top of page
  • Writer's pictureDeric Hollings

Talkin' All That Jazz


Talkin’ jazz


In 1988, hip hop band Stetsasonic released their album In Full Gear which featured the track “Talkin’ All That Jazz.” It was a critique regarding the accusation that hip hop artists were uncreative by presumably sampling the work of other artists without innovating original works of art.


To understand the term “talkin’ all that jazz,” consider what one source offers, “A minced oath is a euphemistic expression formed by deliberately misspelling, mispronouncing, or replacing a part of a profane, blasphemous, or taboo word or phrase to reduce the original term’s objectionable characteristics. An example is ‘gosh’ for ‘God’, or fudge for fuck.”


When a person is talkin’ jazz, the individual is expressing an insincere, exaggerated, or pretentious point. Colloquially, this is referred to as talkin’ bullshit. Thus, Stetsasonic considered certain criticisms of rap to be bullshit.


Lyrics from the first verse of “Talkin’ All That Jazz” include:


Well here’s how it started, heard you on the radio

Talking ‘bout rap, saying all that crap

About how we sample, giving examples

Think we’ll let you get away with that?

You criticize our method of how we make records

You said it wasn’t art, so now we’re gonna rip you apart

Stop, check it out my man

This is the music of a hip hop band

Jazz, well you can call it that

But this jazz retains a new format

Point, where you misjudged us

Speculated, created a fuss

You’ve made the same mistake politicians have

Talkin’ all that jazz


During the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, hip hop was often criticized by politicians and others who maintained differing interpretations of rap music. For instance, consider what the following 1989 source expressed about its concern with rap lyrics:


Public Enemy, the militant black rap group at the center of a controversy last summer after one of its members made antisemitic comments, has provoked more protests from Jewish organizations over the group’s new single. The lyrics, which constitute three of “Welcome to the Terrordome’s” 56 lines, are “Crucifixion ain’t no fiction: so-called chosen, frozen/Apology made to whoever pleases. Still they got me like Jesus” and “Backstab, grab the flag from the back of the lab, told the rab [rabbi]: ‘Get off the rag!”


Although Jewish people may’ve disagreed with the content of Public Enemy’s song, the group’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. Thus, proponents of free expression may label such criticism of rap – even regarding antisemitic lyrics – as little more than the product of people talkin’ jazz. 


Lyrics from the second verse of “Talkin’ All That Jazz” include:


Talk, well I heard talk is cheap

But like beauty, talk is just skin deep

And when you lie and you talk a lot

People tell you to step off a lot

You see, you misunderstood, a sample’s just a tactic

A portion of my method, a tool, in fact it’s

Only of importance when I make it a priority

And what we sample’s loved by the majority

But you[’re] a minority in terms of thought

Narrow minded and poorly taught

About hip hop, playing all the silly games

To erase my music so no one can use it

You step on us and we’ll step on you

Can’t have your cake and eat it too

Talkin’ all that jazz


Stetsasonic remarked of those disliking rap as attempting to deprive everyone else of hip hop music. From a Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) perspective, I recognize irrational belief-inspired behavior such as this as being driven by demandingness.


Illogically and unreasonably, a person may believe, “If I don’t like rap content, this form of music must not exist,” or, “Because I disagree with sociopolitical messages contained within rap music, this form of music ought not to be heard by anyone!”


What happens when one’s inflexible prescription toward life clashes with reality of First Amendment protection? The individual will self-disturb into an unpleasant disposition, because the person essentially violates the is-ought problem.


This principle, proposed by philosopher David Hume, suggests that one cannot derive an ought from an is. Thus, when a person hears antisemitic rap lyrics (is), the individual cannot rationally conclude that such lyrics ought not to exist.


To represent this cognitive function by a method that breaks down the logic and reason underlying calls for censorship, consider the following syllogism:


Hate speech is illegal.

Antisemitic lyrics are hate speech.

Therefore, antisemitic lyrics are illegal.


To understand why these premises are illogical claims, consider that one source states, “There is no legal definition of ‘hate speech’ under U.S. [United States] law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn.”


Thus, what a person considers to be antisemitic hate speech is constitutionally-protected speech within the U.S. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, antisemitic lyrics aren’t illegal. To suggest otherwise constitutes one who is talkin’ all that jazz.


Lyrics from the third verse of “Talkin’ All That Jazz” include:


Lies, that’s when you hide the truth

It’s when you talk more jazz than proof

And when you lie and address something you don’t know

It’s so wack that it’s bound to show

When you lie about me or the band we get angry

Whip out our pen, start writing again

And the things we write are always true

Sucker, get a grip, now we talking ‘bout you

Seems to me that you have a problem

So we can see what we can do to solve them

Think rap is a fad? You must be mad

‘Cause we’re so bad we get respect you never had

Tell the truth, James Brown was old

‘Til Eric and Ra came out with “I Got Soul

Rap brings back old R&B

And if we would not, people could’ve forgot

We wanna make this perfectly clear

We’re talented and strong and have no fear

Of those who choose to judge but lack pizazz

Talkin’ all that jazz


Although Stetsasonic wasn’t referencing critiques related to antisemitic rhymes, I’ve focused on this topic for a reason. In the same way the hip hop band refuted irrational claims concerning their style of rap, I’m rejecting criticism of speech which is considered “hateful.”


Aside from his is-ought problem, one source expresses about Hume:


Hume raises a serious problem with his account of justice. While it is in our interest to have the practice of justice in place, it may not always be in our interest to obey its rules in every case. This is the free rider problem.


The free rider, whom Hume calls the sensible knave, wants to get the benefits that result from having a practice in place without having to always follow its rules. He knows that the only way to obtain the advantages of social cooperation is for the practice of justice to be in place, but he also realizes that a single act of injustice will not significantly damage the practice.


Most people will obey the rules of justice, so if he commits one act of injustice, the institution will not be in any danger of collapsing. Suppose he has the opportunity to commit an act of injustice that will benefit him greatly. Why shouldn’t he? Hume confesses that if the sensible knave expects an answer, he is not sure there is one that will convince him.


I imagine that the seemingly sensible knave champions the justice cause of free speech unless such expression violates one’s moral and ethical beliefs about so-called “hate speech.” Here, “morals” relate to good, bad, etc. and ethics are rules one pledges to live by and which are based on morality.


Hume’s sensible knave may retain the following subjective belief, as represented by a syllogism:


Hate speech is bad.

Antisemitic lyrics are hate speech.

Therefore, antisemitic lyrics are bad.


Antisemitic lyrics are legal within the U.S., so the knave shifts from a legal argument to one of morality. Following from a moral foundation, the knave then introduces an ethical conclusion, “Because antisemitic lyrics are bad, I shouldn’t listen to them.”


Moral and ethical consideration of this sort isn’t a form of talkin’ jazz, because individuals may establish personal dictates for themselves. Doing so is a rational act which, at its primal core, keeps a person alive (e.g., if I want to live, I must eat).


However, when one’s personal dictate is transferred to others in the form of an inflexible mandate, that’s when the act reflects irrationality and may result in self-disturbance. It’s irrational, because not everyone else may share in the knave’s moral and ethical framework.


Although the knave deems antisemitic speech reprehensible, rigidly demanding that others mustn’t engage in this supposed form of “hate speech” is irrational. Therefore, the knave’s hate speech claim is akin to talkin’ jazz.


Lyrics from the fourth verse of “Talkin’ All That Jazz” include:


Now we’re not trying to be a boss to you

We just wanna get across to you

That if you’re talking jazz, the situation is a no-win

You might even get hurt, my friend

Stetsasonic, the hip hop band

And like Sly and the Family Stone, we will stand

Up for the music we live and play

And for the song we sing today

For now, let us set the record straight

And later on we’ll have a forum and a formal debate

But it’s important you remember though

What you reap is what you sow

Talkin’ all that jazz


The phrase “what you reap is what you sow” describes the experience of everything happening as a result of things which one has done in the past. From a psychological perspective, the belief-consequence connection relates to self-disturbance caused by one’s unhelpful assumptions.


However, in the naturalistic world, the action-consequence connection is a direct cause-and-effect association that doesn’t require beliefs in order to manifest. For example, if I place my hand over an open flame (action) I will receive a burn as a result of my behavior (consequence).


Likewise, if a knave promotes justice without following the rules required to maintain equitable or fair administration of law, then the free rider will reap the division of sociopolitical backlash when sowing hypocritical seeds of a rules-for-thee, not-for-me standard. In this regard, talkin’ jazz has consequences.


Free speech on campuses of higher education


When I attended the University of Texas at Austin’s (“UT”) School of Social Work (now “Steve Hicks School of Social Work”) between 2012 and 2014, I experienced challenges to my beliefs regarding free speech. This required a lot of disputing irrational beliefs in order to reduce self-disturbance.


Predominately, I was exposed to prejudicial viewpoints about my U.S. veteran status and on the basis of sex (male) and gender (man). For instance, I was told by radical feminists that as a man I was guilty of sexual abuse of women, because men were perceived to be a monolith.


My dilemma involved my support of free expression though having been non-credibly accused of a crime. Likewise, such speech violated Title IX protection which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.


Upon graduating, I filed a formal complaint with the UT Director of Investigations and Outreach, Office of Institutional Equity. UT personnel investigated the matter and found that evidence I provided was “insufficient to show a violation of the University’s nondiscrimination policy.”


Rather than upsetting myself with unhelpful beliefs about the unequal application of legal policy, I unconditionally accepted that many of those who advocated protection for some classes of U.S. citizens were merely talkin’ all that jazz. Men weren’t protected by Title IX and I accepted that.


One of the Stoic virtues incorporated into REBT relates to justice. Although I experienced injustice during my time at UT, I tolerated and accepted that the just-world phenomenon (belief that the world is just and that people get what they deserve) was irrational.


Nevertheless, as a fallible human being, I experienced some degree of schadenfreude when Senate Bill (SB) 17 went into effect on January 1, 2024. According to one source:


Texas public universities and colleges are prohibited from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices and any units that perform DEI functions, with carve-outs only for registered student groups, data collection, academic instruction and research, guest speakers and student recruitment. Senate Bill 17, which went into effect Jan. 1, also bans the higher education institutions from considering race, sex, color or ethnicity in hiring.


The world isn’t a just place, though justice can occur within it. Therefore, I appreciated that the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, pledged to take additional measures in response to holding accountable universities choosing to disregard SB 17.


Still, I recall the words of my late stepmom who told me, “The same thing’ll make you laugh’ll make you cry.” On one hand, I’m fond of Governor Abbott’s position and actions concerning discriminatory practices masquerading under the guise of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access.


On the other hand, I dislike his stance and behavior regarding free speech on university and college campuses. To better understand this matter, it may be useful to provide context.


According to one source, “Pro-Palestinian encampments and demonstrations have cropped up at dozens of college campuses across the U.S., many turning chaotic as police arrived to disperse crowds and take protesters into custody.”


Although I condemn Hamas’ actions against Israelis from October 7, 2023 (approximately 1,139 people killed), I also denounce the nation of Israel’s response, of which one source reports, “Israeli army has killed 42,510 Palestinians over the course of its 200-day attack, 38,621 of whom were civilians, including 10,091 women and 15,780 children.”


Last week, one source reported, “Hundreds of troopers have marched on the University of Texas at Austin before scuffling with pro-Palestine protesters as demonstrations kicked off at campuses across the country.” To be ideologically consistent, and while I abhor the discrimination I experienced at UT, I disavow Texas’ response to protesters at UT.


Noteworthy, one source states of Governor Abbott’s involvement, “Texas state troopers responded to the protest at the request of Abbott and university officials.” Although UT administrators may bear some responsibility, Abbott ostensibly retains legal accountability.


Regarding his part, Governor Abbott posted on X (formerly Twitter):


Arrests being made right now & will continue until the crowd disperses.


These protesters belong in jail.


Antisemitism will not be tolerated in Texas. Period.


Students joining in hate-filled, antisemitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled.


This is Texas’ Governor calling for the jailing of people exercising the constitutional right to free speech and expressly condemning “antisemitism” as though that’s not constitutionally-protected expression. To my knowledge, there is not a “hate-filled” exception to free speech in the U.S.


Although I don’t behave in such a manner, it’s my understanding that if person X demands, “Death to all Jews,” this is constitutionally-protected speech. However, if person X states, “Hey, everybody, let’s kill that Jewish person right there,” this isn’t a matter of free speech.


Suppose you disagree. Are you willing to remain ideologically consistent? When Israeli officials demand the death to all members of Hamas – apparently unable to separate Palestinian civilians from Hamas members – and declaring them “human animals;” are you in support of such declarations and subsequent behavior?


Even if college protestors were chanting “death to all Jews,” this is arguably protected under symbolic speech and not considered under a true threats interpretation of the First Amendment. If a seemingly sensible knave suggests otherwise, I suspect the individual is talkin’ jazz.


Regarding hypocrisy of the knave, one source reports, “Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the troopers to campus in a stark contrast to his statement in 2019 when he signed a bill protecting First Amendment rights at Texas schools. At the time, Abbott said, ‘Some colleges are banning free speech on college campuses. Well, no more.”


What changed from 2019 to 2024? People protesting Israel’s actions, that’s what. Noteworthy, I challenge beliefs and question behavior for a living. When doing so, I’m not challenging a person, because the individual isn’t one’s beliefs or behavior.


Likewise, challenging beliefs or behavior of a government isn’t as though the populous served by that government is the same as its government’s beliefs or behavior. To be clear, questioning Israel’s actions isn’t synonymous with antisemitism. To suggest otherwise is to talk all that jazz.


I have no shame in admitting that I was once a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I was naïve and bought into the mystique of protecting liberties for all U.S. citizens. When I learned of selective actions regarding the organization, I then canceled my membership.


Nevertheless, just as I’ve remained ideologically consistent with support of free speech for UT protestors – despite my historic disagreement with the university, I now support the ACLU’s position on university and college protests occurring across the nation. Per the ACLU:


We understand that as leaders of your campus communities, it can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate the pressures you face from politicians, donors, and faculty and students alike. You also have legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order.


But as you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution. The ACLU helped establish the right to protest as a central pillar of the First Amendment.


Protecting freedom of speech isn’t applicable only when it is speech with which one agrees. Arguably, speech which is deemed offensive – and even “hateful” – is that which requires protection. Therefore, I side with the ACLU’s position on this matter.


Noteworthy, one source now reports, “The Travis County Attorney’s Office said charges against all 57 people arrested have been dropped due to lack of ‘sufficient probable cause.” Although justice would’ve been for protesters not to have been apprehended in the first place, I’m glad that the outcome for these 57 individuals ultimately resulted in justice.


Now, apply the same standard to the January 6th protestors. If you don’t believe they warrant similar justice, you’ve made the same mistake politicians have, talkin’ all that jazz.




When I was 12-years-old, Stetsasonic dropped the track “Talkin’ All That Jazz” and caused me to think critically (as much as an adolescent is capable of doing). Politicians and others who criticized hip hop music were shortsighted and their pretentious points equated to bullshit.


As I became an adult and later began practicing REBT, I’ve learned how to dispute the jazz people tell themselves, believe about others, and maintain about life. Importantly, I’ve learned to value Hume’s is-ought problem and his concept of a free rider or sensible knave.


Using these conceptions, I’ve examined occurrences of censorship occurring across the U.S. on campuses of higher education. Therefore, I’ve used unconditional acceptance of past injustice regarding my experience with UT in order to go on record on behalf of current UT students.


In particular, I denounce the actions of Governor Abbott ostensibly violating First Amendment protections. On one hand, he rejects DEI – which discriminatorily favors some groups over others – and on the other hand he apparently supports favoring Jewish people over non-Jewish people.


This isn’t justice. It’s not equality either. I’m not entirely certain that it’s even legal. Special protections of this sort, especially when disregarding the supreme law of the land, are hypocritical.


It’s almost as though Governor Abbott knows that the only way to obtain the advantages of social cooperation is for the practice of justice to be in place, but he apparently also realizes that a single act of injustice will not significantly damage the practice. Therefore, the knave ostensibly violates rights of Texas citizens.


One of the Stoic virtues incorporated into REBT concerns justice. Remarkably, justice doesn’t need a qualifier (e.g., social justice) any more than speech does (e.g., hate speech).


Although my advocacy for justice merely relates to writing a poorly written blogpost, I don’t disturb myself about outcomes related to my behavior. I merely do what I subjectively believe is good and right, as I carry on about my business thereafter.


My actions won’t be deemed adequate by some people. One group may claim I’m not doing enough, so I should be out protesting. Yet, another group may say I’m doing too much, so I shouldn’t be blogging about matters which could be perceived as antisemitic.


Because I know there’s no pleasing everyone – and attempting to do so is irrational – I commit to the degree of justice advocacy with which I’m satisfied. If you, too, would like to know how to lead a fulfilled life – despite what others may say about your actions – I remain ready to assist.


If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.


As the world’s foremost old school hip hop REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.


At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!



Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW




Abbott, G. [@GregAbbott_TX]. Arrests being made right now & will continue until the crowd disperses […] [Post]. X. Retrieved from

American Library Association. (n.d.). Hate speech and hate crime. Retrieved from

Channel Zero. (2018, August 1). Welcome to the Terrordome [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from

Cherry, K. (2023, November 25). What is the just-world phenomenon? Verwell Mind. Retrieved from

Eric B. & Rakim. (2018, July 31). I Know You Got Soul [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from

Golden, M. (2024, April 25). National Guard soldiers were not called to address Israel-Hamas war protest at Texas university. The Associated Press. Retrieved from

Harrington, R. (1989, December 29). Public Enemy’s rap record stirs Jewish protests. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

Hilburn, R. (1989, April 2). From the archives: Striking tales of black frustration and pride shake the pop mainstream. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, May 11). Catering to DEIA. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, February 9). Feminism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2024, April 14). Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, December 24). Schadenfreude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Stoicism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from

Karanth, S. (2023, October 9). Israeli Defense Minister announces siege on Gaza to fight ‘human animals.’ The Huffington Post. Retrieved from

Kepner, L. (2024, January 29). What UT lost with SB 17: American-Statesman’s guide to changes due to Texas’ anti-DEI law. Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved from

Morris, W. E. and Brown, C. R. (2023, November 1). David Hume. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

Paul. (2004, October 13). Wack. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from

ReliefWeb. (2024, April 24). 200 days of military attack on Gaza: A horrific death toll amid intl. failure to stop Israel’s genocide of Palestinians [EN/AR]. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Retrieved from

Rodrigues, M. and Torres, A. (2024, April 27). The state of free speech on Texas campuses amid pro-Palestinian protests. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from

Rodriguez Poleo, G. (2024, April 24). UT Texas: Troopers in helmets arrest Palestine protesters including Fox journalist at latest college demo while NYC waits for Columbia University crowd to clear out. Daily Mail. Retrieved from

Romero, A. D. and Cole, D. (2024, April 26). Open letter to college and university presidents on student protests. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from

Saravia, P. and Srivastava, N. (2024, April 1). Gov. Abbott announces plan to ensure stronger SB 17 compliance. The Daily Texan. Retrieved from

Sophie. (2003, March 19). Bad. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from

Tommy Boy. (2018, February 24). Stetsasonic – Talkin’ All That Jazz (Official music video) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from

Treisman, R., Archie, A., Bowman, E., and Macias, M. (2024, April 27). Across the U.S., pro-Palestinian campus protesters risk arrest and suspension. NPR. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). David Hume. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Eric B. & Rakim. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Greg Abbott. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hamas. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). In Full Gear. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). James Brown. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). January 6 United States Capitol attack. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Minced oath. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Public Enemy. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Sly and the Family Stone. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Stetsasonic. Retrieved from

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Title IX. Retrieved from

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page