Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I'm waiting for TNR or Slate to write "How Derbyshire was right".
I've never gotten the idea that the Derb liked anybody. So the fact that he disliked black people seemed sort of anticlimatic.
No garage is waiting for Althouse to write "why Derbyshire was right", at least he wanks on the possibility of it...
Moose - sort of a literary Harry Calahan.
So it wasn't satire then.
As I've said, I use the same standards in any neighborhood. Rich white kids can be as mean as anybody else's.PS Did we ever establish whether his stats were even accurate?
Derb hasn't figured in institutions.Blacks have terrible leaders, chosen for them by the feeders off narrative, trading on a lazy desire to be entertained and aroused. Orwell covered it.That affects everything he cites as data, especially IQ, IQ via a wonderful mathematical circle he has not considered.A debate that cannot continue. It's been shut down.
Somebody who says what he thinks can be convinced.It's the PC crowd that can't be, for they never say what they think. That's why it's PC.
Life is an IQ test.So how you all doin'?Proof's in the pudding, you know.
A dog tied up in the back yard all day actually is stupid. Vicki Hearne said that somewhere, in an essay on the intelligence of dogs.Probably Adam's Task.
I am going to miss the Derb. Especially for the math puzzles.
Life correlates with an IQ test.IQ itself is abstracted from other things that swamp it in ordinary life, to be that which is left that's invariant with age and predicts life outcomes after everything that matters more is averaged away.The process of constructing and sharpening IQ tests itself causes a drift against a race with poor institutions, and it begins predicting poor institutions, because the averaging fails to remove that.
Derbyshire is an asshole. Always has been. A talented writer and a wiz at math but still an asshole. As someone said he doesn't seem to like anyone so why should blacks be surprised he doesn't like them much. And while I don't agree with much of what he said in his article - most of it was simply opinion and the remainder arguable "facts" - he has a right to say it. Especially in light of the fact that our current president wanted a conversation on race or some-such nonsense. If we really want one, things are going to be said that piss people off, but that's the nature of conversing about a deeply serious and troublesome subject.Of course we all know that on one really wants a real candid truthful conversation on race. None of us really do, because none of us can handle it. Too many ancient wounds still fester, mostly due to too many people making money and celebrity off of the infection.I hope Derb keeps writing even if I don't like him. Assholes have rights too.BTW, I took that IAT test they mention in the Gawker article. Results were that I slightly favor African-Americans. Who woulda thought
One of these days the chasm between what we actually think and what we are permiited and hectored to say will grow so vast that we'll start having nervous breakdowns.
Garage: I'm waiting for TNR or Slate to write "How Derbyshire was right".There is nothing more painful to me than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.
""If you could do it again, would you publish 'The Talk: The Nonblack Version'?""I don't see the need to publish it. Any sensible nonblack child knows all those things already. What they can learn from Derb is that it's hazardous to say so. It can get you fired, and in more enlightened countries, like Canada and much of Europe, it can get you imprisoned.
Derbyshire's experience proves that "free speech" (broadly speaking, not the kind referred to as "the right to free speech" as protected under the First Amendment) really doesn't exist, no matter how much we think or hope that it does.For too many people, this fact is quite alright.
"...and in more enlightened countries, like Canada and much of Europe, it can get you imprisoned."Indeed so. Because we all know the test of "enlightened countries" is the willingness of the State to imprison people for the things they say."Oceana always been at war with Eastasia."
I snarfed off all the radio Derb's from the NRO site back through 2006 a couple months ago, a weekly half hour of Derb doom on the news.It's great stuff. You can get honest dope from somebody who's fearless. That means you can pick and choose without having to figure in fear and politeness.Through massive programming skills, I can say$ derb.sh 22:30:00and the computer will stream randomly chosen weeks, in time order, until exactly 22:30:00.They're randomly chosen but add up to the specified time. The knapsack problem.
Well I'm one of those black guys that if you multiply into a group.... WATCH OUT! Well in my case, watch out because I will steal your pecan pie quick, fast, and in a hurry. Anywayz...I didn't bother me what Derbyshire wrote about we black folks. Heck I grew up in inner city Detroit and we used to say the same thing. "If T-Money and his boys show up, we OUTTA here". LOL! And I can honestly say that I've seen white folks get concerned when a group of loud white kids come strolling through while the two cool black dudes don't get a second look. But hey, I'm just a colored hick livin' here in South Carolina.Honest talk about race, huh? No money in that. And we may just generate World Peace in that discussion...
I wonder if Holder knows that if he favors blacks under the law, that makes it more costly to do business with blacks, and so will lead to less economic activity with blacks.Probably not.This is another problem that the government gives to blacks, free.A color blind law is the greatest asset of blacks, or would be. They ought to insist on it.What a great political move that would be.
T-Steele: do you find race relations better in SC or Michigan? I've lived in both the midwest and the south, so just curious on your perspective.
A butler? Great. He could do it in blackface.
I've never gotten the idea that the Derb liked anybody. So the fact that he disliked black people seemed sort of anticlimatic.That's not particularly surprising, as he's repeatedly confessed, quite forthrightly, to mild homophobia, mild anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and mild racism -- all (except possibly the anti-Catholicism) mild in the sense of being non-violent inclinations that probably don't ever translate into action at all.What is surprising is the line he then draws to, e.g. not trying to be a good samaritan to Blacks, because there's an outside chance they might mug you.To be honest, the first thing I wondered when reading this, is how much he talks with Chinese immigrants in Chinese. People talking in other languages (maybe just non-European languages?) are generally a lot less mealy mouthed about their mistrust of other races than American whites are, and given the large immigrant populations in the US, there's plenty of negative stereotypes about African Americans floating around. I went looking for some examples on Korean and Japanese and gor but there's a lot. There was a Korean pop star who called for a race war back in February. I am not joking. Yes, yes, she got criticised for it and took her posts down (then followed it up with more of the same), but people say . . . well, maybe not that kind of thing all the time, but say things that would be extremely rude to say in English.
@rhhardin: You said "I wonder if Holder knows that if he favors blacks under the law, that makes it more costly to do business with blacks, and so will lead to less economic activity with blacks."Blah... First of all, Holder not benefiting blacks with favoritism. Since the Obama Presidency, we black folks have been in the same boat with all other folks:1. Dealing with job loss2. No pay increases3. Underemployment4. Managing high fuel costsEtc... So that is a complete myth that someone Holder and Obama is sprinkling "joy to the black world" on us. Puh-leeze. My 89 year old grandmother said it best:"Yeah I voted for Obama. How could I not? But he sure isn't different from any other politician... Crooked as broke weather vane."Gotta love granny...
I stopped saving the nightly John and Ken show, that I've been saving since 2007, albeit hoping, to be fair, that they'd get off their all-outrage-all-the-time kick and back to whimsy.Then they called Whitney Houston a crack ho', and were made to sincerely apologize. (No really, I mean this apology.) And the station (KFI) introduced a delay on John lest he say something else that Clear Channel wouldn't like.Which means, getting to the point finally, that there's no point in listening any longer. Nothing interesting will happen again, don't wait for it. PC rules it out in advance.Thus also NRO.Though there were glimmerings from Mark Steyn today. Next to go?
@Holmes: SE Michigan (where Detroit and the 'burbs are) is the most segregated place I've seen. I see more whites and blacks hanging together here in the Pee Dee region of SC than I did in SE Michigan. Maybe it's a rural thing...
Holmes, I'm a white hick from Milwaukee and Chicago living in SC. I would say that race relations are considerably better here than in Illinois and Wisconsin. I'm not sure it's because whites and blacks are less "racist" here. It more that people of all races are generally more polite so there is less to misinterpret.
Anybody take the racial test at the link? I have no racism, apparently. (Yea!) But I am possibly a white dress bigot.
@TRight, it's so bad that it hardly matters now.But being favored by the law still in advance drives your business away.A favor that isn't a favor.All the favors are like that. They're meant to control blacks, not whites.One of the amazing things in life is Chilean grapes showing up in Ohio supermarkets in February, at the peak of ripeness, and cheap.Some bunch of Chileans harvest them at the right time, load them on ships, sail to some coast, where they get trucked at the right time to Ohio and put out for sale.The important thing is that I don't imagine that Chileans like Americans. Yet they get what they want out of the effort, not caring a bit for the Americans except that they buy it for more than it cost them; and Americans care only that they get more than they pay for.Business doesn't care about liking and socializing, just that each side comes out ahead.It would work the same with Blacks, if they saw that's all it took.The left's plan is at all costs to keep them from seeing that.
T-Steel - well, maybe we should have the honest conversation about gangs of unruly teenagers, esp. male teens. I think you're right, but everyone knows we can't have an honest conversation about ANYTHING these days. We're indoctrinated to be devoid of communication skills. I remember reading that article, and disagreeing with quite a bit of it. But I guess I mentally filed it under "kinda stupid", because I don't remember all of what he wrote. It struck me as very provincial, to be honest. Very NE. But then I'm from the south, and probably there are all sorts of different associations. For one thing, the population is pretty mixed, so if you got nervous and fled every time you were around a bunch of black people, you'd have to grow all your own food. Nor could you vote, or go to the hospital or whatever. It would be a very lonely life. When I think of a mostly black crowd, to be honest I think of Sunday and church or a funeral, and fear of random violence just doesn't associate well with that picture. His comments about "well-socialized blacks"?? I think there was another word too? struck me as being awesomely weird and off-base, but then, maybe if you do live in a very, very white place that could be true. I'm suspecting now that it is illness talking, and that the leukemia is getting to him.
This 1961 book is the best book ever published on race. What's amazing is how well it predicts all the race hucksters and all the people who profit from race and racial antagonism.Dr. Seuss is the man!
Derb is ridiculous. Nobody needs a 'talk'. You figure out who is a threat and who isn't along the way and it's about context a lot more than race. A black guy in a suit leaving church poses no risk compared to a sketchy white guy looking strung out in a dark alley. Reverse it and it's pretty much the same thing. If you truly rely only on race you are going to be a poor judge of risk.
I took well socialized blacks to mean blacks that he knew, more or less exactly.Knowing somebody, curiously, happens when that person thinks you do. Active in form and passive in meaning.(Which explains the awkward social situation where somebody thinks they know you and you haven't yet thought so yourself.)
@rhhardin: "The important thing is that I don't imagine that Chileans like Americans. Yet they get what they want out of the effort, not caring a bit for the Americans except that they buy it for more than it cost them; and Americans care only that they get more than they pay for."Ya know, what you said got the ol' brain on a thinking path. HMM.. Thanks for that.@MaxedOutMama: I laughed out loud at the "well socialized blacks" phrase. I'm not well-socialized which make me cool at the BBQ picnic. LOL! I'll tell ya one thing, there are some HUGE assumptions made on how a "race" acts and does things. Yes there may be some tendencies and similar "ways and wiles". But that is more a culture thing. I don't know how many times white folks up North would talk about how good my "soul food" is. I laugh and say many white Southerners eat like this... it's a South thing". Some of them would look at me in shock. LOL!
But then I'm from the south, and probably there are all sorts of different associations. For one thing, the population is pretty mixed, so if you got nervous and fled every time you were around a bunch of black people, you'd have to grow all your own food. Nor could you vote, or go to the hospital or whatever. It would be a very lonely life. Or go to school, or work or basically anywhere, at least where I live. I think people around here mostly get along fine, and everybody avoids the bad neighborhood, white and black. There was a Korean pop star who called for a race war back in February.A friend of mine was chinese apparently chinese people really like to talk smack about koreans! This was something I did not know, previously.
I don't know how many times white folks up North would talk about how good my "soul food" is. I laugh and say many white Southerners eat like this... it's a South thing". Some of them would look at me in shock. LOL!Ha! I went to school up north and our cafeteria had a station that changed based on holidays, etc.. well they had a MLK day meal and it was ribs, cornbread, and a whole bunch of other southern food. Score! Best day ever.
It's the PC crowd that can't be, for they never say what they think. That's why it's PC.In my family setting we didn't suffer from that.I remember my father giving me some of the advice outlined in Dervs piece... not word for word but as situations arose family, personal, friends, he would very deliberately stress my safety and well being as paramount.. above any other consideration.I'm not going to bore you with the details.. Suffice to say, when I'm alone I know where to go.. (If I want to go somewhere) and I know where not to go.
So rich White guys like Lowry, Jonah Goldberg and the worms over at Forbes, all keep their children in very exclusive very White upper class schools, while expressing outrage the "proles", the working and middle class, would discuss race in an honest manner. Why don't Lowry, Goldberg and the worms at Forbes put their kids in more diverse schools? Don't pay attention to what they SAY, pay attention to what they DO. Political Correctness isn't like a religion, it is a religion.
"A friend of mine was chinese apparently chinese people really like to talk smack about koreans! This was something I did not know, previously."One of the things I learned from living overseas was just how much racism and ethnocentrism is out there in the big wide world, and how much is carefully plastered over in the west.
T-Steel - I'm glad I'm not the only one who laughed over the Derb-whatever column. I've been afraid to admit it, since it is taken as such a dire social crime. It struck me as very strange indeed, but so strange that I couldn't really find it offensive. I cracked up over the "flee the crowd" thing. I got this mental picture of the author abandoning his cart full of groceries in the middle of the aisle and just running for his life toward the door. I SEE BLACK PEOPLE! AIEEEIIEEE! But it probably is a regional thing. I've noticed it myself - NE people have this cone of silence code or something. They're not friendly. They'll be in a line somewhere in a public place, and they don't talk to each other. When they walk around on the streets they act differently. It's almost as if they were raised to believe that every fifth person they encounter has rattlesnakes in his or her pockets, so they'd better be VEEERRRY CAREFUL. It's not just a black/white thing either. They just aren't friendly - they act sort of scared or uptight in public places. And I'm not really sure that his definition of the word "friend" has more than a tangential connection to the definition I was raised with. It almost sounded like he was talking about catching a trophy fish or 12 point buck. Like a status symbol - something that you stuff and hang in the living room? It read somewhat like an intentional parody. Obviously this resonates more with a lot of people, because otherwise they would never have taken the article seriously. That worries me more than anything else. Your reaction I understand. I'm not quite grasping the "official" reaction.
Derbyshire's experience proves that "free speech" (broadly speaking, not the kind referred to as "the right to free speech" as protected under the First Amendment) really doesn't exist, no matter how much we think or hope that it does.You're making the same mistake many people do -- thinking that "free speech" is the same as "worthless speech".If everyone can say whatever they want and nobody has any reaction to it, what the hell is the point of speech? If anyone can say anything, no matter how outrageous, and receive no more than a disinterested "meh" in response, then why bother speaking? Why bother listening?Freedom of speech does not imply total abandonment of reason, moral judgment, or aesthetics. Quite the opposite. The freedom to say outrageous things implies the ability to cause outrage.
Lem - where did you grow up?
Why don't Lowry, Goldberg and the worms at Forbes put their kids in more diverse schools?You confuse "not caring if good schools lack black kids" with "thinking schools are good because they lack black kids".
"You're making the same mistake many people do -- thinking that "free speech" is the same as "worthless speech"."No. My point is, as offensive as Derbyshire's column is, or as outrageous as some take it to be (i.e., I am offended, but not outraged), one part of the political spectrum, in the form AG Eric Holder, challenges Americans as too cowardly to have a "conversation" on race. Derbyshire has a conversation on race, not aligned with social norms, and is promptly severed from his relationship with his most prominent publisher.I completely understand why NR ended their relationship with Derbyshire - there's all kinds of baggage, most of it resulting from slanderous lies from the Left that conservatives are racists - that would have taken too much time, and too much energy, to disprove the lie to the keepers of conventional wisdom. It was simply expedient for NR to let Derbyshire to go; and, reading between the lines, while Derbyshire is clearly disappointed, it doesn't seem as if he's surprised by NR's reaction.So, now back to the AG's challenge - after Derbyshire's experience, exactly what form is this conversation supposed to take? Are some subjects completely ruled out of bounds? Is it only a one way conversation? Are some relegated to simply listening while others only talk? Are only *some* people with *some* views allowed to participate, while other people with other views relegated to the sidelines? It seems to me, if one wants to accuse the American people of not having the courage to talk about race, one has to defend the right of another to say, even if, especially if, another says something offensive and outrageous.Or else we never really have the conversation, do we?
edutcher: PS Did we ever establish whether his stats were even accurate?"No one has ever provided any evidence to suggest that they were not, though he's been condemned often enough for for having the effrontery to present stats in the first place.
"It's the PC crowd that can't be, for they never say what they think. That's why it's PC."Bingo. And I think the more outrage they exhibit, the more conflicted their feelings. Beware the poster who breaks into Uncle-Tom-ese in order to chastise.
If his stats ARE true, and we are responding to them like this, what does that say about us? Shouldn't we care if they are true? If they are, we have some serious problems, and don't even want to acknowledge them, which means we don't give a shit about Blacks. If they are wrong, we need to make that clear, or we also don't give a shit about Blacks. Seems to me that the people just saying "shut up Derbyshire" don't give a shit about Blacks either way.
Revenant: You're making the same mistake many people do -- thinking that "free speech" is the same as "worthless speech".[...]Freedom of speech does not imply total abandonment of reason, moral judgment, or aesthetics. Quite the opposite. The freedom to say outrageous things implies the ability to cause outrage.So who are these people who have outraged you because they are outraged about other people being outraged, Rev? That is, what are you talking about? In case you haven't noticed, people have been getting sacked in this country, or keeping their mouths shut in fear of losing their livelihoods, for having the "wrong" opinions. In many other countries in the "free" West, one can be sent to jail for expressing the "wrong" opinions about all sorts of things, even if what is being expressed is not even opinion, but demonstrable fact.And yet you seem to be suggesting that it's the people who are outraged by - in this case - Derbyshire's opinions, are the one's who are having their right to expression suppressed. I hadn't noticed.Either that, or you're making a very weaselly argument for restricting "free speech" to "correct" speech.
Well in my case, watch out because I will steal your pecan pie quick, fast, and in a hurry. In that case I want you in my group, because I don't like pecan pie. Now if you were stealing my key lime pie, we would have words....
Jeffery: Why don't Lowry, Goldberg and the worms at Forbes put their kids in more diverse schools?Revenant: You confuse "not caring if good schools lack black kids" with "thinking schools are good because they lack black kids".What Lowry, et al "really think" isn't the point, Rev. (And as a matter of fact, you don't know what they "really think", so you're in no position to know if someone else is "confused" here.) The point is that the people whose kids just (mysteriously) always happen to be in those "good schools that just happen to lack blacks", are the same people who absolutely want to shut down any honest talk about why things just "happen" to be that way.As has been pointed out many times, in their own lives people *act* as if they agree with Derbyshire, even while they're calling for his head.
Had Derb actually supported point #10 with something other than hyperlinks, he would have had an argument. He didn't. In most instances he selected 1 story to link to which doesn't even meet the laugh test. The fact that there may be some truths embedded in his piece doesn't negate the weakness of it as a think piece.
It would be as if I wrote the following:Traditionally, Genoans, by way of Spain, are very good at navigating the Atlantic Ocean. The British, not so much.
AG Eric Holder, challenges Americans as too cowardly to have a "conversation" on race. Derbyshire has a conversation on race, not aligned with social norms, and is promptly severed from his relationship with his most prominent publisher.I guess the moral of that story is "if you want to write for National Review, don't take your career advice from Barack Obama's Attorney General". :)
So who are these people who have outraged you because they are outraged about other people being outraged, Rev?They are people who have caused me to strain my eye muscles rolling my eyes at their outrage over outrage. :)In case you haven't noticed, people have been getting sacked in this country, or keeping their mouths shut in fear of losing their livelihoods, for having the "wrong" opinions.Would you prefer to live in a country where employers are forbidden from firing people for the things they say? Where your car mechanic can call your wife a cunt and you have no choice but to smile and keep giving him your business, for example?I sure as hell wouldn't. Freedom of association is one of the most important human rights.
The takeaway from Derbgate is the hypocrisy- people act as if they agree with him. We don't say it, but where we live, who we associate with, where our children go to school, all seem to be informed by racism. People vote with their feet. It's easier than talking about it. That's Derbyshire's main point- we're all a bunch of hypocrites and our criticism of him proves it. This is something we're more used to hearing from the Left.I think he's wrong about a lot of the biology and I am extremely skeptical about IQ tests. But, looking at how people act rather than what they say, it's hard to disagree with Derbyshire's assertion that most white Americans are closet racists.When I recently visited Seattle and Portland I was surprised by how many white people I saw. On the 757 from Denver I think I was the darkest person, and I look white. I live in the Southwest, my mother is from Peru, and I didn't realize how used to Latin and Native American faces I'd become. I didn't feel threatened, but I certainly noticed. People move to the Northwest to get away from... what? It's not like there's a nice climate or many jobs there.Americans are hypocrites about race.
And yes, free speech means no government sanction. It doesn't mean no consequences. Derb knew what he was doing. He's said the same thing many times, especially in his books, but putting it on the internet where it could be linked thousands of times caught up with him.Knowing this, he did it anyway. I don't feel any sympathy at all.And while racism may be alive and well, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. It's still worth condemning in and of itself. However enlightened Derbyshire may claim to be, ideas have power and they are rapidly put to work for other causes. Derbyshire surely knows this. I don't think giving ammunition to nasty racists is a good idea. The Cold War term "fellow traveler" is appropriate here. Racists need intellectual cover just as the Communists did, and providing that service is wrong.
We don't say it, but where we live, who we associate with, where our children go to school, all seem to be informed by racism.I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. You might as well say "where we live, who we associate with, and where our children go to school are all informed by a love of Asians". After all, good neighborhoods and good schools are usually disproportionately Asian.Look, something that nobody honestly denies is that heavily black areas are positively correlated with crime, poverty, and poor education. People just dispure why the correlation exists.Whatever the reason for the correlation's existence, it does exist. Which means that AVOIDING crime, poverty and poor education is ALSO positively correlated with avoiding black people. This is true regardless of whether said correlation is (as Derb thinks) due to black people themselves, or merely a coincidence. It is true regardless of whether or not you have any desire whatsoever to avoid black people qua black people.Would you send your kids to a public school filled with addicts and ignoramuses provided the people were the same color as you? Of course you wouldn't. Race doesn't even enter into the consideration. Derb's boneheaded move was acting like it should.
Rev-People use race as a proxy when making those decisions. You just did.
The intent of his lecture was not to amuse or inform. The intent was to propagate distrust and dislike of black people. It was over the line. That said, the guy is dying of cancer and deserves a little sympathy. At any rate, he is hardly the most rabid racist one is likely to meet on the internet.
People use race as a proxy when making those decisions. You just did.Um, no.Look, if I decided to pack up and move from San Diego because I want a cooler climate, that would have the effect of moving to a less-Hispanic area. But that's not an example of me "using race as a proxy". Race wouldn't even be a consideration. It is simply that, coincidentally, "cooler climate" happens to correlate with "fewer Hispanics"."Correlated with" != "proxy for"
The intent was to propagate distrust and dislike of black people.I wouldn't go that far. He's expressing HIS distrust and dislike of black people, loud and clear. But anyone who reads Derbyshire's work (which is worth reading, on subjects other than race and homosexuality) knows he's a racist. There's no mystery there.It is like reading Noam Chomsky. Stick to linguistics and the guy is well worth reading. Just stay away from politics. :)
"People move to the Northwest to get away from... what? It's not like there's a nice climate"A vile slur. Climatist!I would trade the Midwest for the Northwest in a heartbeat, if economic circumstances permitted.
Revenant: Would you prefer to live in a country where employers are forbidden from firing people for the things they say?No, but I'd prefer to live in a country where hysterical, Stalinist tight-asses aren't constantly disrupting all adult conversation with witch hunts aimed at making sure that widely-held, debatable views are suppressed in the public square. (I'd also prefer to feel confident that punishment for incorrect opinion would remain limited to employers' rights, and not become subject to legal sanction. You cool with "hate speech" laws, Rev?)I sure as hell wouldn't. Freedom of association is one of the most important human rights.I concur. I'm sure we can agree that even racists and sexists are entitled to this most fundamental of rights.
By the way, Rev, could you point out the people who are making a "rights" argument against NR's firing of the Witch Derbyshire? I seem to have missed that.
So Derb involved humself in the national conversation on race and got fired. duly noted.
John Lynch: He's said the same thing many times, especially in his books, but putting it on the internet where it could be linked thousands of times caught up with him. Knowing this, he did it anyway.Yes, he did. He had the courage of his convictions. Something that can't be said for most people these days.
New meme: Derbyshire was right.
New meme: Derbyshire was right"Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood . . ."Nah. Enoch may have been right. Would not agree with Derbyshire.
Post a Comment