Wednesday assorted links


4. Seemingly translated by machine - though with Japanese, you really never know, but the text has that certain gloss deriving from the old expression that to really mess things up, it takes a computer.

2. Douthat obviously has a very Catholic-centered view of the world. And as obviously, he could not have these suspicions of non-Catholic Americans without his devotion to that faith.

I'm not sure this essay travels well outside of that bubble. There are a great diversity of views about history and faith in America, many of which do not fall neatly in the "not Catholic, denying The Church as foundation for society" bucket.

It occurs to me also that Douthat did not make much of the fundamentalism versus globalization axis.

if he did he might see his view also as the parochial versus the global?

"I'm not sure this essay travels well outside of that bubble. "

Arguably because the bipolar nature of larger society. Judging from the comments of NYT readers they have no idea where he is coming from (in general), and it surely isn't a Trumpian or even Republican perspective, even if the readers often view it with that lens. It is humorous when the commentators critique the article for its lack of commenting on Republican foreign policy's impact on Christian minorities, when it actually does with the exact same examples.

Well, some self-identified liberals took his them-vs-Catholics at face value and ran with it.

Foolishly, IMO.

I was raised in a conservative evangelical church. I have since left that faith, but Douthat's article was still very understandable for me. Readers without any personal lived experience of evangelical Protestantism or traditionalist Catholicism will likely have a more difficult time with it...

The examples that Ross cites are only given one sentence each in a throwaway paragraph and only a particular kind of Christian (Arab, and only in relation to the earlier Neocon wars). The truth is Christians in the US don't really give much of a damn about Christians in other parts of the world. Republicans weirdly represent this. A big obvious example that Ross does not bring up is the caravans of Central Americans who are 99% Christian, Catholic even. How is the GOP treating this group? Go on Youtube and watch some old Fox News clips and be amazed.. Sri Lankan Christians suffer the same fate for being too brown and too different. Latin America and Africa are Christian majority continents that will form the majority of all Christians in the future but don't expect too much love from the GOP coming their way. To use GOP Christian language, they are shithole countries.

But if the equation of traditional Christianity with privilege has some relevance to the actual Euro-American situation, when applied globally it’s a gross category error. And so the main victims of Western liberalism’s peculiar relationship to its Christian heritage aren’t put-upon traditionalists in the West; they’re Christians like the murdered first communicants in Sri Lanka, or the jailed pastors in China, or the Coptic martyrs of North Africa, or any of the millions of non-Western Christians who live under constant threat of persecution.

Not sure how to unpack this. Who exactly is 'applying' privilege outside the Western world? When a hundred people are killed of Group A by Group B, the typical 'application' that happens from the Western world is rhetorical 'thoughts and prayers'. It's not like the west often goes to bat in the rest of the world on behalf of small groups of anyones. For example, what has 'the West' done about cases of abuse and discrimination against Muslims in India by Hindus? Not much beyond 'thoughts and prayers' at best.

But his column begins not with a call for us to do more in the world on behalf of Christians abused in non-Christian nations or for the abused of any type in all nations....instead he seeks to explain why Christians in the developed world feel persecuted.

Yet this seems just as myopic doesn't it? "Hey Sri Lankan Christians! We here feel your pain in the US. After all, those liberals in California and NY want to make a few Christian cake bakers sell wedding cakes to gay couples so our tears are your tears. Please try not to linger too long the front page of the major news media we like to complain about not paying attention to you so we can get our headlines back up there!"

The alt-right's answer, of course, is equally unhelpful. Harass a woman wearing a headscarf in the US somehow will improve the plight of Christians in Sri Lanka?

Perhaps Conservatives should remember the idea of subsidy. If you want to help Christians in Sri Lanka, really help them then the only effective way to do so would be to move there, learn their community and the larger culture and then advocate. Meanwhile elites pledging to rebuild Notra Dame or Christians listening to rightwing podcasters in middle America are doing nothing for Christians in the developing world and that's probably a good thing as they would probably make their plight worse off if they actually tried.

That snapping Muslim chicks' head scarves thing is another alt-left lie.

Some people did something again.

Latest gift from Ilhan Omar was on the October 1993 Mogadishu fight: "remember thousands of Somalis died" . . . died fighting for warlords who were stealing food from their starving nation.

" . . . The alt-right's answer . . . is equally unhelpful." You mean I'm unhelpful when I say/write, "All Burkha No Brains?"

I can't speak for anyone but me. I'm not trying to be helpful.

Latest gift from Ilhan Omar ...

99% of those who Tweet, Comment, Share etc. anything about Ilhan Omar contribute nothing towards Christians living in majority non-Christian nations around the world. Just keeping that real.

Meanwhile you rationalize terror.

No. He didn’t.

Dick is something wrong with your cerebellum? Your comments are dumber than usual today.

He's not getting any younger

I'm happy to fund a one way ticket for Dick to go anywhere else in the world he feels the need to fight Islamic terrorist is most urgent. I can think of no other gift Sri Lanka would appreciate more than Dick taking up residence there as their know it all adviser on terrorism. Just tell me which flight he'd like to take and we'll all make it happen!

Muslims are already being attacked by Christians in retaliation:

Why doesn't Ross write about that? Christian-Muslim violence is happening but Ross has to make it about Americal Liberals vs American Conservative Christians. Always about Americans. Like staring at their belly buttons.

6. Not just Africa/China.

"Why local journalism is important: Kentucky governor put taxpayer $$ into an aluminum plant owned by one of his backers. Then the 2 KY senators, McConnell+Paul, were 2 of 3 votes needed to overturn sanctions on Deripaska, whose Rusal then invested $200mil in the plant.

Get it?"


The article 3 by Peter Beinart ended up simply beling a ploy to edge in a progressive agenda.. He ended the article with

"The “painful adjustments” that America must make to accommodate China are more painful because the United States government has done so little to cushion Americans from the dislocation caused by China’s economic rise. If Americans who lost their jobs didn’t also lose their health care; if they had access to generous government wage subsidies, retraining programs, and even guaranteed federal jobs; if paying for college didn’t plunge them and their children into debt—then the political incentive to scapegoat Beijing might not be as great. Over the past two decades, American politicians have not proved weak and inert in responding to China’s real and imagined misdeeds. They have proved weak and inert in responding to their own citizens’ needs. The reckoning Washington requires is not with China. It’s with itself."

Is that really "progressive?"

I'd hope it would be a centrist and pragmatic view as well, in retrospect. While trade builds national wealth, we could have done more for the displaced.

But that’s not what he said.

He said a federal job guarantee.

By "he" you mean Beinart?

He dumped kind of a laundry list of responses, but as I say, I think the idea of mitigation is more broadly accepted now.

Dani Rodrik seems to have the support of a broad range of economists as he voices similar concerns.

Sure, international trade economics 101 is that welfare increases overall, even if part of the gain is used to compensate the losers.

But that’s not what he said. He gave a laundry list of policies that he supports regardless of free trade. Including extremist positions that essentially no economists would agree with, such as a federal jobs guarantee.

Right, but I contrast that to a time not that long ago when right-economists were quite bold that 1) free trade was good, 2) that meant zero tariff, 3) wealth would increase, and 4) labor was fungible.

Whether or not you like this guy's whole list, support for parts of it are now more broad, because item 4 wasn't as true as we hoped it would be.

I don’t know what you mean by “right-economists.” Support for free trade is essentially universal among economists and people with two brain cells to rub together.

I also do not know what you mean by “labor is fungible.” If you meant that economists assumed machinists would become coders at google, please give a citation.

You’re also wrong, factually, if the truth still matters among your in-group (I know the truth is irrelevant). Support for a socialist agenda did not rise for machinists, it rose for college educated dilettantes.

Apparently their art history degrees did not guarantee them 100k a year and they are angry about it. So you can dutifully vote for Sanders in the primary.

Cheers, I appreciate Sanders’ honesty.

Whatever. That has nothing to do with me, or the Rodrik piece I cited.

Your comment has nothing to do with the post at this point. And your “citation” has nothing to do with your comment.

If you’d like to give a steelman version of federal job guarantees, then feel free to do so.

I suspect you won’t.

By the way, I should note that Rodrik takes the more modern view that rests more disruption on technological change, rather than outsourcing or immigration.

Then he is 1/3 correct.

This New Development Necessitates Enacting All of My Preferred Policies is like the cliche of cliches in punditry.


What he said.

Exactly, Just look at the specifics of the Green New Deal.

#3, #6: So that is it. Red China is awesome, and we must kowtow before Red Chinese world domination and welcome the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister and perhaps more protracted by the lights of perverted science.

#3 I'll ask you to ask yourself the following question:

"Do you feel that China has more to gain or more to lose by playing fairly on trade around the world now and in the future?"

Your answer to this question will tell you a lot about your current impression of China in general and regarding economic rules.

I'll tell you my answer. 'More to lose'. 100%. From the quality of goods, consumer credit, services, logistics, exchange rate and market sophistication they can't play by the rules and more importantly have no rules to submit for discussion as a replacement that bely transparency or fairness. WTO and Swift were a 'box' for them to check.

But go ahead and ask yourself that same question...


People don't have to buy Chinese goods if they are not satisfied with their quality. All your other complaints sound like complaining that China subsidises its exports, which as a consumer I am very happy about. Free trade is the best way to take advantage of any policy of export subsidies, not to try to protect your own industries. This was and is the mercantile mistake and it has been conclusively disproven time and time again. The only really legitimate reason to worry about China is if they engage in military conflict with the west, which so far they have not done and don't seem at all likely to do so.

"Free trade is the best way to take advantage of any policy of export subsidies, not to try to protect your own industries."

I agree. Make sure you tell that to China - the Protectioneers par-excellence - good and loud.

China is forcing its population to subsidize its exports, but China bringing down an American warplane (& stealing the technology) at the beginning of Bush 43's term and its more recent South China Sea shenanigans are not the acts of a non-aggressive regime. Where is Thiago when you need him?

Exactly. Red China aims for world domination, nothing less.

"China is forcing its population to subsidize its exports"
So what? If they are giving you something for less, you'd be a damn fool to complain. Bush 43 was the idiot that you gladly voted for. Stupid is stupid does.

"Free trade is the best way to take advantage of any policy of export subsidies, not to try to protect your own industries."

Indeed. China in the long run hurts itself and helps us by subsidizing exports.

Look at Trump's fiasco with washing machines. By 'protecting' them, the US gov't has raised $82m in additional tax revenue and saved 1800 jobs. The cost to US consumers is $1.5B and that works out to $800K per job....enough to easily provide every person at the washing machine job college, college for their kids, and health care all round....which I'm certain they can't easily do with the jobs they have now.


Wage subsidies. The policy so obvious it has no constituency.

Along with carbon taxes, payroll tax elimination, nuclear energy subsidies, and government provided catastrophic health insurance coverage.

For a businessman, Trump is remarkably economically illterate.

2. Ross Douthat on Christianity and Notre Dame (NYT).
We mean the EU Cathedral of Mostly Equal Identities, Some Religious, Some Having Ethnic Protection and Diversity. Funded by five tiers of stack holders, organized into triple layer authorization, and the pope cannot vote. The organization run by the chief of spire, Phallicsious Pointus.

6. “Our econometric results show that [African] political leaders’ birth regions receive substantially larger financial flows from China in the years when they hold power compared to what the same region receives at other times.“
Mexican cartels use the same funding method.

2. Wrong Douthat column: this one is about Sri Lanka. His earlier column was about Notre Dame. I commented on this one (at Douthat's column) about the obsession among some Christians with martyrdom (beginning with you know who), an obsession shared with some Muslims. See the last sentence in Douthat's column.

an obsession shared with some Muslims

Who garnish it with suicide bombings.

Listen Arthur, I've been giving you a pass for a while now. I let you change your name and lay low, but if you don't pipe down I'm going to have to come back after you again.

Compare to the outsourced same religion martyrdoms.

Are any religions not keen on popularizing its martyrdom? It doesn't seem as if the Jews like their martyrs any less. (Indeed if any religion were to be all emo avout its martyrs and their persecution.....) Nor Buddhists and Sikhs. Hindus perhaps?

1. Sigh. Solvaldi, even at full retail, is cheaper than lifetime treatment for Hep C with pre-Solvaldi medicines. And they have a direct competitor, Harvoni, which emerged even before patent expiration.

And the way Solvaldi came to market closely resembles the economics of prizes for inventing disease cures. Gilead did not invent the biologic, they paid a billion dollars to acquire it. The inventors did not have to create an FDA approval making machine, and they were rewarded with a large lump s for their efforts.

It's just one example, but it is the salient case. It's a clear demonstration of the market working correctly to bring about miracle cures.

Also, corrections departments who chose to treat the sickest patients with the drug under limited supply almost certainly made a mistake. They should have prioritized the youngest, otherwise healthiest patients, and the ones closest to release. That way lies the prevention of the most suffering.

Given that the US government probably have paid double digit billions for Hep C cures by now, wouldn't it have been rational to outbid Gilead, and give it to everybody (irresponsible, like Pamela Anderson) infected immediately, rather than waiting until the liver failures start raising their ugly heads?

Probably without trials to prove its safety and effectiveness nobody in Government would do this. The bureaucratic calculation would be that there is no upside to the decision maker if proven correct, and lot's of downside if it didn't pan out, so why take the risk? Private companies however can reward for risk taking, so that is why Gilead made this decision, which has turned out pretty well for all concerned.

I don't have a good history of it but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. They probably purchased the 'cure' before it was clear it was a cure. Maybe it only had been tested with a small group of patients, maybe it only appeared promising in a test tube. So it wasn't a sure thing but a gamble. The process is a bit like a talent scout looking at high school players. Sometimes it is a literal slam dunk but often there's an art and science and placing bets. Since many promising molecules still fail despite early signs of optimism, I suspect a gov't program to 'outbid' would start getting a lot of pushback once billions are dropped on molecules that don't pan out.

This is exactly how this industry works.

3. Not exactly Cowen's view. I suppose that clarifies the issue. [Okay, this is a blog, not an academic journal, or even an economic journal, but Beinhart tries to bring reason to an issue, trade with China, and no doubt will be crucified for it by the China hawks.]

Yeah, that was a funny Cowen quote.

3. Beinart is right. China is not some exceptional threat; it is a normal country, with relatively normal policies especially compared to other developing countries, a per capita GDP less than Mexico’s, and a legitimate interest in joining the first world. And we should cheer China on in its development, as adding a billion plus people to the world’s pool of innovators and producers would have enormous benefits for all humanity.

Hawks in the government have a vested interest in manufacturing foreign threats, so as to justify their own prestige and increasing the power they wield over Americans and foreigners alike. If it wasn’t China, it would be someone else—like how they went after Japan in the 1980s despite Japan being an almost pacifist country. We should not listen to them.

Good comment.

A few weeks ago, David Brooks wrote an alarmist column about China where had you switched China for Japan, you would have guessed that he wrote it in 1991 including a call for industrial policy.

#5 was good.

I agree, but I'll need to reread Ryle since I was pretty certain at one time that he was a Behaviorist, plain and simple.

Yes. I have encountered a kind of duality before, trying to learn a tennis serve. The instructor said something like "we do the moves consciously and in time the body learns them." I interpreted this in an evolutionary way, with the final layers of prefrontal cortex (or whatever) riding and somewhat guiding the animal brain, without really understanding it.

Maybe I still prefer that to a more philosophical split. Mosquitos, without a lot of higher capacity, fly just fine.

Or I get out of balance and start to crash my mountain bike, and then just recover. I think each time "wow, my body has some bike handling skills." Not that I know exactly what just happened.

So sure, with your higher functions set your body up to learn, and it will.

#5 - was terrible, on the Japanese marathoner who won (didn't the Kenyans compete in the Boston Marathon this year?), because of the psycho-babble employed. Clearly the only thing going on with Yuki Kawauchi is that he's blessed with slow-muscle genes and VO2 max intake that allows him to excel; note also his brothers excel in marathons. It's not "Zen" meditation or thinking while he's running above and beyond what anybody else does.

Obviously this guy found his sport, but he isn't typical in just listening to his body and finding the optimum training cycle.

To lay a book recommendation on for the Nth time, "Good to Go" by Christie Aschwanden. It is about sports recovery, and therefore performance and potential.

There is a real tendency among athletes at all levels to overtrain. Often the coache is there to say "rest!"

Kawauchi is a Master Agile Ninja,

#2...What part did war between different sects of Christianity have in forming the modern world? Was it resolved? Liberalism led to the fact that Protestants and Catholics can live together peacefully in one polity. Liberalism allows for the fact the some current sects of Christianity can claim supremacy or authority, and, while subject to being mocked or confronted, they are not stripped of rights or killed.

Liberalism led to the fact that Protestants and Catholics can live together peacefully in one polity.

No. Protestants and Catholics living together in one polity and having fish to fry of sufficient import that they had to lay aside their rivalries made it possible for them to live together in one polity. Antedating that, you had governments which were constitutionally non-sectarian, but referring to Roger Williams or Wm. Penn as 'liberals' is anachronistic.

The one place you've had sectarian warfare is in Ulster, not because 'liberalism' was not diffused there, but because confession delineated national and historical loyalties.

The Irish War of Independence was from 1916-1921. Northern Ireland is an outcome of that war. They'd been living together for three hundred years having fish to fry without putting aside their differences.

"A strong advocate for persecution of the Protestants was Louis XIV's pious second wife Madame de Maintenon, who urged Louis to revoke Henry IV's edict.
The revocation of the Edict of Nantes brought France into line with virtually every other European country of the period (with the brief exception of England, Scotland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), where only the majority state religion was legally tolerated. The experiment of religious tolerance in Europe was effectively ended for the time being."

At this point, two hundred years of frying fish. I'm not even quite sure what you mean.

I missed where they actually made the argument for biologics being natural monopolies. What are the infrastructure costs (or other fixed costs) and other barriers to entry?

#3 Beinart: China therefore erects tariffs to protect industries it hopes will help it make that leap. So did the United States when it was industrializing. “Give us a protective tariff,” declared Abraham Lincoln in 1844, “and we will have the greatest nation on Earth.”

What's disingenuous about this comment is that the United States did not insist, or expect, that Great Britain allow them a "protective tariff" while also allowing them tariff free access to the British market.

This would have been rejected out of hand, and that's before we consider the a "what if" scenario where the United States were an authoritarian one party dictatorship.

When the US, or Great Britain erected tariffs, this was with the knowledge that they would be restricted to buying and selling within their own market. The US was free to impose tariffs and mature industrial competitors were free to impose their own in response.

Only China and "developmental economists" seem to believe in this bizarre situation in which an asymmetry of a protective tariff and free access to the US market is somehow a "right" of less developed economies to allow them to converge with the United States (a geopolitical stupidity while China is anything like it currently is).

For the rest of us, they have a right to protective tariffs, and we have the right to exclude them when they try to impose them.

Another claim is that China cheats on patents less than Brazil and so it's OK... Obviously pretty lame (they don't cheat because they're no worse than small country x?).

He also claims that, even if China is behaving as it is said, Trump is bad because he's not building multilateral efforts against them, which is maybe true or maybe not, but a clear goal post shift. Other points are in a similar vein ("We can't have a Cold War against China, because think of how Chinese students *could* end up having their liberties reduced!").

A good illustration of the weakness of the pro-China case.

+1, I also found his argument chock full of logical holes.

I'm going to add this link to the pile:

That's an awful article.

"For the first time in a century, there are no great conservative publications. There are plenty of voices willing to “debate” their ideological foes ... But rarely in good faith. And to what end?"

And then the author spends several thousand words on a bad faith article. It seems if you want to criticize the Right for not debating in good faith, then you should debate in good faith.

The core thesis of the article seems to be that conservatives rail against "“wrongthink” and “political correctness” and "wokeness" . No where does the author actually make a logical case for why conservatives are incorrect. He just spends a lot of words ridiculing them.

I like to think there’s an alternate universe where Scott Alexander has the right/job to mark up every article, noting its logical fallacies and then writing both a steelman version and rebuttal of the author’s argument below.

Or at least a world where by popular demand he’s the editor of the New York Times or MSNBC.

That;s not the core thesis of the article. The author goes to some length to explain that "woke" was originally an ironic term among blacks, making fun of the same ideas that conservatives make fun of, before it was appropriated as a serious term by white liberals. Thus the use of "woke" COULD have been an opportunity for an interesting meeting of minds between black progressives and white conservatives, but instead conservatives choose to focus their energies on the same old culture war bullshit.

And this:
Through the watchwords and dysfunction, so many arguments about “wrongthink” and “bad faith” reveal themselves to be arguments about personal valor. These quarrels inform only the right’s language of grievance, persecution, and self-pity.

Untrue? In the current incarnation of the right, conservatives spend a lot of time complaining about how victimized they are, how unfair the media is, and yet when confronted with actual debate, they retreat skittishly to echo chambers where they are praised as hero for speaking to truth to power. Except they aren't speaking any truth to power because they don't actually engage with their opponents responses to them. They instead condemn any negative response as a form of censorship, expect to be treated with kid gloves, and get all aggrieved when challenged in any but the most delicate terms.

Leave aside that the use of "woke" in a completely sincere way is common (lots of the people who use it are *really* dumb and grandiose and wouldn't be able to conceive using it ironically) or the dubious account of its ironic origins, internet culture is sheathed in constant irony, even about beliefs which are sincerely held. You can also see this with the irony choked alt-right. (Which I'd add, no one takes as a sign of their openness to suasion, if the left were just a little more sensible).

When left wingers use 'woke' they're signalling that they are self aware to others in their tribe, not trying to hint that they don't really believe in the stew of post colonial, feminist, communist, liberationist, etc gibberish which they profess, and would really be up to persuaded by the right wing. You're misreading the social dynamics really badly here.

On "whiny Conservatives", you might be more persuasive on the topic if you ever engaged with the left or wider mainstream of journalism on twitter and argued the case with them, rather than handbag clutching on here about the right wing.

As it is, I respect rather more the view of others who actually engage with the left on twitter and social media and within wider journalism and then report receiving some combination of harassment and trolling online and misrepresentation in print.

If there was any insight in that piece, I must have missed it. Please tell us why that article is interesting.

I thought it was a pretty dead-on accurate description of what's wrong with intellectual discourse on the right at the moment. These days, all you hear on the right is this grievance mongering about how persecuted they are, how they're oppressed by political correctness. And yet, the form of this "oppression" is basically other people's speech. They don't like that people call them racist (free speech), or protest outside their events (free speech). it's all very evasive - they're not actually engaging on substance but just crying foul that people are being mean to them. Say offensive thing, get a bunch of angry responses, and then cry that you're being silenced, repeat.

Tyler, why do you give time to Ross, an utterly horrible journalist who would have done "gangbusters" in the 18th century and who is in the realm of Charles Pierce from Esquire-a complete and incorrigible hack that is painful to read? Tyler, you are a great writer, Ross is not-it is that simple.

#2 Mr Douthat charges on two strawmen, well one straw-woman to be precise. Ben Sixmith and Serene Jones are not French. Mr. Douthat has the right to believe that the French will care to listen to the opinions of Sixmith and Jones. The reality is that he takes seriously the opinion of two nobodies about a cindered cathedral to create controversy.

The ironic part about Christianofobia is how he attacks the Protestants. Christians don't need to worry about Islamic enemies when there's a rabid Catholic at home.

4: innovative thinking, to vacuum up the fire and the burning materials but I don't see how it works when the burning materials are parts of the spaceship itself -- wires and batteries and whatever else -- that are too heavy or too large to vacuum or are strongly attached to (or are part of) the hull of the spacecraft.

If an astronaut lights a steak on fire, fine vacuum it up (instant sous vide cooking packaging even). But if the spacecraft's instrument panel is aflame, how could this vacuum idea work?

5: Tyler could've better described this article as applying philosophy to athletic training. The thoughts are interesting, but as a couple of other commenters have said, this could all be a bunch of mumbo-jumbo with no real basis nor useful application.

5. Sports that are interactive or require rapid and technical movements absolutely require training strokes, swings, footwork etc. to be nearly automatic in their execution. At most you can make a few adjustments during competition, but those will still build on a base "program" that can be relied upon without conscious attention. The best competitors are thinking tactically, and generally just assume the body action will occur properly. Start focusing too much on technique and you are done.

There's a similar affect in video games. A new player has to think about which buttons to press, how to hold the controller, etc. An experienced gamer just does it--they've put enough time in that they know where everything is supposed to be.

Walking also follows this same pattern. We tend to think of walking as automatic, but if you watch a kid learn to walk you see it's not. They have to think carefully about how to move each joint as they walk. Balance, the order of operations, etc. all require conscious effort on the part of the child. By the time you've been doing it for a few decades, you no longer need to think about it; it's so automatic that your body does it without involving the brain itself (try leaning your shoulders back as far as you can while standing and see what your feet do).

It's called "muscle memory", and has been known for a long, long time.

Comments for this post are closed