tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post113416749020349220..comments2024-03-28T07:58:16.979-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Idealism vs. Pragmatism: The false dichotomyDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135630008312862512005-12-26T12:46:00.000-08:002005-12-26T12:46:00.000-08:00The most important point of the post, the one I be...The most important point of the post, the one I believe got lost in the quagmire of religous and political digression I just valiantly plowed through, was the idea of "I might be wrong." Only a few of you perform that act of submission before setting forth on your political crusade. Granted, diluting one's own argument with the probability that every individual is subjective and fallible blunts one's righteousness and generally causes one's cause, as it were, to remain in the purgatory of committee. Idealism is the fuel that can get you there, but pragmatism provides an actual destination. <BR/><BR/>I get the vibe that many of those who post here are coming from either a sociolgical or computer science perspective. I come from an environmental one. Perhaps it is simplistic of me to abandon the throretical debate, but I believe the best way to understand a concept is to apply it directly to what you know (the main reason I read Mr. Brin's novels so insatiably.) I grew up with the 90's pop-culture notion that polluters are evil (as in my favorite cheesy Saturday morning cartoons--Captain Planet and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:) ) The players in pop-culture are clearly delineated as evil/good, dark side of the Force/light side, Republican/Democrat, conservative/ liberal. However, as you grow up, you realize that most "polluters" are like the woman I babysat for when I was twelve--normal, rather nice working people who would rather throw out a recyclable plastic jar than find a better way to rinse out the peanut butter (because they think they have better uses for their time--such as raising their children.) Idealistically, I would condemn this lazy, consumerisitic sow to the ever-filling landfill hell of her own making. However, I got my tree-hugging tendencies from my grandfather's flea market example of letting nothing go to waste--what I consider to be pragmatism at its finest--not the quasi-religous fervor of Greenpeace and all the other organizations that influenced my particular generation of environmentalists. <BR/><BR/>I do not believe my anecdote is an extraordinary one--substitute any cause and this is anyone's evolution from teen thought to adult thought. Delineate good and evil as you will, and we all have our shades, but someday you have to stop debating and start DOING.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, since strawman was brought up, may I point out that when I read my newspaper's readers page, religion stands out as the number one culprit. I understand that it shapes how people see things, BUT I cannot count how many discourses I have read that devolve from reasonable and relevant to whackjob just as they had me nodding in agreement. "Yes, David Brin, there is a God" has no place in a debate because it cannot be proven for or against so believe what you will and stop witnessing to the rest of us. <BR/><BR/>And for the number-two culprit: this obsession with labeling EVERYTHING with multi-adjectival strings of words that are as exact as can be in description but are then forever shortened to a string of alphabet-soup. (e.g. pragmatic principled populism/PPP) Then what do we argue about, hmmmm? Whether whatever is ABC or more correctly XYZ. Or whether you can really label labels. What a distraction.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for getting me thinking, for what it's worth in prose:PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135334518127431092005-12-23T02:41:00.000-08:002005-12-23T02:41:00.000-08:00The discussion of selfishness v. society reminds m...The discussion of selfishness v. society reminds me of a conversation from the cut-scene at the end of the video game <I>Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas</I>, when the various protagonists are standing over the fallen body of corupt cop Frank Tenpenny. Someone asks what became of former gang kingpin Big Smoke, to which CJ (the main character) responds that Big Smoke is no more.<BR/><BR/>CJ's sister, Kendl, seeing CJ's unhappiness at the loss of someone he once counted as a friend, tells him, "That [n-word edited] was always alone, always out for Self!"<BR/><BR/>The Truth, an aged hippie, replies, "That's the surest path to Hell, man. Well, that or two ounces of mescaline and fifteen tabs of acid."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134912082882334902005-12-18T05:21:00.000-08:002005-12-18T05:21:00.000-08:00What Michael Ruschena said.How anyone can still be...What Michael Ruschena said.<BR/><BR/>How anyone can still believe there's a political "solution" to anything is beyond me.jomamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059960615448444452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134757305655664232005-12-16T10:21:00.000-08:002005-12-16T10:21:00.000-08:00@ michael vasserI didn't mean to imply that US poo...@ michael vasser<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to imply that US poor have it easy, and it has gotten significantly more difficult in recent years. But these are problems of being healthy and, as you said, raising a family with more opportunity. It is significantly different from many of the world's poor who worry about surviving. It is bad in both places but in different ways. And yes, I fear that we are heading to a highly stratified society with poor in the US that are as bad off as anywhere.<BR/><BR/>[irony on] Gotta fund those tax cuts somehow! [irony off]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134746186952289742005-12-16T07:16:00.000-08:002005-12-16T07:16:00.000-08:00Oh, and Steve and Rob...If you are serious about g...Oh, and Steve and Rob...<BR/>If you are serious about going to heaven, but don't think that tithing and church will get you there, and if you're looking for a heaven that will admit everyone, consider tithing here<BR/>www.singinst.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134746098264281992005-12-16T07:14:00.000-08:002005-12-16T07:14:00.000-08:00Steve; America's poor have lots of material goods ...Steve; America's poor have lots of material goods compared to the poor of other countries, but when it comes to economic opportunity, time with their families, and general security they are squarely among the middle income nations. In terms of the ability to raise a family and make sure that their children will have economic opportunities at least as good as their own, I'm not sure they are even at that level. <BR/><BR/>Almost 30% of our households are below the $18,000 income that is the official poverty line for a family of four. That's rich by global standards, but in most countries it's also more than the mortgage cost for a median house. while in the US it's less than the median mortgage cost. That's right. 30% of US households have pre-tax incomes less than the cost of a median mortgage! <BR/><BR/>In terms of the quantity of necessity goods they can purchase with an hour's labor, America's poor are much worse off than those in the better developing nations, such as Costa Rica. How long till we cross China?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134744275300914702005-12-16T06:44:00.000-08:002005-12-16T06:44:00.000-08:00As an Aussie, I'm all for team sports. Great chara...As an Aussie, I'm all for team sports. Great character building and gives that destructive us versus them biz a wizz in a healthy controlled environment. Teaches discipline and responsibility, and the necessity of occasionally suppressing your own ego for a greater good. And all without any restrictive ideological nonsense. (We use artificially contrived rules instead). Aussies make team sports of everything by the way - ever noticed how our tennis players always excel at doubles?reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134707822850928852005-12-15T20:37:00.000-08:002005-12-15T20:37:00.000-08:00Rob,Maybe. I'd like to see data on how well the E...Rob,<BR/><BR/>Maybe. I'd like to see data on how well the Evangelicals do correlated with a prosperity measure.<BR/><BR/>I agree that prosperity gives us the luxury and time to appreciate others outside our genetic circle. I'd like to think that, even with a fairly humdrum economy, we would be far along that path (Americans' definition of "poor" and "prosperity" should cause us to hang our heads in shame when we consider the lot of most in this world). It could be that the non-tolerant religious are the ones that make the most noise and are therefore the ones that get heard (though that tends to be a feedback loop).<BR/><BR/>But I also note in most people, religious and not, that there seems to be a huge urge to be part of something exclusive (excluding others), whether it is a sports team, a club, a religion, or whatever. To be amongst the Chosen Few, even for something as silly as a supporter of a football team, seems to be a powerful elixir, and possibly addictive (see Dr. Brin's open letter on that!). I think the appeal of Preacher A is related to more than prosperity, but I could be wrong! I have to admit that even when I was an altar boy I didn't get the point of religion. Lacking the gene or something I guess.<BR/><BR/>Postulating a Heaven, I would think that attaining it would be more complex than showing up for Church and tithing/donating to it. But that is my own human idea of what would make sense. And humans have looked at all of our Holy Books and found evidence for pretty much whatever they were looking for, so who knows? Maybe it is that simple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134695356496141282005-12-15T17:09:00.000-08:002005-12-15T17:09:00.000-08:00"The "We are the chosen ones and only we are going..."The "We are the chosen ones and only we are going to be rewarded. Now pass the collection plate," or "Our way is just one of many of getting to Heaven, just being a good person is enough. Now pass the collection plate."[?]"<BR/><BR/>I think the latter succeeds where there is prosperity, and the former where there is not. My own ideas don't even lie on that spectrum, since "getting to heaven" is a more complex thing IMO.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134691221019025152005-12-15T16:00:00.000-08:002005-12-15T16:00:00.000-08:00Back to dichotomies...Here is some grist for the m...Back to dichotomies...<BR/><BR/>Here is some grist for the mill...in statistics we need to consider the level of data, but also the "true" source.<BR/><BR/>I can have dichotomous data that is truly dichotomous (there are only two possible categories: on/off, cracked/not cracked) or dichotomous that is underlying continuous (example: pass/fail based on some continuous measure like temperature). Sometimes we need to treat these types of data very differently analytically.<BR/><BR/>So idealism and pragmatism is a dichotomy, but underlying continuous. And, if Dr. Brin is right, missing an additional dimension to be of any use.<BR/><BR/>Steve "StatBoy"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134687845777434192005-12-15T15:04:00.000-08:002005-12-15T15:04:00.000-08:00No Nicq, none of them really were, not even Gandhi...No Nicq, none of them really were, not even Gandhi (OK, maybe Stalin, but the smart money doubts it). Look at Gandhi's bio and Hitlers and you will see that the two of them are Totally cut from the same cloth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134684914608153162005-12-15T14:15:00.000-08:002005-12-15T14:15:00.000-08:00@ Nicq and othersHere is my thinking about religio...@ Nicq and others<BR/><BR/>Here is my thinking about religious training: I am trying (against impossible odds I might add) to protect my daughters from religion until they have formed their strong personalities. I think that there is much cultural wisdom, ethics, and poetry in the religions of the world, but it is like alchohol - addictive when exposed at an early age. Let them get perspective before we trot out the scary stories. That way they can learn the cultural foundations without getting the mythic baggage. IMHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134683184941475972005-12-15T13:46:00.000-08:002005-12-15T13:46:00.000-08:00michael: At heart, weren't all of them really jus...michael: At heart, weren't all of them really just cynical sociopathic opportunists who exploited a facade of twisted idealism in the pursuit of power?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134678873407684552005-12-15T12:34:00.000-08:002005-12-15T12:34:00.000-08:00Leave it to me to try to trump Firefall's cynicism...Leave it to me to try to trump Firefall's cynicism, but I think that the problem goes deeper than selfish drives being the only motivation that can inspire a person to attain power. I think that the public actually *prefers* to follow a power-crazed sociopath to an idealist, given those two choices. They can at least understand the sociopath. <BR/><BR/>Given history, I'm not sure they are wrong. The great relativly unselfish Ubermenchen idealists of the 20th century, Lennin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin... even Gandi. Each of them has the blood of millions on their hands. <BR/><BR/>I suppose Ghengis Khan wasn't an idealist though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134677807654545692005-12-15T12:16:00.000-08:002005-12-15T12:16:00.000-08:00On the topic of the treatment of non-believers by ...On the topic of the treatment of non-believers by believers<BR/><BR/>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007757.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134669362580055672005-12-15T09:56:00.000-08:002005-12-15T09:56:00.000-08:00"It escapes me why you can't be athiest and intere..."It escapes me why you can't be athiest and interested in metaphysics. Your list is not exhaustive."<BR/><BR/>No, it's not exaustive, and it's not impossible to be an atheist and be interested in metaphysics- in fact it's quite common. But there are many people who aren't religious and aren't bothered by questions of ultimate concern as well- they simply do what they do.<BR/><BR/>"I also humbly suggest that it might be possible that your upbringing was stimulated because of the differences between your parents, not because it was religious. That is you grew up exposed to different views."<BR/><BR/>Well, yes, but I have noted differences between people I've known with religious upbringings and those without; and, oddly enough, the people I know with a religious background are typically better informed, more tolerant, and more morally developed than their non-religiously raised counterparts. This is hardly universal, and most of my acquaintances and friends to which this applies are themselves nonpracticing (as am I). But many developmentalists think that a religious foundation, or some other form of discipline and "character building" (such as Scouting, for instance) is very helpful for young people- and, in my experience, I must agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134668816185108682005-12-15T09:46:00.000-08:002005-12-15T09:46:00.000-08:00@ Dr. Brin - can't you just feel the paroxysms awa...@ Dr. Brin - can't you just feel the paroxysms awaiting your religious essay? :o)<BR/><BR/>@Rob,<BR/><BR/>Truly I wasn't <A HREF="http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" REL="nofollow">begging the question</A>. I think that I am moral, but then presumeably so did Hitler, so I recognize that I cannot be an independent judge of that. I have met people who have told me that I cannot be moral if I am not religious and I don't believe in their God. So to me it is still an open question, at least in the realm of religion.<BR/><BR/>My mother-in-law sees how happy I make her daughter, how amazing our kids are, and still thinks we might go to Hell. Can I blame her if she is trying to convert us? At the same time, I am not interested in being in a situation where she tries to do so. So we have a detente and don't talk about it (and not all people are as lucky as I am in in-laws!).<BR/><BR/>This shows my point in a microcosm. In a society where there is more than one religion, or religion and non-religion, the only solution I can think of is an areligious civil ethic that respects all equally. And I think that the only way to get there is by using a human-created code of ethics. I mean, I have yet to hear a religion whose Deity espouses acceptance of other religions, so I think we won't be able to rely on divine inspiration for that one.<BR/><BR/>Rob, your brand of tolerance is very pleasing, and very unusual in my experience. Do you think that your hypothesis about good people going to Heaven regardless of religion will be selected for in the "religious ecology," or is it doomed to fail against exlusionist "camels through the eye of a needle" hypotheses? Which one will resonate more with believers? The "We are the chosen ones and only we are going to be rewarded. Now pass the collection plate," or "Our way is just one of many of getting to Heaven, just being a good person is enough. Now pass the collection plate." (OK, NOW maybe I am begging the question! LOL!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134667814557152432005-12-15T09:30:00.000-08:002005-12-15T09:30:00.000-08:00Anyone who liked or at least thought interesting S...Anyone who liked or at least thought interesting Steve's "on the action vs. intent of political electees..." comment might also be interested in:<BR/><BR/>http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=82Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134666429117452872005-12-15T09:07:00.000-08:002005-12-15T09:07:00.000-08:00Nicq, It escapes me why you can't be athiest and i...Nicq,<BR/> It escapes me why you can't be athiest and interested in metaphysics. Your list is not exhaustive. But again isn't this off topic?<BR/> I also humbly suggest that it might be possible that your upbringing was stimulated because of the differences between your parents, not because it was religious. That is you grew up exposed to different views.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134665963100383402005-12-15T08:59:00.000-08:002005-12-15T08:59:00.000-08:00Having been raised with religious training (in the...Having been raised with religious training (in the Lutheran church) by a religious mother and an atheist father (who was himself raised Lutheran), I think that a religious upbringing is important for young people, and can actually be more stimulating, helpful and formative than stifling. As Lou Marinoff, the founder of Philosophical Counseling, once said, "I think children should read the bible in school. And the Talmud, the Qu'ran, the Pali Canon, the Tao Te Ching, the Analects, and the Upanishads. Young people need a moral vocabulary."<BR/><BR/>That said, it seems that religion is something that can either mature (into a rational or post-rational faith); be "grown out of" (in the case of rational atheists who are either uninterested in metaphysical matters or are never exposed to a theology beyond the level of "big daddy in the sky"); or stagnate (in the case of people who choose to believe in literal myths and have little understanding of theology). The problem most intellectuals today have is that this third kind of religiosity seems to want to dominate; and the neoconservatives are more than happy to use this "opium" faith as a tool. In college (where I attended a Lutheran school), I often noted a great deal of controversy between the "literal" Christians and the "existential" Christians, both in the student body (Groups like the CCC vs. the aspiring seminarians) and between professors. There are sectarian differences too; Lutherans seem to be much less literal than many protestants, which is no suprise, given their great intellectual tradition (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Schweitzer, Tillich, Niebuhr and Barth are just a few of the figures its produced).<BR/><BR/>But, what I'm trying to get at is that faith is often a developmental matter; these various religious views map quite well onto a "stages of moral development model" (such as Kohlberg, Graves, or Beck and Cowan's "Spiral Dynamics")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134664739105200042005-12-15T08:38:00.000-08:002005-12-15T08:38:00.000-08:001 - Nope, sure didn't. Still, when you joke about ...1 - Nope, sure didn't. Still, when you joke about religion, even tongue in cheek... Well, I remember talking about the "Church of Bob" once with some people I didn't know too well. Turned out they were devout Catholics. Whoops!<BR/><BR/>2 - Wiki has its uses, but for defining controversial terms, it's not so good. <BR/><BR/>3 - Agreed, on pretty much all counts. There's a place for Arthur's evangelism, but here lecturing David probably isn't it. <BR/><BR/>4 - ThanksRob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134663648324603692005-12-15T08:20:00.000-08:002005-12-15T08:20:00.000-08:00Rob,1. Don't you know the -) symbol? It means tong...Rob,<BR/><BR/><BR/>1. Don't you know the -) symbol? It means tongue in cheek - don't take this seriously.<BR/><BR/>2.<BR/>From wikipedia:<BR/><BR/>"... It is also important to remember that secularism does not necessarily equate to atheism; indeed, many secularists have counted themselves among the religious."<BR/><BR/>Secular just means "not pertaining to religion". So it really escapes me how "securalist religion" is anything but an oxymoron. I really think you are using jargon.<BR/><BR/>3.<BR/>I don't want to deconstruct the articles because it is really off topic. But they were full of subjective language and hidden assumptions. They were clearly designed for a particular audience, and not a rigorously argumentative one. To be blunt they shouldn't have been posted here.<BR/><BR/>4. http://hem.passagen.se/ericopy/Erics_alternativa/Dave_Allen.htmreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134662095277948552005-12-15T07:54:00.000-08:002005-12-15T07:54:00.000-08:00"Criticising or rejecting their ideas is not the s..."Criticising or rejecting their ideas is not the same thing as criticising or rejecting them as people."<BR/><BR/>Go back and look over Faust's and Maxwell's talks with that in mind. It changes the tenor of the ideas presented, don't you think? <BR/><BR/>It's also the reason I can enjoy Monty Python and Douglas Adams without trouble.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134661796523387792005-12-15T07:49:00.000-08:002005-12-15T07:49:00.000-08:00@ReasonSometimes I just don't know how to take a j...@Reason<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I just don't know how to take a joke. I don't know who Dave Allen is! :-)<BR/><BR/>Part of that stems from this format, which can't convey your tone of voice or the expression on your face. Or mine. <BR/><BR/>But I'm dead earnest when I say that I think "secularist religion" is not nonsense; I think it's a rising Western philosophy, a bastardization of Enlightenment tenets which, like all philosophies, carries unprovables in its premises. Thus, even secularism requires "faith" in *something*. <BR/><BR/>@Steve -- "Ergo, religion by itself does not a moral person make. Does the converse stand: A moral person can be made without religion?"<BR/><BR/>Sure. You beg your question a bit by claiming to be what you say is possible. Still, I wonder; I think most of us in the U.S. are at least nominally religious, playing Pascal's Wager and believing (as I do) that given a God, He must know the ignorant mess we're in, and be willing to take that into account when considering us. <BR/><BR/>I take that from the countless times I've heard someone say, "I'm not a church-goer; I'm going to be the best kindest person I know how and let God, if He's out there, sort the rest out for me."Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1134661360328440412005-12-15T07:42:00.000-08:002005-12-15T07:42:00.000-08:00By the way we are way off topic.I'm wondering how ...By the way we are way off topic.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering how many dichotomies are not false? Dichotomies are a habit of thought aren't they. Wasn't Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance about something like that? <BR/><BR/>Another good one would be Conservative versus Radical, sometimes the only way to be conservative is to be radical (i.e. when the environment is changing rapidly). I don't think it is like that yet - so why is it that the current "Conservative" government is extremly radical? A nice paradox to think about. But in general I think David is spot on, on this one. <BR/><BR/>As for not offending deeply held beliefs, well I try to keep my mouth shut. Doesn't stop me dreaming of sometimes expressing my real opinions freely and passionately. <BR/><BR/>It is a bit of a problem when some people hold things sacred that other people think are hillarious isn't it? And it is not obviously something that is easy to overcome, even with openness. Now I love Monty Python and Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, but I could understand how some people might be offended. <BR/><BR/>I would much prefer that everybody learnt the difference between THEMSELVES and THEIR IDEAS (OR BELIEFS - whatever exactly that means - I'm not sure I really know. I only think in terms of probabilities but maybe I'm odd. I studied statistics but I know from experience that stochasticism is not a natural concept for humans). Criticising or rejecting their ideas is not the same thing as criticising or rejecting them as people. That is my idealistic position, but sometimes it is pragmatic to keep your mouth shut. Idealistically, Americans should be prepared to elect people from all religious or non-religious persausions so long as they subscribe to democratic principles and are capable (like the rest of the Western world), but perhaps it is pragmatic to find (at least nominally) Christian candidates. So yes one needs to be both idealistic and pragmatic, but sometimes there IS a tradeoff.<BR/><BR/>I would have thought the real issue was one of priorities, which fights to pick. To me the most important issue at the moment (and I'm not American, I'm just speaking as an interested spectator) - and apart from the coming economic and ecological tidal wave that I suspect is just over the horizon - is the erosion of American democracy. I don't understand why Democratic politicians (as against bloggers) aren't jumping all over this. Justice should not only be done, IT SHOULD BE SEEN TO BE DONE. Processes should not only be clean, THEY SHOULD BE OBVIOUSLY CLEAN. If the Republicans have nothing to hide, THEY SHOULDN'T BE HIDING ANYTHING. This can be presented as a bi-partisan thing - surely many Republicans also don't want to run the risk of being seen as the party of sleaze.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.com