 |
|
|
|||||
The technology industry is in the midst of a skills shortageone that shows no signs of slowing. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that tech jobs will grow at twice the rate of Americas overall workforce, creating hiring shortfalls as organizations struggle to fill critical positions in IT, cybersecurity, and other vital areas. The emergence of AI has only exacerbated the issue, as organizations in nearly every industry are seeking employees who can help them better understand the technology and get the most out of their solutions. Even as AI becomes a part of everyday life, most organizations are still determining how best to utilize itand how to limit the risks it may pose. Interestingly, these challenges mirror another (relatively) recent innovation: the cloud. Before cloud computing became commonplace, businesses with any sort of digital footprint needed to buy rack space or manage their own on-premises servers. That was reasonable for businesses with a high degree of technical expertise, but building and maintaining a climate-controlled server room wasnt realistic for most companies. The advent of cloud computing democratized access to advanced computing capabilitiesand AI is already having a similar impact. As businesses wrestle with managing and securing their AI deployments, they can look to the cloud for lessons and guidance on how similar challenges were tackled in the recent past. The Evolution of Cloud Adoption and Security Consider the cost of on-premises computing. Server rooms are expensive, as are the servers themselves. They also require a substantial degree of technical expertise to maintain, and employees with experience in that area understandably command high compensation. The emergence of platforms like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud changed all that, lowering the barrier to entry for advanced computing capabilities: businesses could eliminate the high initial investment associated with purchasing servers and building server rooms in exchange for a modest (in most cases) operating expense. Perhaps most importantly, it allowed businesses to work with reliable partners to get the most out of their cloud services, rather than relying on difficult-to-come-by in-house expertise. That said, securing the cloud still presents its own challenges. During the early days of the cloud, businesses often made the mistake of assuming that providers would handle any cybersecurity needsa misconception that left them dangerously exposed. Today, the most common rule of thumb is that the provider is responsible for the security of the cloud itself, while the customer is responsible for the security of the data inside it. Essentially, the provider ensures attackers cannot exploit their systems to get to your data, but if poor password management, device security, or other data hygiene practices allow attackers to compromise your accountsthats on you. This delineation has helped businesses better understand where their potential risk factors lie when it comes to cloud security and mitigate them appropriately. Applying Lessons from the Cloud to AI Its not hard to see the parallels between the cloud and AI. Like the cloud, AI has democratized access to resources that were previously difficult to come by for many organizations. The widespread availability of generative AI models like ChatGPT means organizations no longer need to hire costly AI engineers to create, manage, and fine-tune their own models. Instead, they can put an application layer on top of an existing model and deliver a compelling service to their customers at a relatively low cost of ownership. While this still requires a level of technical expertise, the barrier to entry is much lowerand organizations can move forward faster with smaller, more flexible engineering teams. The risks posed by this model mirror those posed by the cloud. When you upload data to the cloud, it is no longer under your direct control. The same is true of third-party AI modelswhen customers (or employees) input data into an AI-powered application, its important to know where the data is going, how it is being stored and protected, and how it is being used. With AI still in its relative infancy, the answers to those questions arent always clearwhich means businesses providing AI functionality need strong AI governance practices in place to establish trust with their customers. For some businesses, that might mean offering customers the ability to opt out of AI features. For others, it might mean putting clear safeguards in place to prevent AI tools from accessing sensitive or confidential information. By demonstrating the ways in which they are limiting AI risk, businesses free their customers to evaluate the benefits of AI. Over time, most businesses migrated to the cloud because the efficiency gains substantially outweighed the perceived risksand a similar pattern is already emerging when it comes to AI. In fact, its happening even more quickly this time. Since AI has use cases across nearly every business unit, the potential ROI is much easier to illustrate. While its true that every customer will have a different risk appetite, the trend is clear: eventually, nearly every business will decide that the rewards significantly outweigh the risks. By establishing strong governance practices and lowering the amount of risk associated with AI, businesses can help their customers reach that point more quickly. Freeing Customers to Embrace AI with Confidence While businesses and their customers are understandably concerned about AI risk, the history of the cloud provides a helpful road map for navigating those risks successfully. The risks associated with AI are not dramatically different from those associated with other technologyand businesses can mitigate them in much the same way. By establishing strong governance practices and implementing clear transparent policies regarding AI and its use, businesses can enable their employees and customers to embrace the potential of AI with confidence.
Category:
E-Commerce
With 100 days back in office, its fair to say that President Trump is leaving his mark. That hasnt necessarily been a positive thing for the media or journalism, however, as the Trump administrations second iteration has been even more hostile to the press than the first, and it has many experts alarmed. Examples are myriad, and include (but arent limited to): Trump banned Associated Press reporters from White House news conferences for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico. Lawsuits have been filed against ABC News and CBS, among others, with some having settled. Trumps Federal Communications Commission has threatened or initiated investigations into broadcasters. The administration reportedly wants to cut funding for NPR and PBS. The administration has tried to shut down Voice of America. And while presidential administrations often spar with members of the mediaRichard Nixon, perhaps most notably, was also hostile to the pressthe Trump administration is taking this hostility to whole new levels, media industry experts argue. What stands out to me is that this is a concerted, multipronged campaign against ethical journalists and the independent press, says Caroline Hendrie, executive director of the Society of Professional Journalists. Were looking at this as a strategy of a death by a thousand cutstake it all together, and were seeing an assault on transparency, accountability, and the publics right to know. The goal, Hendrie says, is fairly simple: Boost Trump’s agenda and slap down any voice that pushes back against it. They want to delegitimize anyone who contradicts his narrative or the narrative of the administration, she says. Using the levers of government to not only influence coverage but also punish news outlets raises “more than red flags,” Hendrie adds. “It’s raising very legitimate alarms that our First Amendment free press rights are in danger in this country.” Part of a broader attack on expertise Gabriel Kahn, professor of professional practice of journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Journalism, says attacks on the press coming from a sitting administration have “never been so blatant or severe, at least over the past 80 years.” However, Kahn says its important to think of the attack on the press as only one part of the issue. You need to see the attacks on journalism and science and higher education as a part of the same piece,” he says. “Its an attack on expertise, on independent thought.” He adds that many news organizations haven’t done themselves any favors in how they’ve responded to the administrations treatment. Specifically, he cites some newspapers reluctance (or refusal) to endorse a presidential candidate during the 2024 election, the reining in of opinion writers, and the censoring of news stories to curry favor with the Trump team. According to Kahn, obeying in advance and kowtowing to the administration, which is also happening at major universities and big law firms, risks doing more harm than good for media outlets. Major corporate journalism interests have chosen the illusion of some sort of short-term relief over the long-term damage theyre doing to their brands,” he says. If theres anything good thats come out of Trumps treatment of the press, Kahn says, it’s that it has highlighted how fragile the free press is. Weve taken so much for granted for so long. [The administration has] demonstrated to the American people how important it is to have a free, independent press.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration has made clear that it doesnt want shoppers to see how much its new tariffs are costing them, based on its forceful reaction to one report yesterday. The dustup started with a relatively sparse story from Punchbowl News, a D.C.-based news outlet mainly focused on political scoops, which reported that Amazon had planned to show how much a product’s price is derived from tariffs next to its total price in website listings. The Trump administration did not exactly respond to the idea of a price transparency label with an even keel. In a press briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon’s purported design update, which had yet to be confirmed, a hostile and political act.” No matter DOGEs supposed interest in transparency, the administration otherwise seems to find it a hostile idea. Following Trump’s chastisement, Amazon denied the claim, stating that while its low-cost Temu competitor Amazon Haul had considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products, the company never considered listing tariff upcharges on its main site, and that such a plan is not going to happen. By jumping to condemn Amazons potential new feature, the White House as good as broadcasted that its worried about companies exposing how much the presidents tariffs are costing consumers, and its prepared to name and shame them to prevent that from happening. But its heavy-handed reaction also points to how, with just a few design tweaks, private companies could play against the administration’s self-inflicted political weak spot to gain consumer trust and influence the public messaging game on tariffs, if they’re brave enough. (Amazon wasn’t, and Trump praised founder Jeff Bezos as having done the right thing following the company’s statement.) The widespread cost of Trump’s tariffs The presidents tariff policies have produced massive ripple effects across the supply chain for many companies that manufacture overseas, and more can be expected. Already, the 145% duty on Chinese-made goods has caused cargo shipments into the U.S. to plummet by as much as 60% since early April, according to one estimate from the supply chain logistics firm Flexport. Since announcing his sweeping tariff plan in early April, Trump has frequently suspended proposed tariffs and issued exemptions on certain goods following lobbying from tech companies like Apple and blowback from Wall Street, demonstrating that his plan is not exactly going off without a hitchand leaving consumers confused about what’s actually getting more expensive. Retail giants including Adidas, Target, and Walmart have warned that prices could go up and shelves will begin to empty if the tariffs continue. Meanwhile, others that rely heavily or solely on Chinese factories have already bumped up their prices, including Amazon, Shein, and Temu, which all use cheap, Chinese-made goods to fuel their business models. Several upmarket brands, like Labucq, Jolie, and Dieux Skin have likewise announced tariff-based price hikes. The tariffs have proven to be a PR and approval ratings disaster for Trump, who on the campaign trail promised voters hed lower everyday costs but instead is culpable for raising them. According to a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, Trump’s approval rating is currently 42%the lowest on record for any newly elected president in more than 50 years. A CBS News/YouGov poll found that 69% of Americans believe Trump is not focusing enough on lowering prices, while 62% believe that he’s spending too much time imposing tariffs. Based on this public reception, it makes sense that Trump’s administration would want tariff-based price increases to remain intangible to American consumers. Amazon backed down, but more brands should show the receipts At the same time, from a consumers perspective, its difficult to keep up with how each company is being hit by the tariffsand what the actual scale of incoming price increases might look like for everyday goods like toilet paper and groceries without direct comparisons at the point of sale. This trade policy decision has had costly consequences, and Amazon’s proposal could have been a simple, user-first solution to show the public the tariff receipts. Major retailers like Target and Walmart could clear up some of the confusion by doing exactly what Amazon has since declined to do: add a label to online listings (and even in-store items) spelling out how much Trumps tariffs have impacted the sale price for consumers. This simple gesture could serve as an effective political tool to shape public perception and shift policy on a key issue. And for brands, it would also communicate to consumers that price transparency matters more than the presidents whims.
Category:
E-Commerce
Nearly every day of President Donald Trumps first 100 days in office, his administration came out with new attacks on the environment. On a single day in March, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to roll back more than two dozen environmental regulations, affecting everything from mercury pollution at coal power plants to fuel efficiency standards for cars. On the same day, it shut down its environmental justice offices and made plans to limit the Clean Water Act. To help make it easier to follow the barrage of rollbacks, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is tracking the actions online. It’s not clear yet what will survive lawsuits and actually stick, though the policy decisions are already having real-world consequences. Here’s a partial look at what’s happened so far. April 28: The Trump administration “released” the scientists who were working on a national report about how climate change affects the United States. The report, required by Congress, has been published every four years since 2000. April 24: Trump issued an executive order to fast-track permits for deep-sea mining, which environmental groups say could cause irreparable harm to marine ecosystems. April 24: The Department of the Interior announced a new “emergency permitting” approach that would fast-track approval for some energy projects from a period of one to two years to just two weeks, skipping most of the standard process of environmental review. (Wind and solar projects don’t qualify for the accelerated process; it’s aimed at fossil fuels.) April 23: The Trump administration eliminated the Office of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, which was responsible for global climate diplomacy. April 22: The Trump administration announced plans to cut hundreds of jobs at the EPAs Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, an office focused on helping communities that have suffered the worst impacts of pollution. April 21: The EPA announced plans to cancel around $40 million in grants aimed at protecting children from toxic chemicals, including pesticides and PFAS (forever chemicals). April 18: The White House announced a list of mining projects for expedited approval, including a copper mine in Arizona that Native American tribes say is on sacred land and could cause environmental damage, including draining scarce water resources. April 18: The Department of the Interior announced a new program to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. April 17: The Department of the Interior announced plans to cut $10 billion for clean energy projects. April 16: The Trump administration proposed a new rule redefining what it means to “harm” wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction, one of the leading causes of extinction, would no longer be considered harm. April 16: The Trump administration took the first steps to roll back former President Joe Biden’s protection of millions of acres of public lands in the West and in Alaska. April 15: The Department of Energy issued a rule to repeal water efficiency standards for showerheads. April 15: The EPA gave the worst-polluting coal power plants exemptions from new limits on toxic pollution, including mercury, which is especially dangerous for children. April 15: The EPA announced plans to get rid of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires major polluters to track and report climate emissions. April 11: The Trump administration announced plans to end climate research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including data used to predict hurricanes. April 9: Trump issued an executive order that aims to erase hundreds of existing environmental and public health rules; this is undoubtedly unconstitutional. April 9: Trump issued an executive order requiring agencies to add expiration dates to energy and environmental regulations. April 9: Trump issued an order that aims to block states from enforcing their own climate laws. April 9: The Trump administration cut nearly $4 million in climate research funding at Princeton University, saying the research promoted exaggerated climate threats and blaming it for increasing climate anxiety. April 8: Trump issued executive orders to boost coal power, including opening up federal land to new mining and potentially forcing some coal plants to stay open when they were planning to close. April 5: The Trump administration reortedly plans to stop states from limiting the use of PFAS (known as forever chemicals) in consumer goods. April 4: The Trump administration canceled the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which gave grants to communities to prepare for floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters. (One example of a project that lost what the administration called wasteful and woke funding: upgrading culverts in DeKalb County, Georgia, to keep roads usable during heavy rain and flooding.) April 3: The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an Emergency Situation Determination that opens up more than 100 million acres of national forests to more logging. April 2: The Trump administration fired all staff members working on the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, which was designed to help families afford heating and cooling. March 20: Trump issued an executive order to increase mining on public land. March 19: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delayed the process of listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. March 19: The Department of Energy granted conditional authorization for the LNG export terminal in Louisiana, which will pollute local communities and dramatically add to climate pollution. March 17: Trump signed a law repealing a fee on oil and gas companies for excess emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The fee would have had the same effect on pollution as taking 8 million gas cars off the road. March 17: The EPA announced plans to gut its science office and lay off more than 1,000 scientists. March 14: The EPA stopped enforcing pollution regulations at energy facilities. March 12: The EPA announced sweeping plans to dismantle more than two dozen air quality and carbon pollution regulations. That included an attack on the endangerment finding,” which makes it possible to regulate climate pollution like CO2 under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it as “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” March 12: The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced plans to revise the definition of waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act, threatening to strip protection from streams, wetlands, and other water sources that supply communities with drinking water and support wildlife. March 12: The EPA announced that it was shutting down its environmental justice offices, which worked on projects like helping rural communities prepare for flooding or install sewage systems. March 10: The EPA announced the cancellation of $1.7 billion in environmental justice grants. March 3: The Trump administration ordered thousands of new EV chargers to be disconnected at federal buildings. March 1: Trump labeled imported wood a national security risk” and issued an executive order to dramatically expand logging in U.S. public forests. February 19: The Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a memo to remove 10 climate-related words and phrases from its documents, including climate resilience and changing climate. February 18: The Trump administration fired hundreds of FEMA workers while disasters were ongoing in states like Kentucky and West Virginia. February 18: The EPA froze access to $20 billion in grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which supported projects like solar farms and EV chargers. (Even after a judge ordered the release of the money, the intended recipients still couldn’t access it.) February 14: The Trump administration fired more than 1,000 National Park Service workers. Workers were later rehired, but the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, is currently looking for ways to make cuts again. February 14: Trump issued an executive order to create a “National Energy Dominance Council” led by fossil fuel allies that excludes wind and solar power. February 6: The Trump administration ordered states to suspend a $5 billion program to build a network of new EV charging stations. January 31: The Trump administration scrubbed climate-related language from government websites. January 31: Trump officials released billions of gallons of water from dams in California, claiming incorrectly that it could have prevented the Los Angeles-area wildfires, and giving California farmers new worries about water shortages. January 28: The EPA dismissed members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board, two groups that offer expertise on air pollution standards. January 28: The Department of Transportation started the process of weakening fuel economy standards. January 21: Trump issued an executive order to end the American Climate Corps, a program that was designed to train thousands of young people to work on jobs like solar installation and wildfire prevention. January 20: Trump issued an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. January 20: Trump revoked executive orders from Biden that protected certain areas of federal water, opening up sensitive habitats to offshore oil and gas drilling. January 20: Trump issued an executive order called “Unleashing America’s Energy” that aims to revive the abandoned Keystone XL pipeline, fast-track fossil fuel development, limit incentives for buying electric vehicles, and roll back efficiency standards for appliances. For the full listand to follow new attacks on the environment from the Trump administrationcheck out NRDC’s tracker.
Category:
E-Commerce
Its been just 100 days since Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term as president, but its already clear that the tenor of this term is much different than his firstand Trump has been carefully curating an image to match. Since taking office on January 20, Trump has taken an aggressive approach to the presidency. On just his first day in office, he signed a whopping 26 executive orders, including several to eliminate federal DEI efforts and one aimed at granting pardons for January 6 rioters. That initial 24 hours proved a harbinger of what was to come. In the following 100 days, Trumps administration has taken a flurry of extreme steps, including slashing 260,000 federal jobs through Elon Musks DOGE; ramping up deportations and the surveillance of immigrants; and unleashing a global trade war through a series of harsh tariffs. For many Americans, it’s been a confusing period of social and economic upheaval. It has been difficult to predict what the President might do next, and how hell respond to backlash. But within these first 100 days, there is one through line thats become clear: Trump is trying to give his public image an overhaul. The first 100 days of his presidency has seen Trump adopt a darker, sterner image that aligns with his no-holds-barred leadership strategy and appeals to his ultraconservative base. One need only look to four new portraits of the President to prove it. An official portrait inspired by a mug shot Portraiture of President Trump has proven to be a fairly transparent window into the way he is branding his second term. The first glimpse at his new strategy came before Trump even officially took office. Days before January 20, the world got a first glimpse at Trumps official inaugural portrait via his administrations chief photographer, Daniel Torok, who posted the image to his X account. In the photo, Trump stares down at the viewer with one eyebrow cocked in a stern, borderline angry expression. A bright artificial light illuminates the center of his face, leaving dark shadows on his profile. The framing comes almost uncomfortably close to his face, giving the unsettling impression that the viewer is standing just inches away. The headshot is a striking departure from past official presidential photos. These portraits, (viewable in the Library of Congresss digital archives) have a few near universal features dating as far back as Nixons presidency. Each past president is framed at a straight angle that cuts off at the mid-chest; the photos are lit with even, neutral lighting, and the subjects are smiling broadly. In an interview with Fast Company back in January, Rhea L. Combs, director of curatorial affairs at Smithsonians National Portrait Gallery, shared that subtle choices like these are generally used by presidents to lend them a friendly, down-to-earth appearance. It’s a precedent that traces all the way back to early depictions of George Washington. In 2017, Trump himself largely followed these conventions. The official portrait from his first term frames Trump at a more traditional, level angle, and hes shown smiling into the camera in an evenly lit room. Next to his 2025 portrait, the difference is like night and dayand the departure is no coincidence. [Image: Fulton County Sheriff’s Office] Through a series of comments on X, Torok confirmed that Trumps new portrait was inspired by the presidents mug shot, taken before Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts in a criminal hush money trial last May. Despite the guilty verdict, Trump went on to use his mug shot as a political tool on the 2024 election campaign trail, including turning it into rally posters, selling pieces of the suit worn in the photo, and even printing the image on a line of mugs and T-shirts. (Merch has long been a major lever of image control for the president.) Torok openly admitted to using the mug shot as inspriation for the official portrait. The portrait felt calculated both to serve as rage bait for Trumps detractors and to bolster his image in the eyes of his conservative following. During his campaign, Trump strongly aligned himself with members of the manosphere, an online community of male influencers like Andrew Tate, Adin Ross, and Logan Paul, who, to varying degrees, tend to glorify the concept of a certain brand of toxic masculinity (often alongside anti-woman rhetoric.) For Trump, the official portrait was the perfect stage to debut a new personal brand that puts this unrepentant machismo front and center. A callout six years too late About two months into his presidency, amidst a war in the Middle East and massive unrest as a result of his new tariffs, Trump took the time to double down on his new image by coming after a portrait that hung in the Colorado State Capitol. The President logged on to Truth Social on March 23 to demand that a portrait of him be removed. The Presidents timing seemed odd, considering that it had been six years since the painting was first displayed. [Photo: Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post/Getty Images] Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before, Trump wrote at the time. He went on to add that he was calling on Colorado Governor Jared Polis to take it down. The portrait, painted by artist Sarah Boardman, depicts a younger Trump in soft lighting, with a rounded jawline and wearing a neutral, almost contented expression. While Trump chalked up his disapproval to finding the portrait unflattering, its difficult to miss how the painting represents a vastly different Trump from the more intimidating version hes presenting with his new official portrait. His direct message to Polis showed that Trump is willing to go out of his way to control how the public views him, even in ways that might seem inconsequential. Walking around looking at images of yourself all day long The Trump administration took the Presidents updated image to another level in April, when it swapped a minimalist portrait of former president Barack Obama in the White Houses East Room for a pop-art painting of President Trump raising his fist after the assassination attempt last year on the campaign trail. Several historians told The New York Times that they were startled by the move, considering that its almost unheard of for a sitting president to place artwork of themselves in the White House (typically art of a former president is added after their term.) [Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images] It just seems tacky, Ted Widmer, a presidential historian at the City University of New York, told the publication. It feels different from our tradition of venerating the distinguished holders of the office from both partiesand going in a new direction of walking around looking at images of yourself all day long. Beyond the peculiar choice to add the portrait in the first place, its contents are also bizarre for a placement in the White House. The painting depicts Trump surrounded by Secret Service, pumping his fist in the air as rivulets of blood run down the side of his facea depiction of a moment which Trump and his campaign used for promotional material. Alongside his inaugural portrait, this choice of White House art was another carefully vetted opportunity for the Trump administration to project his revamped image of strength. Trump 2.0 catches on Its evident that the Trump administration has been carefully curating a darker, more aggressive public presentation of the President in both photos and artwork during these first 100 days of his presidency. One unexpected outcome of this Trump 2.0 rebrand, though, is that some publications seem to be following the administrations artistic lead. View this post on Instagram A post shared by TIME (@time) Last week, Time magazine sat down with the President to discuss the 100 day milestonea reprise of a similar article run by the publication back in 2017, during his first term. Time chose to represent both articles with a close-up headshot of the President, which it posted as a side-by-side carousel on Instagram. While the 2017 photo is relatively warm-toned and brightly lit, the 2025 version is distinctly cooler and darker. Like Trumps new inauguration portrait, Times updated headshot of the President includes deep, prominent shadows on the sides of his face, as well as an almost stormy background. Its an image that feels both foreboding and bleak. Trumps new image appears to be making its way into the public consciousness. And as his term continues, its likely that the Trump administration will continue to develop this sterner version of Trump through new imagery. In the meantime, these four portraits underscore an enduring theme for Trump. To the President, public image is a matter of winners and losers. In his interview with Time, Trump took reporter Eric Cortellessa to the East Wing to view the painting of him thats been installed there, which sits across from another portrait of Obama. 100 to 1, they prefer that, the President said of his portrait. Its incredible.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] next »