know what freedom means. If government forced Oreo to put a big red X on their package or tweak their recipe to make it healthier, there is a good chance that they would tweak their recipe. Now the problem with this is that I like Oreos how they are. They taste good, so I’d like to eat some of them. I’m a grown up and I care about my health, so I read the label and decide to only going to eat a few now and then. Other people are grownups and they choose to not care about their health so they choose to not read the label or ignore it and eat more than a few. [or alternatively, they choose to not visit the hundreds of websites or read the hundreds of books that tell you the nutritional information you need] But make no mistake, they know the label is there. People should be able to choose to be fat and unhealthy of they want to.And you’re thing about grocery stores today is just shocking to me. You can get healthy meals at grocery stores. Hell, there are stores that specialize in health food! What we have, that our grandparents didn’t, is more CHOICES. This is a GREAT THING.
Also, on average, we’re healthier than our grandparents generation was. Although we have more people that choose to be unhealthy, we also have more people that choose to be healthy. Perhaps the curve is shaped less like a bell, but I’d guess that we’re healthier on average.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1215 hrs
I’m also of the opinion that the FDA has killed far more people than it has saved.
I believe that private action will solve this problem relatively quickly by producing good tasting food that is healthier for you, by creating drugs that limit calorie absorbtion, and, less to my taste, through cultural shunning as with cigarettes.
I rather like this article on the subject by Slate’s Will Saletan:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139941/
This one too:
http://www.slate.com/id/2153568/
It’s knee jerk to rely on a conservation approach (eat less!) when there is no guaranty that it will be the best approach. Often the tech based (and privately created) solution is better.
Posted by PaulNoonan on February 28, 2007 at 1220 hrs
Also, there is a very strong argument that suggests that the requirement that the FDA approves drugs before they go to market costs lives. Lots of lives. The reason is actually quite obvious and has a lot to do with how long the approval process takes.
Imagine you are the FDA dude charged witha approving Drug X, which treats and cure Deadly Illness Y. Deadly Illness Y kills 1000 people a year. It has no other cure. Say your testing reveals that Drug X may cause heart problems down the road in about 5% of people that take it so you order further tests. 5 years later, you finally approve Drug X. In that time, 5000 people have died of Deadly Illness Y. To the FDA, this is fine, because none of those people will sue or raise a stink, afterall, their disease had no cure at the time.
The alternative is that you approve it rigth away and send it to market. 5000 people take it and are saved from Deadly Illness Y. But 5 years later, 250 of the people that took it develop heart problems and some of them die. Guess what? Every one of them is going to sue and raise a stink about the FDA. So because of government regulation, more people would die in this example.
Obviously, this is BS example that I just made up, but if you don’t see the realities of the system and the motivations of the FDA, you may be smoking some non-FDA-approved goofballs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1225 hrs
In that time, 5000 people have died of Deadly Illness Y.
Yeah, but what is the alternative?? We should deregulate the drug industry so that they can market whatever snake oil they want?? Look at the supplement industry to see what that’s like. They’d be selling “cures” for everything, most of which would not work, some of which would be harmful.
The market alone will never provide us safe and effective drugs.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1247 hrs
If government forced Oreo to put a big red X on their package or tweak their recipe to make it healthier, there is a good chance that they would tweak their recipe. Now the problem with this is that I like Oreos how they are.
Okay, let’s unpack this one at a time. The government requiring someone to label their product a certain way is nothing new. The government would not be “forcing” anyone to change their products. So that’s a non-issue. If you like Oreos how they are, chances are so do some other folks. Thus we can assume someone will accommodate that need just based on supply and demand. Remember them?
People should be able to choose to be fat and unhealthy of they want to.
Nothing I’m proposing is preventing this. Nothing.
And yes, we’re probably healthier than our grandparents were. But this undoubtedly has more to do with medical advancements (especially for the very young and the very old), and nothing to do with our nutritional habits.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1253 hrs
Two things:
1. What if real drug companies were allowed to compete directly in the supplement market? Remember, these are intertwined and the supplement market is not exactly “free.”
Perhaps consumers would become more sophisticated about drug use if they did not have big brother deciding everything for them and if Consumer Reports had a magazine on the subject. And let’s not forget that doctors can still give valuable info on drugs. If supplement users asked their doctors about supplements, what would they say?
People will always be suckers for pseudoscientific garbage and there is nothing to be done about that, but most people take their health seriously, and would seek out the correct drug.
Also, drug companies make more money if their drugs actually work. If they don’t, a different company will make it better.
Supplement companies only target suckers. Not everyone is a sucker, Barnum’s law notwithstanding.
2. How good a job is the FDA doing, anyway?
Posted by PaulNoonan on February 28, 2007 at 1256 hrs
The FDAs problems notwithstanding, it’s still ten zillion lightyears better than having no regulation. I’m sorry, the idea that somehow deregulating the drug industry is going to result in better products and better health is absolute madness.
I can see it now. Conservatives say let the unregulated market work! Then when millions of us are on drugs that are unsafe and ineffective, they will turn around and blame the people on them, saying “they’re just irresponsible, not my fault, we don’t want a nanny state.”
You totally fail to understand that people are not experts in medial issues. They have no ability to reliably determine what is effective or safe. None.
Next you’ll want to do away with inspection of meat. I know, you want that too! It makes my head spin. Don’t tell me: if someone sells bad meat, the market forces will correct it!
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1305 hrs
Been to a Sizzler lately?
Posted by PaulNoonan on February 28, 2007 at 1310 hrs
By the way, do you know what actually takes place in a government meat inspection? It’s primarily a SIGHT test. 3 guys looking at processed cuts, deciding whether or not they look funny. Almost no meat undergoes a bacteria test (at least during a government inspection). With all of the technology available the process remains antiquated (largely due to protect jobs, but we’ll save that for a different post). The fear of radiation is finally starting to abate allowing for irradiated meat to come back on the market (finally), but government has held that up for a long while.
My sources on this? No right-wing or libertarian sources. Just Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (Reefer Madness is good too) and Temple Grandin’s Animals in Translation (also quite excellent).
This is another problem with government regulation. It can sometimes confer an appearance of safety when no such conclusion is justified. Nothing matches the rigors of free market competition for destroying failures.
Posted by PaulNoonan on February 28, 2007 at 1321 hrs
Nothing matches the rigors of free market competition for destroying failures.
I would suggest that there are some circles where market forces are totally unable to produce the desire situation unassisted. We would like everyone to have health insurance. We would like everyone to have safe food and clean water. We would like for all our drugs to be safe and effective. We would like for cars to meet a minimum standard of safety. Market forces have totally fail to deliver those things. That is why we have regulation, even if it is imperfect.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1418 hrs
Scott,
When you refer to something as madness, it helps if you can say why you think it’s madness. Maybe even include a little data to support your position. Calling names is not an effective way of arguing. Do I really strike you as mad? Does PaulNoonan? Additionally, your mention of “conservatives” in this post is a little confusing too since you are mostly debating with me and PaulNoonan. As far as I can tell, neither of us are conservatives.As for the alternative in my example? Allowing a drug with a side effect to save 4,750 people that would have died if there were regulation seems like a good alternative. As for the alternative to regulating drugs or food in general, no regulation would be vastly superior to our current levels or more. Perhaps we can leave the decisions about treatments up to the people who are suffering from diseases and their doctors? Alot of what the FDA does isn’t as extreme as my example either. For esample, why can’t I buy contact lenses without a prescription? THey’d be cheaper if I could.
Also, read this:
http://www.fdareview.org/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1439 hrs
Jesus, I’ve written hundreds of words in defense of my position and in opposition to yours. There’s no need to reduce it all to my one use of the word “madness.” Let it just be an exclamation point at the end of the many other thoughtful things i’ve said.
As far as being a conservative, I think you need to take a closer look at your position. Unless I am mistaken, one of American conservatism’s basic tents is that totally free market forces are always better than regulation, and always better than government services. And that is what you are seem to be saying here.
Allowing a drug with a side effect to save 4,750 people that would have died if there were regulation seems like a good alternative.
That sounds pretty good, but here’s the rub: you’re not accounting for the illness and death caused by a drug industry run amok because there’s no regulation any more. Let’s look big picture here. I say we’re better off with it than without it. There wasn’t always government regulation of drugs. Tell us, what was the situation back then? How did market forces result in superior results? I’ll wait while you conjure an answer for that one.
Perhaps we can leave the decisions about treatments up to the people who are suffering from diseases and their doctors?
Inadequate. Patients are obviously unprepared to make any useful judgement as to their prescription drug treatment. And your family doctor is probably not engaged in large-scale human studies to determine safety and effectiveness. You want to know what doctors think? Ask them if they want the drug industry completely deregulated. i’m betting the answer is a resounding “NO F’iNG WAY.”
why can’t I buy contact lenses without a prescription? THey’d be cheaper if I could.
I don’t know. Ask your doctor. Maybe it’s because having lenses made without an examination could damage your vision? Just a guess. If so, that wouldn’t ultimately be a very cheap option after all.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1450 hrs
Whoa whoa whoa Scott, speak for yourself.
“We would like everyone to have health insurance.”
We (meaning ‘’) would like for everyone to high-deductable, catostrophic health insurance, and for people to pay for all other healthcare out of pocket. I would support the government providing some sort of voutchers for poor people that could be spent on health care. If you don’t think the market works for health care issues, look at what has happened to Lasik eye surgery (cost and quality) over the past 10 years versus what has happened to other services covered by insurance over the same time.
“We would like everyone to have safe food and clean water.”
Are you suggesting that companies want to sell you dangerous food in this age of information? Pffft. THAT is crazy.
“We would like all our drugs to be safe and effective”
And available ASAP. People are suffering and you want the FDA to protect some of them from their treatments until it’s too late.
“We would like for cars to meet minimum standards for safety.”
That standard is “as safe as I want it to be.” Again, why, in this age of information, do you think car companies want to make dangerous cars. Haven’t you seen those commercials where car campanies tell you their JD Power safety rating? You know, those commercials work!
The market has made cars safer, not Ralph Nader. The market makes food safer. The market would make health care cheaper and more available if you let it. GOVERNMENT has totally failed in all of the areas you mentioned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1453 hrs
I don’t believe the problems in our health care system are that we have too much health care and that patients need to be better shoppers. Lasik eye surgery is a fascinating example, but I point to the example of entire health care systems all over the world which cover all citizens and operate at less than half the per-captia cost that our does; and I point to the millions of Americans who either can’t get, can’t afford or who chose to gamble with their health insurance, who end up devastated by the consequences; and tot he people who can’t get job training or change careers because of the fear of losing their health benefits. Lasik doesn’t exactly measure up on the other side of that scale.
Your trust in “this age of information” is naive. You’re right in identifying a critical problem in letting market forces determine everything is that people do not have all the information they need to make informed decisions. But it is unreasonable to think that everyone is suddenly an expert in everything simply because the internet exists. I’m afraid we haven’t yet reached that nirvana of information. In fact, the internet is used by liars and charlatans just as well as it is used by reputable sources of information. And people are often ill-equipped to distinguish between them, too!
No, it’s the governments role to have your back on this. Nobody should be allowed to sell a drug or a sausage or a car unless it meets certain standards.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1503 hrs
Okay, I conjured up an answer to your question Scott:
We actually have data on this because the FDA was far less powerful before 1962. So prior to that we had decades of mostly free market. The data suggests that the free-market institutions and the tort system succeeded in keeping unsafe drugs to a minimum. The one major tragedy in that time period involved the drug Elixir Sulfanilamide, which caused 107 deaths.* The victims of Sulfanilamide and other small tragedies prior to 1962 are insignificant compared to the death toll of the post-1962.
How about another example: Europe. You know, those guys whose healthcare system you want? Most countries have their FDA counterparts, but theirs approve drugs faster. As I said before, delays mean dead people. The European agencies took less time to approve new drugs, but such laxness did not produce a scourge of unsafe drugs. Here’s a fun quote: “the probability that a marketed drug will be removed for safety reasons was not appreciably greater in the United Kingdom than in the United States.”** Lighter approval requirements did not lead to any noticeable problem. The government approval process, as a means of assuring safety, is superfluous.
Also, Conservatives like the status quo. I’m a liberal, like Milton Friedman. I like progress. Making markets more free = progress.
*Dale H. Gieringer, “The Safety and Efficacy of New Drug Approval,” Cato Journal, Spring/Summer 1985, pp. 177–201
**11. Kenneth I. Kaitin and Jeffrey S. Brown, “A Drug Lag Update,” Drug Information Journal, 29, 1995, pp. 361–73
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1510 hrs
“In fact, the internet is used by liars and charlatans…”
The government employs and is run by liars and charlatans too. You want them setting standards. I want me setting my standards.
Hey Owen, for some reason I can’t copy and paste from the comments. It may be something wrong on my end, but has anyone else found this problem since you switched templates and stuff?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2007 at 1515 hrs
Most countries have their FDA counterparts, but theirs approve drugs faster. As I said before, delays mean dead people
Fine. Reform away. But I do not want regulation and testing to disappear.
Posted by scott on February 28, 2007 at 1618 hrs
So I guess your theory is that parents today are just not as good as parents were 30 years ago. I don’t believe that for a second.
How’d you get to that conclusion?
You said that you’d like to see more regulations regarding advertising to children.
I think that’s a bogus solution to the problem. PARENTS are the regulation, and that was my point. It has nothing to do with the ability of parents; I believe 99.9% of parents are capable of making well-informed decisions regarding the upbringing of their children.
It’s the notion that parents can’t make these decisions, or are too spineless to tell these kids no - hence the mandated regulations on advertising - that gets me.
If parents say no - and many of them do - then we don’t need to regulate advertising, because children have little (read: no) financial base with which to make purchases. Moms and Dads do the grocery shopping, therefore they select what gets bought. It has nothing to do with me believing parents are less capable now…I think the Nanny state mentality has assumed that (and incorrectly so).
You misread my comments regarding salads at fast food places. I said that they are being offered because the CONSUMER wanted them, and therefore offering them is a good marketing decision (that whole free market thing).
I disagree with you regarding the dissemination of information. In 1962, we knew less about nutrition and health than we do today. Likewise, we have easier access (read: Internet) that makes figuring out nutritional values, etc., easier than it was then. Also, the development of new products, the rise of organic farming, etc. has made a vast difference in nutrition than 45 years ago.
I want the information to be clear and actionable.
In other words, you want to use shame and humiliation to bully companies and consumers into changing their minds on manufacturing/purchasing a product.
I’m with Jesus on this one. I like Oreos the way they are, so do millions of other people.
A nutrition label is hardly “fine print”, and is clear enough to me and others who are able to read the words “Serving Size” and count the product accordingly.
Posted by Amy P. on February 28, 2007 at 1918 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:53 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).