Subscribe via RSS Feed

Scab Cereal

[ 82 ] January 21, 2014 |

Time to avoid Frosted Flakes and Fruit Loops, since Kellogg’s has locked out the workers making the cereal at its Memphis factory and instead bused in scabs through an Ohio unionbusting company.

Bradshaw says the lockout is part of a plan to make Kellogg union-free. “If we win in Memphis, they have to wait until the master contract expires to make these changes,” he said. “If we lose in Memphis, it’s going everywhere.

“Other companies are going to see it. General Mills has already called our international president and said, ‘What are you doing about Kellogg?’ He’s thinking if Kellogg can do it, they can, too.”

The Memphis lockout is only the latest step in a series of increasingly hostile anti-union moves by Kellogg globally. Management recently announced that two union plants in Australia and Canada will close this year, and production will move to non-union facilities.

Kellogg also recently shifted 58 million pounds per year of cereal production from Memphis to Mexico. Bradshaw said workers in Mexico are required to live in a housing compound near the factory and are bused to work. Some have been kidnapped by drug cartels.

In 1996, more than 800 people worked at the Memphis facility. Now it stands just above 200. Much of the work is automated.

Hardly surprising that a giant corporation like Kellogg’s is using capital mobility as a union-busting strategy. Capital mobility and the outsourcing of American jobs has done more than anything to undermine the middle class, making the working class ever more poor, and generate the enormous income inequality of the New Gilded Age.

Share with Sociable

Comments (82)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Shakezula says:

    If someone will just photoshop Loomis’ mental image and distribute it to the striking workers so they can hand out flyers and hold signs with Scab Cereal on them, 80% of the battle will be W-O-N.

  2. ProgressiveLiberal says:

    Yeah maybe you can replace it with more bacon and eggs because I’m sure all the horrific shit that occurs when those are produced is no biggie. Not like i saw the post on the bacon farmers the other day…it is convenient how those pigs just beg to be killed too!

    Seriously…the hypocrisy here knows no bounds.

    Hate to break it to him, but middle class choices have done more damage to middle class interests than “capital mobility.” IE, people are just selfish and don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves and their kids. Good luck getting this to change!

    (In case anyone pleads ignorance as to where their food comes from, youtube exists. Intentional ignorance is not an excuse. And we won’t get into climate change, antibiotic resistant pathogens, mental and physical abuse to the workers, etc, etc, etc.)

    • Bitter Scribe says:

      So…we shouldn’t concern ourselves with anti-union activity because you can eat bacon for breakfast and pigs suffer?

      You’re either a troll or you’re more easily distracted than that dog on “Up.”

      • N__B says:

        “Or”? There is no “or”. “And”…

        My metaphor just broke down.

      • ProgressiveLiberal says:

        Absolutely we should concern ourselves with anti-union activity. AND the horrific shit that goes on with animals.

        Just the other day we were told we were “morally bankrupt” for purchasing clothing that may or may not be made in deplorable conditions. Today we’re being shamed into not eating some cereal, when i can guaranfuckingtee you that the horror to those workers of being replaced by scabs is a hell of a lot less worse than the average american breakfast creation horror – not only to the worker but to the animal and the rest of us as a whole (externalities).

        In honesty, until people agree this shit should be illegal, go ahead and do it all. I don’t think its “morally bankrupt” to do what society agrees is acceptable. Go ahead and eat your cereal AND press for labor rights. See how that works? If you personally feel like you shouldn’t be a part of something, then quit being a part of it. I’m tired of all our hypocritical liberal/progressives telling people to dim the lights when they’re eating their steak dinner or worrying about the plight of which worker gets to torture and chop up an animal. We just sound like clueless hypocrites. And good luck being consistent in modern society! Literally impossible.

        TLDR: Stop telling people what do to because it makes you sound like a clueless hypocrite, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out terrible shit going on and letting people make their own decisions.

        PS. I love every time a liberal criticizes another liberal they’re automatically labeled a “troll.” If I was gonna “troll” anyone i’d pretend to be a clueless libertarian. Or i’d be over at reason. Grow the fuck up.

        • sharculese says:

          If you don’t get why someone would label this sort of petulant hectoring as trolling then I suggest you take an introductory course on Getting Your Point Across right the fuck around now.

      • elm says:

        The connection between treatment of animals and treatment of workers clearly…BIRD!

        • ProgressiveLiberal says:

          Have you seen the mental abuse that these workers suffer? The deplorable conditions?

          I’m glad you’re laughing at low paid labor and what they suffer through each and every day just trying to make a living. Haha real fucking funny.

          Do you think mentally well people urinate on slaughter lines, throw bowling balls at animals, smash young animals into the ground to kill them, kick and punch animals, hold them underwater and beat them with 2 x 4s?

          Do you think its normal to go home from your job suffering from PTSD, anxiety, have a higher rate of domestic violence, drug abuse and alcoholism, etc?

          How about getting kicked and bitten by animals, animal feces in your eyes mouth and nose, etc – working in an industry with THE HIGHEST RATE OF INJURY AND ILLNESS TO WORKERS – over a quarter of them according to the BLS? A serious injury rate 5 times the national average? Do you know how deadly it is to be a commercial fisherman – either first or second every year?

          Why do you think conservatives are trying to ban videotaping in slaughterhouses and anywhere else your meat is made?

          It’s not just the animals that are suffering in slaughterhouses. Even the ones cutting up your grass fed free range what the fuck ever they market to liberals nowadays to help them rationalize.

          So, yeah, keep pretending not to see the link between the treatment of animals and the treatment of workers.

          Anyways, you missed my original point completely, which is that Loomis keeps telling us what we’re morally bankrupt for participating in certain activities (wearing clothes and eating corn flakes and burning oil i guess) but consuming animals just hasn’t made the list (i’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that he is fond of this one so no can do). I’m just trying to get him to understand how absurdly hypocritical he’s being, and that maybe he should stop telling people what to do, and instead just inform them of the terrible shit that’s going on out there and let them make their own choices. Glass houses and all…

          Instead Loomis is worried about who gets to slaughter the pig. At least no union workers are injured when the scabs move in.

    • witless chum says:

      In others words, Chewbacca was a wookie.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Can you replace it with more pancakes?

      • ProgressiveLiberal says:

        You can replace it with whatever you want. Free country and all.

        But not if you’re personally trying to make the world as best a place as possible for workers and animals. You know where eggs and milk/butter come from? It’s not a big secret. You have to be pretending not to know. It’s downright horrific. The workers are abused, the animals are abused, and society pays a price in waste of resources, pollution (including climate change), antibiotic resistant pathogens, diseases (heart, cancer), etc, etc, etc. I can’t think of any other activity that is terrible in every single way that isn’t illegal.

        You want the world to be a better place for workers? Stop telling us who should be abusing the pigs, and start telling us why its bad to abuse the pigs at all.

        PS. Go ahead and defend what michael vick did and what you ate this week at the same time.

        • wjts says:

          You know where eggs and milk/butter come from?

          Flapjack aromas aren’t very homey.
          It’s not comforting, cheery or kind:
          It’s sizzling batter and the unholy stench
          Of MURDER.

  3. witless chum says:

    I only buy it for political reasons anyways, so Kellogs better knock this shit off.

  4. MPAVictoria says:

    Well I can’t do much but what I can do I will. No more Kellog’s products for me until/unless this is settled in a equitable manner. I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.

  5. Bitter Scribe says:

    Regarding the last paragraph: Automation accounts for a lot of job loss in the food processing industry. (Food has traditionally been the last major industrial sector to automate or implement other innovations, for various reasons.) The workers who remain often have jobs that are more physically and mentally intense than they were before automation: One worker has to monitor several lines, diagnosing and responding to problems that can occur at any point.

    Of course, that worker will get a token raise or none at all, while the company pockets the cost (i.e., labor) savings from automation. Yes, they put up the investment, but it’s interesting how nowadays they never even think about sharing the resulting savings with their workers.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      No question on the automation issue. Automation is also a major threat to the middle class, but to even mention that and question the nation’s technological fetisihism makes one the butt of jokes.

      • Shakezula says:

        If someone can’t see the problem with replacing people with machines perhaps Mr. Vonnegut could help.

      • ProgressiveLiberal says:

        Automation is no threat to the middle class.

        Laws that prevent us from sharing in the gains of automation are a threat to the middle class.

        Do you think the middle class is better or worse off now that it is many times more productive than it was hundreds of years ago? Automation = productivity. We don’t need busy work.

        Imagine a world where everything is fully automated. Robots do EVERYTHING, including building more robots. Everyone has everything they need – all the food, shelter, etc, etc, etc, because robots do it all.

        Literally the only way we could fuck this up is if we passed a law saying that the person who created the robots owned a patent on them so we all have to pay that one person as much as they demand or you can’t have the robots do anything for you. And since your labor has no value because a robot can do your job at a lower cost…

        Once you realize this is what we do to ourselves now (asinine laws that protect the rich like “intellectual property” and preventing competition in things like healthcare – but not in auto manufacturing for instance) you’ll realize we could fix the majority of the middle classes “problems” with a few acts of legislation tomorrow.

        • LeeEsq says:

          Automation is not a problem as long as we have a proper system for the distribution of goods. If you combine automation with an improper distribution system, say one based on the idea that goods should cost money and people should get money by working, than you have a problem. A really big, awful, and messy one.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            But we set the rules of the distribution system! It is completely arbitrary! It is all decided by acts of legislation.

            WE decide that the distribution of auto worker wages should be in a market competition with all the world but the distribution of doctor wages should be government limited to 100k new domestic doctors per year. How do you think those two distributions differ when all is said and done?

            WE decide that people get money for working and those that don’t work don’t get money. But WE could decide that everyone gets some money and those who work get some more. WE can decide what percentage of each additional dollar a worker (or capitalist) gets to keep and how much WE should collect to pay for public things or give to others to spend. WE can put arbitrary restrictions on the labor pool for whatever industry WE want to increase or decrease wages.

            This whole argument is silly. Other countries have decided on rules that have virtually ended poverty, and we live in the richest nation on the face of the earth and have beggars in the street. This isn’t a problem of “automation.” This is a problem of a country filled with people who would rather make $10 an hour with 15% unemployment than $20 an hour with virtually no unemployment cause they can’t fathom having to change the name to “the dollar-fifty menu.” Oh, and they’re going to be the next bill gate too. How could i forget.

            • Ronan says:

              “Laws that prevent us from sharing in the gains of automation are a threat to the middle class.”

              This distinction isnt really doing much. Theoretically *nothing* would be a threat to the middle class if it was just a case of ‘passing the correct laws’, but legislation doesnt get designed in a vacuum – its subject to horsetrading by specific interests a lot of which dont really care about the well baing of the middle class.
              So sure theoretically ‘automation would be no threat to anyone if X was true’, but in the real world its probably better to qualify that to ‘automation mightent be a threat if we can do Y’, then spell out what Y is. Not just wish for good outcomes.
              Which is where all the talk about unions comes in, I guess, ‘good’ laws get designed in specific contexts (not utopia)

              “Other countries have decided on rules that have virtually ended poverty,”

              Na, no country has

              • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                Copenhagen has a single foodbank and virtually no poverty. Find a comparable city in the richest country the world has ever known that can claim that.

                The distinction is huge. The distinction is the difference between those who think 98% of the country need to be employed in agriculture because they can’t imagine how there won’t be mass unemployment if we automate agriculture to the point that only 2% of people are employed in it, and those who see how much additional work all those people could be freed up to do, allowing us to have so much more wealth to share with society (again, unless we create dumbass rules of distribution that give a shit ton to a few and scraps to the rest).

                There is always work to be done, until the day that robots do EVERYTHING, and at that point, we’ve won. Everyone has everything at no human cost. Again, unless we screw ourselves with some silly ass rules.

                This isn’t the 19th century anymore, so people need to stop voting like it is. All our problems are created by conservative legislatures and idiots, but i repeat myself.

                • Ronan says:

                  Yeah but Copenhagen isnt a country. And id be sceptical that theyve ‘abolished poverty’.
                  I agree that scandanavian soc dem has a number of positives (and some negatives) but its not the difference btw day and night

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  Yes, they’ve determined that if you make less than 18k for three consecutive years and have less than 18k in assets, then they’re going to consider you poor, and they were able to locate 42k people in a country with a population of 5.59 million leading to a “poverty rate” of seven and a half tenths of one percent.

                  And that is before transfer from the government. Cause a woman with 2 kids only gets $2700 a month in welfare.

                  Meanwhile, they still have a working age employment to population ratio of 73% (OECD – and ours has been stuck at 66.5% since the recession started), free healthcare, free college (including stipend), retirement, $20 minimum wage, paid maternity leave, and a check every quarter if you have kids, whether you’re rich or poor. And a AAA bond rating.

                  Oh, and the happiest people in the world. Like that matters, amirite?

                  If any country has abolished poverty, it’s denmark. Go there and try to find it. Good luck.

                  Did I mention using the line of 20k here in the US, 40% of WORKERS are in poverty? If you use 20k for 3 years in a row or include nonworkers, it’s gonna be over half our population…not seven and a half tenths of one percent.

              • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                Oh, and for the record, I think unions are and will always be important. But if we don’t get near full employment, we’re doing more damage to them than any other policy. People just aren’t going to support their neighbor getting a better job when they’re getting the shaft. Again, selfish country and all.

      • Major Kong says:

        Just wait until we have self driving cars in a very short while. You won’t even be able to get a job driving a cab.

        Then we can put that same technology into trucks and have 3.5 million unemployed truck drivers in a few years.

        Woo hoo!

        • Lee Rudolph says:

          And I’m sure we all look forward to the inevitable “truckdriver music”/techno blends!

        • ProgressiveLiberal says:

          We already do. They’re called “trains” and “buses” and according to all the silly logic here, we should replace all the city buses with cabs so as to create “make work” jobs because the “automation” of transportation is killing the middle class or something.

          Us liberals/progressives are going to have a hard time convincing people to vote for us if our ideas are really this silly. PRODUCTIVITY IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES US RICHER AS A WHOLE, PERIOD. The only question is, how do we capture the gains from productivity? Do we do it piecemeal – a union here and a union there fighting the unemployed scabs – or do we do it in totality – full employment, where scabs will cost more than the workers they’re replacing?

          Again, I have no problem with unions, i encourage them. But if you are for all workers, stop rallying against automation and start worrying about FULL EMPLOYMENT.

        • Shakezula says:

          Look, it is very simple.

          Automation = No Busy Work = Mumble Mumble = FULL EMPLOYMENT.

          And since it will help the middle class, the effects will … flow down to the lower classes.

          I don’t know why you can’t understand this.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            Who says automation = full employment?

            What you’re doing is setting up a straw man based on a non-sequitur. “Because he denies automation leads to unemployment, he must mean that automation leads to full employment.”

            Which is not at all what I said. Instead, gains in productivity don’t have effects on employment levels – aggregate demand does. We’ve had plenty of spurts of “automation” (productivity increases as they’re called) where we’ve had low unemployment and gains in wages – for example, during the 90s when we had a bubble providing enough aggregate demand.

            My point is that government could provide enough demand in the short term to reduce unemployment – you believe in stimulus, yes? And in the long run we need to fill the gap with a reduction in our trade deficit by making the dollar more competitive – which requires a change in government policy.

            Or we could just recommend pluggin holes in the damn with our fingers because its not politically expedient (and/or likely) to do what is actually required.

            Listen, you can be intentionally obtuse or you can learn something. Your choice.

  6. GoDeep says:

    Capital mobility and the outsourcing of American jobs has done more than anything to undermine the middle class, making the working class ever more poor, and generate the enormous income inequality of the New Gilded Age.

    Yep. Time for some ol’ fashioned protectionism.

    • jackrabbitslim says:

      If one of the principle functions of government is to protect its citizens, then what’s wrong with a little protectionism?

      • Ronan says:

        it doesnt protect ‘its citizens’ so much as (perhaps) minimally very specific sectors while hurting (to a greater extent) poorer people elsewhere

        • Ronan says:

          ps has anyone read lane kenworthys book on social democracy in the US ? i havent but am wondering if its any good, also his argument (afaict) is that the US can achieve domestic social democratic goals without negating the good aspects of globalisation

        • MPAVictoria says:

          You know people make this argument all the time Ronan and I never bought it. I would rather pay $15 for a shirt and have the guy making it be paid a decent wage than pay $14.50 and have the shirt made by slaves.

          “I pity the man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth will starve in the process.”

        • Bill Murray says:

          and yet somehow most every major economy became major because of protectionism and most of those countries that fell for the “free” trade bait and switch have done poorly

          http://hajoonchang.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ChangAfDBlecturetext.pdf

          • Ronan says:

            I havent read your link but I read his book (bad samaritans) a number of years ago. I’m not an expert, obviously, but it did recieve a good bit of pushback at the time (though i enjoyed it and am sympathetic to his argument)
            as far as i can remember, his argument was that protectionism helped western countries develop, and so protectionist policies should be used in developing countries to protect domestic industries etc. This doesnt really have much to do with what i was initially responding to, that we should ‘implement protectionist policies’ to protect workers in the west.
            Though id assume that even his scenario for econ development in the south would still need a significant amount of capital mobility btw north and south, and industry in the west would still be unable to compete with those in developing countries. Again im not an economist so i dont know.

            It also relies (i think) on international institutions which are able to guide this development and not end up working in the interests of capital or labour in the west. Afaik international institutions are dominated by national and sectoral interests, so this idea of neutral technocratic institutions doesnt exist – and theres an argument that the interests of western capital are most closely aligned to the interests of labour in the developing world.
            Im not saying this with any deep knowledge just a laymans interest. My laymans interest would say export led growth has been the most successful developmental strategy over the past number of decades. That means protectionism in the rich world would hinder development in the poor.

            • Ronan says:

              theres also evidence that MNC’s can have a positive effect spreading labour rights in poor countries

              http://www.unc.edu/~lmosley/GMP%20APSR%202009.pdf

              although id assume this is contested and can be improved upon

            • Ronan says:

              “You know people make this argument all the time Ronan and I never bought it. I would rather pay $15 for a shirt and have the guy making it be paid a decent wage than pay $14.50 and have the shirt made by slaves.”

              I dont see this as being a morally superior position,having a shirt made by a unionised western worker at the expense of an non unionised worker in a poorer country. By all means campaign to improve the position of the worker in the south, but not at the expense of their job

      • UserGoogol says:

        No, governments are not a country club. The purpose of government is to promote social justice. To favor citizens over non-citizens is what a liberal society simply does not do: all must be treated as equal. The solution is to start shipping good jobs to Bangladesh.

        • UserGoogol says:

          Although that’s not to say that protectionism can’t be the right policy. It has its purposes. But just flat-out saying that a government should protect its citizens and screw the rest just annoys me.

        • Manta says:

          Good jobs are already shipping outside the Western world: problem is that in the process the become bad-horrible jobs.

          And that happens by design: the reason corporations outsource jobs to third word countries is that they can make those jobs as shitty as possible and still find people desperate enough to take them.

    • Rob in CT says:

      You know, I think it might be. Or at least dollar devaluation.

    • Manta says:

      It was time already years ago: at least since Clinton.

  7. louislouis says:

    It’s Froot Loops! Not “Fruit” (unfair to actual fruit)

  8. ProgressiveLiberal says:

    Listen I get that everyone wants to blame the middle classes’ problems on shit like “outsourcing” and “capital mobility” – but a quick glance around the world will show you how ludicrous this is. You don’t see the people of Denmark complaining their clothes (or even cars) aren’t made in Denmark and how outsourcing that is killing them – yet somehow they have lower unemployment, a stronger middle class, less inequality, longer healthier happier lives, and just as much “capital mobility” and “outsourcing” to contend with. We shouldn’t want people here working cotton looms or sewing our own clothes. An american worker is many times more productive than a Bangladeshi worker so let them do that (no problem enforcing standards btw).

    You want to see a solution? Look at North Dakota. Literally somebody (god) buried money (oil) in the ground, and now people are being paid to dig it up! Now, so many people are digging up so much money it is causing inflation (wage increases) for jobs – mcdonalds is paying $15 an hour! And here we liberals are trying to get legislators in cities to do what rural North Dakota has already done!

    The point is we have inadequate demand, and have had inadequate demand in this country for a long time. Most of it is due to having an overvalued dollar (which is a tariff on our exports and a subsidy on imports) – but here and there we have replaced the lack of demand with a bubble or two. To solve this we need to increase aggregate demand – right now by having the government bury money and have others dig it up (or more intelligently, buy useful shit that will improve the country over the long run) until employment is FULL (ND got theirs down to 3%) and inflation increases. Inflation is an increase in middle class WAGES – ie, if the price of a piece of lumber goes from $2 to $4, it’s not because we have to pay the tree $2 more per board, its because we have to pay the guy who chops the tree, the guy who trucks the boards, the guy who rings you up, more $$$, otherwise they’re taking the job down the street that pays more cause they can’t find anyone to work cause no one is unemployed. And all of this $$$ comes out of profits (the 1%…wake up people) which is why THEY HAVE RECORD PROFITS AT A TIME OF RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT – because workers have no bargaining leverage to demand their share of increases in productivity. (In the long run, get the trade deficit down to fill the aggregate demand gap.)

    Seriously, this is all econ 101. The world hasn’t “changed.” Capital has always been mobile. Shit has always been “outsourced.” What we need is a government policy of FULL EMPLOYMENT ALL THE TIME, period.

    You want to improve the standards for workers? FULL EMPLOYMENT. Then they can start making demands as to workplace safety and benefits.

    FULL EMPLOYMENT is a union for all workers. No workers left behind.

    Stop wasting your time fighting the symptoms, time to fight the disease.

    • sharculese says:

      ALL CAPS.

    • Origami Isopod says:

      Literally somebody (god) buried money (oil) in the ground, and now people are being paid to dig it up!

      So you’re defending fracking while pretending to care what factory farming does to the environment.

      • ProgressiveLiberal says:

        That’s not at all what I’m doing. I’m providing an example of economics in action so that everyone can understand. I am not condoning fracking in any way. Pretty obviously I’m against it. Now, if you want people to stop digging up oil or abusing the shit out of animals, we’re going to have to pass laws against it and/or tax it to the point it stops. In the meantime, both will continue, even if i’m against both, and reduce my participation in both.

        Anyways, tell me the difference between digging up oil, and paying people to dig up bottles full of money that other people were paid to bury?

        In one case you trade the oil for money, in the other case you don’t have to trade, you just have the money. In either case people would flood an area of concentrated buried money and drive up rents in that area (so we could prevent that by spreading where we bury the money). The local mcdonalds in either place will be flooded with people who have money and no one would want to work there because they could go dig up money instead – so they’d have to increase their wages to make it worthwhile to get people to serve burgers and fries instead of going out in the field and digging up money.

        OR BETTER YET, don’t waste time burying money. Just have the government procure things that the country needs – better infrastructure, solar panels everywhere, etc. Hell, just mail checks! But if we need a rube goldberg type solution to get everyone on board, bury money.

        You guys are missing the forest for the trees here.

        In an economy with slack in the labor market, no union is going to be driving up wages or securing all kinds of workplace benefits. Too many people are willing to replace them tomorrow (see: Boeing and every other story we hear from Loomis) and those people also care more about themselves than the workers they are undercutting, so they sure as hell aren’t supporting any effort to make some union members life more secure (see: Teachers, we love em, but fuck em). The american middle class is full of some of the most selfish people on earth, and until you start convincing people to work together to elect people who will change the terrible rules we have in place, we’re playing a game we can’t win. It’s like trying to win monopoly when the other guy starts with all the money or winning at poker when you don’t even get dealt cards.

    • BigHank53 says:

      Check out what rents are in the North Dakota oilfields and $15/hr doesn’t look so hot, does it?

  9. wengler says:

    An interesting corollary to the automation discussion is that the labor costs are usually so low in the bottom-of-the-barrel labor countries that it is cheaper to have people do the work that machines in the US have been doing for decades. So free trade is actually a major inhibitor of innovation.

    Frankly, to get the sort of wealth distribution to get the economy back on track we need near total income tax at the top. Over 99 percent above a million I’d wager.

  10. Roger Ailes says:

    Time for generic Toasted Rice cereal with no “K”s in the name, in the giant cellophane bags.

  11. Shakezula says:

    If you’d like to vote with your wallet, Kellogg’s is a lot more than cereal.

    It’s portfolio includes Morningstar Farms, Pringles (fuck) and Keebler.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.