Tuesday, July 19. 2016
Jane Mayer: Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells It AllWhat a shocking article! And yet we all knew it already. It has been there all along in every word Trump mouthed, every grotesque grimace, every vulgar gesture, and the limitless emissions of nasty, mendacious braggadocio and shameless hype. And the utter vacuity.
Schwartz, for all his purported pangs of conscience, is not worthy of sympathy for his part in this lurid lay of lies. He is most Trump-like when he effects remorse for having “made” Trump: No, he took some of Trump’s vile tricks and made them his own, using them to spin a tall tale that would enrich them both. He became a Trump(et). The ghost in the megalomane. It’s no wonder that his confessions are now being channelled by Jane Mayer rather than being told in his own voice. It is indeed his own credibility that he has done in with his self-serving strumpetry. (And yet it’s better that he’s decided to come clean, and now, before the election, rather than after. If (and only if) he is genuinely repenting, his own story has a tinge of tragedy, whereas Trump’s is all heinousness and hubris.)
But at least Schwartz is not running for president of the United States. Surely the most shocking part of all this — and the one that is the most to blame — is this charlatan’s open-eyed, cheering following. Has the US indeed become a Trump nation, ethically and aesthetically blind, oblivious to all this, or an accomplice in it?
Yet the homology with Hungary's Viktor Orban is loud and clear too: the lies, the hype, the manipulation, the philistinism, the megalomania… the psychopathy. And a fair harbinger of what's in store in the U.S. if Trump's tranche of the electorate prevails.
Admiration? For veganism? But it is so simple and easy — not at all what people (including me) imagined. No sacrifice, no hardship — and no reduction whatsoever in gastronomic pleasure: in fact, quite the opposite."...I wish to reiterate my admiration for your veganism..."
I now realize that not only is it true (as we have all heard many times) that our species is neither herbivore nor carnivore but omnivore, but that this consists of two contingent “modes.” When a human consumes animal protein, most alimentary needs are fulfilled, so there is very little need or desire for herbivory. (That’s why it’s hard to get meat-eating kids to eat vegetables.)
But when our metabolism gets the cue to switch to herbivore mode — the cue is the complete absence of animal protein (meat, fish, dairy, eggs) from one's diet — then the taste of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and grains all transforms and becomes incomparably more delicious and satisfying than when one was in carnivore mode.
It is for this reason (and not the opposite, as people imagine: not because vegans can’t find enough tasty things to eat) that many vegans are so obsessed with food, recipes, cooking! It is because everything tastes so good, and such a rich variety of potential gustatory pleasure is opened up by the complete switch to the herbivore mode. For most of my life, while I was still just a vegetarian, still eating dairy and eggs, hence animal protein, I never bothered to cook. It wasn’t worth the effort. Since I became a vegan 6 years ago, my pleasure from and interest in food have grown so much that I have not only taken to cooking things, but I have discovered that I may even have a little talent for it!
And one last thing: The reason I (politely, and appreciatively) decline admiration for being a vegan is not just because it is in reality so trivially easy and rewarding, but out of the belief and hope that in fact I am absolutely no different from the majority of human beings: the majority are decent, and are eating meat only because they mistakenly believe two things to be true that are in fact untrue: that (1) we need to consume animals in order to survive and be healthy and (2) that this can be and is being done in a humane way that does not involve suffering for the animals.
Both (1) and (2) are in fact untrue. And (2), in particular, is untrue in a monstrously horrific way.
So I decline admiration for becoming vegan because I think the only difference between me and the majority — who, like me, would never knowingly cause needless suffering — is merely informational. I (and many others) just happen to have learned already that the animal suffering is (1) indeed needless and (2) indeed suffering, terrible suffering. Hence it is our duty to inform and awaken the rest of the decent majority who are still so tragically misinformed.
Indeed, the fact that the only relevant difference between us and the majority of humanity is informational, and hence remediable, is the only hope of the countless tragic victims of humanity’s greatest crime. (The Holocaust was humanity’s greatest crime against humanity, but our treatment of animals is humanity’s greatest crime tout court.)
If vegans weren't exactly the same as everyone else, it would mean that animals were doomed to eternal, inescapable agony.
Booth, D. A. (1985). Food‐conditioned Eating Preferences and Aversions with Interoceptive Elements: Conditioned Appetites and Satieties. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 443(1), 22-41.
Booth, D. A., & Simson, P. C. (1971). Food preferences acquired by association with variations in amino acid nutrition. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 23(1), 135-145.
Young, P. T. (1957). Psychologic factors regulating the feeding process. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 5, 154-161.
Young, P. T. (1948). Appetite, palatability and feeding habit: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 45(4), 289.
Thursday, July 14. 2016
I have been thinking about morality from a very early age (partly, no doubt, because my parents were survivors of the Holocaust in which much of my family was killed).
I don’t know at what age I began thinking about it, but I do know that I became a vegetarian when I turned 17, and that it was because it was only then that I found out that it was possible; I would have done it much earlier if I had known. I don’t blame myself for not having inquired and found out earlier then, but I do blame myself for not having inquired and found out until almost 50 years later that it was possible to be a vegan too.
I am not a believer in gods or the supernatural (apart from a very brief period when I was very young). I am a naturalist.
And I know that nature (i.e., physical laws and Darwnian evolution) are amoral, i.e., psychopathic. The only criterion is (morally blind) causality. Nothing matters. There is no good or evil, right or wrong. In the biological realm, causality has led to mechanisms that engender survival and reproduction.
In the causal system that has evolved in the earth’s biosphere, at some time, and for some cause as yet unknown but no doubt related to survival and reproduction, sentience evolved. And with sentience, the capacity for pain and pleasure. Organisms feel.
Hence morality, too, evolved only then. Not just with the capacity for feeling, but also with the capacity for empathy (feeling for the feelings of others) — mainly present in organisms toward their young, and especially pronounced in mammals and other K-selected species.
Apart from that, there is no law, either physical or mathematical, that engenders, dictates or adjudicates morality, apart from whatever causal forces that led to the evolution of sentience, and of empathy and altruism, no doubt in the service of survival and reproduction. That also means there is no rational basis for more morality, if “rational” means deduction or justification via reasoning (assuming that reasoning means inferences based on logic and evidence).
Logic can indicate what follows formally from what (from axioms to theorems). Empirical evidence can indicate what is probably the case in the world. But neither of them can engender or dictate morality, because both the object and the subject of morality is feeling (sentience) itself. Without feeling there is no morality.
What do feelings have to say about morality? Only one thing. It is wrong to hurt. From this it follows that it is right to minimize hurt. Nothing follows about pleasure, at least not morally, except where being deprived of pleasure hurts.
The rest is all about determining what minimizes hurt. And that necessarily requires inferences, predictions, hypotheses. If there were a way to know when we have a valid hypothesis about how to minimize hurt, then the rest is just implementation and can perhaps be described as applied negative utility calculations.
But pleasure (other than pain from pleasure-deprivation) has no place at all in the moral equation, any more than mass, momentum or position do.
The only border case is painless euthanasia, and for this I can only propose the ad hoc moral intuition that depriving a sentient organism of its life needlessly is much the same thing as hurting it.
The mission of all animal advocates (indeed of all those who are concerned with right and wrong) should be to minimize pain in sentients. (Nothing to do with pleasure, or maximizing pleasure.)
“Speciesism” is a misnomer, in an effort to liken animal mistreatment to racism. There is some validity to the intuition, but it does not generate a general principle, because if applied to all sentients based on numbers, it could lead to absurd (and immoral) conclusions such as: euthanize all sentients other than the most numerous ones, insects, in order to minimize overall net pain (if we bracket the ecological uncertainty).
So “minimize" hurt needs another constraint, based on conflicts of vital interest: Minimize needless hurt, where “need” refer to vital needs in cases of conflicts of vital interest.
And since humans are the only species that are in the position to conceive or implement moral principles, their own vital interests must take some sort of relative (but not absolute) precedence (otherwise we are again left with the strictly numerical option of euthanasia and insects).
To summarize: By my lights, morality is rational, but it is not based on rationality. It is based on sentience (feelings) and on feelings about the feelings of others: the moral intuition that hurting is wrong. The only feelings that are morally relevant are negative ones: hurt. (We have intuitions about pleasure too, but they are not moral intuitions, except if somehow correlated with pain.)
And I would repeat that if pure selfishness -- obliviousness to the hurting of others in the pursuit of one’s own interests, vital and non-vital — is psychopathic (much the way Darwinian evolution and physical causality are psychopathic), so to is pure selflessness — obliviousness to proximity, consanguinity and collateral damage — in the strictly numerical dispensation of net welfare across sentient organisms (and time) according to formal calculations. (Purely formal calculations are as psychopathic as causality and evolution.)
Transitional Plan: (1) Use the recent amendments according animals the status of "sentient beings with biological imperatives" (as in Quebec) to (2) adopt laws making 24-hour CCTV video/audio recording mandatory everywhere animals are commercially bred, transported, used or slaughtered, (3) mandate the permanent open web-streaming of all the videos to allow crowd-sourcing surveillance to ensure that all existing regulations are complied with. If (as is to be hoped) the widespread awareness of the reality in the videos sensitizes the majority to the fact that the animal industries are intrinsically cruel and need to be scaled down and phased out, then (4) mandate a gradually increasing tax on all animal products and production -- on the consumer, the vendor and the producer, (5) allow a full rebate on the tax for all consumers, vendors and producers who instead buy, sell and produce non-animal alternatives. (6) Any tax surplus should be designated to use for (6a) sanctuaries for animals liberated by the switch to alternatives (i.e., subsidies so they should not be killed) and (6b) any residual should be used to fund research on non-animal alternatives.
Harnad, Stevan (2015) To Close Slaughterhouses We Must Open People's Hearts. HuffPost Impact Canada
Monday, June 20. 2016
Matthieu Ricard débute toujours ses entretiens concernant les animaux avec la question: « S'il vous plaît lever la main si vous êtes en faveur du fait d'infliger la souffrance sans nécessité ». Personne ne lève la main. Ensuite il demande « S'il vous plaît lever la main si vous mangez de la viande ». Beaucoup de mains se lèvent, mais avec beaucoup d'hésitation et de murmurements inquiets.
Comme le dit Dr. Kona-Boun, on cherche à sensibiliser le public concernant deux faits fondamentaux: (1) Manger de la viande n'est pas nécessaire ni à la survie ni à la santé humaine et (2) la quantité de souffrance infligée aux animaux par notre consommation de la viande est indiciblement horrifique.
Les activistes sont motivés par une foi en la décence humaine: Lorsque les citoyens sauront que (1) et (2) sont vrais, il vont certes vouloir cesser de manger de la viande et vont vouloir fermer les abattoirs: Brefs, ils deviendront des activistes aussi.
On ne peut pas faire le changement du jour au lendemain (malgré le fait tragique que ça prolonge les horreurs) sans l'accord de la majorité. D'abord on sensibilise les gens (avec le CCTV dans les abattoirs, diffusé sur Internet), pour que la majorité décente appuie l'adoption d'une taxe progressive (pour le client ainsi que le producteur) sur la viande, remboursée (pour le client et/ou le producteur) s'ils achètent/produisent une alternative non-viande. Toutes les taxes non-remboursées paient les sanctuaires pour les animaux ainsi sauvés.
Sunday, June 12. 2016
There’s nothing to admire in the slogan (or sentiment) “I’m the greatest,” whether from Muhammad Ali or Donald Trump.
Maybe it’s an effective way to pump yourself up for combat if you're a prizefighter, but that calling’s not one to admire either.
Muhammad Ali had at least had the real experience of being the victim of bigotry; his aggressive response — combat and braggadocio — is understandable, even excusable, since no one has written an etiquette book on how to behave politely when you are being systematically discriminated against.
But Trump’s life has been lucre, luck and lechery from the start, and the only thing it has inspired in him is the crudest form of narcissism and demagoguery.
If the American electorate has any sense (and decency) it will award him the crashing defeat he deserves.
And may all his undeserved fortunes fail him while he is still compos mentis to collect the wages of his vicious and vacuous vanity.
Tuesday, June 7. 2016
I sincerely hope that Peter Singer's "The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas about Living Ethically" will do a lot of good by inspiring a lot of people to do a lot of good.
But when I reached this sentence:
"Aaron Moore, an Australian international aid worker and artist, is one of the relatively few Christians who have taken the words of Jesus seriously. On his website, Moore links them to a statement of mine..."I knew I would not be finishing this book. I put it down when I got to:
"Everyone has boundaries. If you find yourself doing something that makes you bitter, it's time to reconsider... Now Julia doesn't scrimp on ice cream because, as she told the class, 'Ice cream is really important to my happiness'."The book has the style of a self-help book, but of course it can hardly be that, since what it is promoting is other-help. I guess it's not for me because what it is recommending already seems very obvious to me. But I was also disappointed to see most of it devoted to helping people, just as most charities are. Of course people need help, and certainly much more help than they are getting. But I'm not sure they need the most help, nor that they need help the most.
There is no misery that animals undergo that humans don't undergo too, whether "natural" or human-inflicted. But most animal misery is human-inflicted, one way or the other. And most humans are not undergoing that misery. Nor is most of human misery deliberately inflicted on people by people; on animals, most of it is. And it's legal to inflict that misery on animals. And most people inflict it, or demand that it be inflicted on their behalf. And most of it is not necessary to human survival or health. (Nor even to human wealth: there are more humane ways to make a living, or even a killing (financial). I also doubt that ice cream, hence bovine agony, is necessary for human happiness.)
I think the most good you could do would be to inspire people to stop causing gratuitous misery. I am not sure how inspiring people to get rich so they can donate most of what they make to charity to reduce mostly human misery is the most good you can do. But Peter Singer did write "Animal Liberation," which has inspired a lot of people to help animals. Maybe there will be some trickle-down from "effective altruism" to animals too. I hope so. I don't pretend to know any more effective solutions. I just wish this book had devoted more than a chapter to the most numerous and wretched victims on the planet -- and to doing the least harm you can do with the money you spend.
Monday, May 30. 2016
more... air… please…
less... air… please…
more... air… please…
less... air… please…
more... air… please…
What was it?
at 30-second intervals?
raise the fan…
lower the fan…
near the end
when it waxed:
What was it?
at home still
my quest (not
lost loved ones’
those brutes who
hurt our kin?
or is it
dread to be
of that fell
No, still not
it's of your
that I wail
more... air… please…
less... air… please…
so in vain
just as then...
Tuesday, May 17. 2016
"I'd love to get your thoughts on whether it's not only the neurobiological components of emotion that are widespread in the animal kingdom, but the subjective experience of emotions — or, conversely, whether aspects of cognition that are unique to humans modulate those components such that our experiences of emotions are likely singular."That’s a rather complicated way of putting it. Let me first try translating your question (which sounds like it comes from the abstract of a peer-reviewed journal article!) into ordinary lay English:
“Is the brain activity and the behavior that accompanies our feelings -- and that we share with many kinds of animals -- evidence enough that they, too, feel? or are human feelings somehow different?”The answer is that there is a kind of mind/matter dualism — the idea that feelings are some sort of “non-material” stuff — lurking behind that kind of question (just as it lurks behind the belief in an immaterial, immortal “soul”).
I think the fact is that the only way we even know that other people feel is because they act much the same way I do when I feel (and so do their brains). That’s the “solution” to the “other-minds problem” ("does anything other than me feel?”): If it’s otherwise indistinguishable from me, then yes, it too feels. (That’s what’s behind Turing’s insight in the Turing Test. And, ironically, it’s the implicit assumption behind all biomedicine, both somatic and psychobiological).
I suppose that in the days of slavery, racists might have asked the same kind of question:
"How do we know that when Africans behave the same way I do when they seem to “feel" something, and so do their brains, that they really are feeling (or feeling what I or any other white person feels)? Maybe there’s something special, something different about white people”s feelings, and that’s what “modulates” their behavior and brain activity so that when it happens in them, it really means they are feeling something, but when it happens in black people it doesn’t?"That link between dualism and racism is a bit shrill. But I think exactly — and I really mean exactly — the same reasoning is behind the notion of human exceptionalism that makes people think that when animals' bodies and brains are doing pretty much the same thing ours are doing, they’re not really feeling: something else is going on.
And note that what is at issue here is not whether other species can think the same esoteric thoughts and harbor the same rarefied sentiments about the mind — “I think therefore I am,” “The quality of mercy is not strained,” “Sic duo faciunt item, non est item” — that we humans do.
That’s more a question about exactly what is being felt, rather than whether.
Let me speak, confidently, for other species here: “We don’t care whether you think we are having the same lofty sentiments you do. But please, don’t doubt that we are feeling. Let Shakespeare, in another racial context, be our voice”:
"I am a “beast." Hath not a beast eyes? Hath not a beast hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a “man" is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?.… If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."Segner, Helmut (2016) Why babies do not feel pain, or: How structure-derived functional interpretations can go wrong Animal Sentience 2016.033Or, as often evoked from Jeremy Bentham from The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780):
nor, "Can they talk?”
but "Can they suffer?”
Wednesday, May 11. 2016
Saturday, May 7. 2016
Les activistes et les sympathisants:
Activists and sympathizers:
Please make a donation, even if small.
SVP faire un don, même si c'est petit.
This documentary by François Primeau is made in the hope
of sensitizing decent human beings
— in Quebec, Canada and the world —
to the unspeakable agony of the victims,
uncountable and defenceless,
of humanity’s most inhumane crime
Ce documentaire de François Primeau est fait dans l'espoir
de sensibiliser les humains décents
— au Québec, au Canada, et au monde —
envers l’agonie indescriptible
des victimes indénombrables et sans défense
du crime le plus inhumain
contre les non humains.
Sunday, April 24. 2016
I do not share Einstein’s view (if that was indeed his view, rather than just a verbal attempt to console someone for bereavement) that "time is an illusion."
I am of course not speaking of physicists’ “real” (objective) time but of our sense of time (a subjective state) — which is of course also related to our sense of bereavement (also a subjective state).
The same observation, but this time made about bereavement, points out the absurdity of calling it an illusion: “The ‘loss' of a loved one is an illusion, because we know from the conservation laws that matter is neither created nor destroyed.” That’s rather like saying “Your pain is an illusion because it is really just the jangling of C-fibres.”
In fact, we just have to go back to what Descartes pointed out to the skeptics with his Cogito: “You can be skeptical (uncertain) about the truth of anything (other than the formal mathematical truths that are proven true on pain of contradiction), even the regularities (laws) of science, the minds of other creatures, the existence of the palpable world, etc. That could all be mistaken. But you cannot be skeptical about the fact that whatever you are feeling while you are feeling it is indeed being felt. (In particular, whilst you are feeling that time is passing, or that a loved one has passed away, it is absurd to say that that feeling is an illusion.)
An illusion is a felt state. It may be wrong about the world — and in that sense an objective error, rather than an “illusion". But it cannot be an illusion that that feeling is indeed being felt (now). That’s the gist of the Cogito.
And after all, is it not feeling rather than objective truth that matters to us? Isn’t that what “mattering” even means? (Someone may reply: "I am a scientist. The only thing that matters to me is objective truth.” That may be (partly) true of that scientist, as a matter of taste. But that too is just a feeling. (And even determined scientists — and mathematicians — have other feelings too, feelings that can get the better of them just as they can with everyone else. And, as you point out, even the objective truths of science have to make themselves palpably — i.e. empirically — felt so that we can come to know them.)
I might add, by way of reply to Stephen Weinberg or any other scientistic wag inclined to overstate his tastes: Anyone who tries to draw the conclusion that agony is a farce is speaking nonsense as surely as if he is saying “P is not P.” (And, yes, this “insight” has to be based on negative feelings; it does not have the same force when stated as “orgasm is a farce,” which is rather closer to the truth…)
Perhaps a milder way of saying what I’ve just said is that scientists are not really being serious when they discount feelings as illusions, even though they feel they are being their most serious when they are doing so. Even nonsense can feel serious (and true)...
P.S. This is not a defence of "analytic metaphysics."
The exigencies (and nuances) of certitude (as opposed to mere truth)
"All this talk about time and subjectivity etc being an illusion is patent bullshit. If I am an illusion, then whose illusion am I? And if time is an illusion, then why am I getting unpleasantly older?"I’d actually say that the (cartesian) “I” in all this is not at all as indubitable as the feeling itself.
Yes, the nature of feeling is that it is felt, and that feeling seems to call for a feeler of the feeling; at least that’s what it feels like.
But we know that there are problems with the notion of continuity of personal (or, for that matter, any) identity; and that the only infallible thing about feeling is what it feels-like right now (not an instant later).
So both time and I are moot. The only sure thing is that THIS feeling is being felt right NOW (and perhaps that what it feels likes that it is being felt by a persistent me)…
Friday, March 4. 2016
Not "one of the worst crimes": the worst, by orders of magnitude. It's true that there is no horror we inflict on animals that we don't also inflict on humans. But if inflicted on humans it is illegal, pursued, and punished, and most people condemn and would never dream of committing or condoning it. Yet when it is inflicted on animals, most people are willing and active accomplices. I choose to believe that it's not because most people are psychopaths but because they don't know the two essential facts -- about (I) the agony of the animals and that (II) the consumption of animals is not necessary for human survival and health. The victims' only hope now is that in our online era of pervasive citizen media, ag-gag laws will be defeated, the truth about the horrors will be transmitted everywhere, and the decent majority will at last outlaw and abolish humanity's worst crime
Je dirais que c'est le pire des crimes humains, pas seulement pour le nombre et l'agonie inimaginables de ses victimes, mais parce que ce n'est même pas considéré un crime.
Il n'existe pas une horreur qu'on inflige aux animaux qu'on n'inflige pas aux humains aussi. Pas une. Mais envers les humains, c'est illégal et la vaste majorité de l'humanité condamne ça et ne le ferait jamais -- tandis qu'envers les animaux la vaste majorité de l'humanité est complice de ce crime indicible.
Je choisis de croire que c'est grâce à l'ignorance, et non pas à la psychopathie que la vaste majorité devient complice de ce pire des crimes: l'ignorance de la non-nécessité de la consommation des animaux et de l'échelle monstrueuse de leurs souffrances.
Il faut que ça soit vrai que la sensibilisation -- à l'aide du pouvoir des outils numériques et réseautés à enregistrer et diffuser les preuves des horreurs -- donneront à ce crime son propre nom, et le rendra enfin illégal, poursuivable et impensable.
C'est le seul espoir pour les victimes.
Friday, February 19. 2016
The frustration of democrats with the Orban depredations in Hungary is understandable, but their fatalism is neither warranted nor helpful.
I’ve looked for a suitable emotional analogy, and the closest recent one that comes to mind is Trump.
His vile, vulgar, vicious antics are outrageous in much the way Orban’s are. Trump has money, Orban has power (and steals money). The styles are different, but the ethics are the same: nil. Both leave decent people dismayed that so many people can not only put up with it but embrace it, for so long.
Both are sad signs about the demography of decency in our times. But their support comes from the tail end of the normal distribution, meaner than the mean. And time’s tail is longer.
Le Pen was upended in France. Let’s see whether Trump gets dumped in the US.
Then comes the turn of Orban and his clan…
Wednesday, February 3. 2016
DOING THE RIGHT THING
This is why people need to be informed that what they are wearing is the body of an innocent victim that has suffered terror, agony and slaughter just to decorate someone's collar. Most people are decent. They simply don't realize the horror; they believe the lie that it's "fake fur." Once they awaken, they will realize not just that, but much more. Till then the torment and terror continue unabated, and Canada Goose keeps counting its receipts.FAIRE CE QUI EST JUSTE
Voilà pourquoi il faut chercher incessamment à informer et à sensibiliser ceux autour de nous. La plupart des gens ne savent pas qu'ils portent le corps d'une vraie victime innocente qui a subi la terreur, l'angoisse et l'abattage impitoyable juste pour décorer leur collier. La plupart des gens sont décents. Ils sont tout simplement dans l’ignorance concernant les horreurs; ils ne se posent pas de questions; ils croient les mensonges que leur racontent les vendeurs et même les etiquettes à l’effet qu’il s’agit de la «fausse fourrure». Une fois réveillés, ils réaliseront non seulement ça, mais beaucoup plus que ça. Jusqu’alors, le tourment et l’agonie persistent sans relâche, et le Canada Goose continue à compter ses quittances.
(Page 1 of 23, totalling 344 entries) » next page
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.