Glenn Beck has referred to himself as a "rodeo clown."
His weeping on camera has become a signature act of his.
This all made me think of another clown--Pagliaccio, from the Italian opera "Pagliacci." ["Pagliacci" is the plural of "pagliaccio," which means, in Italian, "player or clown."]
"Pagliacci" pronounced:
pah lee AH chee.
The "gli" sound in Italian is similar to the "llion" sound in the English word "million."
I wanted to show people how a REAL performer plays the clown.
Placido Domingo outshines Beck in the role of a weeping clown.
Mark K what a neat trick to copy paste from your blog to this one.
So. Mr. K. You believe in the undeniable truth of Evolution? It is a scientific fact and not theory, correct? I have a few questions for you.
So. Mr. K. Just how far along the evolutionary "political" path do you want this once great country to go? I am assuming you believe in evolutionary politics from your blog that you copied pasted from and I know all about assumptions and the comparison to a particular body part. If you do, I have a few questions for you.
So. Mr. K. You are less than thrilled by the religious right. I don't get the born again evangelism either to tell you the truth. I am more in line with the apologetic Catholic, which is my faith. You may want to look that up on the internet. However, are you atheist? I have a few questions for you if you are.
Listen, Mr. K., you gotta great blog going. Kinda gets my hackles up ya know. Not a bad thing. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
I don't know which of those two MK commenters were the real commenter, so I deleted both. Something seemed not quite right about the comments.
To answer your question, though, Jim: Evolution is a fact.
Biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
But I'll let the late Stephen J. Gould explain it:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy.… If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving. Richard Leakey, Paleoanthropologist
The final hurdle that evolutionists have not (and cannot) overcome involves the co-dependence of the respiratory system and the circulatory system. The heart muscle requires oxygenated blood to remain alive. The respiratory system depends on the circulating blood to deliver oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. So which came first, and how was it able to function properly without the other? Yet, another chicken-egg problem for Darwinians! Evolution may continue to be taught as a “fact” in the classroom, but it has yet to answer such basic life-dependency questions as these. Brad Harrub, Ph.D., “The Breath of Life—Not a Product of Evolution”
I can't go through all of your points. Suffice it to say that you choose to disregard the fact of evolution, and nothing anyone says to you will change that.
I'm sorry about that. Really.
Evolution is a fact. It is only here in America, among the advanced western democracies, that people question this established fact. I don't understand this. We are right down there with third world countries such as Turkey, and other countries in the Middle East, where they too question the fact of evolution.
I'm not going to try to dissuade you. IF you want to join those cultures who choose to ignore fact of evolution, that is your choice.
Arguing about evolution is like arguing with someone about the theory of gravity.
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi
It's not that I'm close-minded, that is far from the truth. It is that evolution is theory, not fact. Do things evolve? Yes, they do. It is in the application of the change that is in dispute. Darwin's Theory is only that, a theory. Go here for a discussion and definitions of the scientific method.
I blame the educational system in this country for your statement:
It is that evolution is theory, not fact.
You're wrong there. Evolution is a FACT.
Jim typed: Darwin's Theory is only that, a theory.
When you type that, it is the same as typing "Gravity is only a theory," or "Einstein's theory of Relativity--general and special--is only a theory."
As I said earlier in these comments, it is your choice to dispute what is fact. The page you linked to does not argue against Evolution, but rather enforces and defines what a scientific fact is.
You will not find one student or professor at MIT who would agree with you and the conservative movement when they say Evolution is "only" a theory and not a fact.
It is a failure of our educational system that so many Americans (45%) are so misinformed over this subject.
You can take your place among the populations in the Middle East, where religious education trumps secular education, where people do not "believe" in Evolution.
You have bought into the conservative thought that was explained in the current post: that somehow you and other Evolution deniers have some special insight and truth that the rest of the world does not.
You don't. You've allowed yourself to be deceived and, sadly, left in ignorance.
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation.
But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.
The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century."
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
"There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts.
That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution."
whenever I discuss Glenn Beck or Rush or Sean for that matter I very purposely put in my labelling system "media" as they are clearly members of the media even when they air their persecution theories so there's no escaping it, they are full-fledged members of the msm now as much as Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews is. OK so here's how this Beck phenomenon breaks down for me. It ain't his books per se, it's some of the things he says on the air that, well put it this way, it's an either/or situation with me. Take his latest, he revealed on the air the other morning that he has two Deep Throat sources that have popped up in literally the last few days and he literally meets one in a parking lot. Now we're either on the verge of one of the biggest news stories of all time or he's crazy. Alright, so a few days before this I'm driving along and he's talking about the usual, OBAMA. Nothing wrong with that, he gives it a freshness that Hannity sorely lacks but he's talking with a woman caller and he goes "liberalism always leads to death camps" and the woman completely agrees and starts saying she's willing to go to the gallows together and I'm like - WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN HOW??? - Obama is setting up some gulags and concentration camps? He keeps talking about some Big Event that's coming, no it's coming and it will completely transform the country as we know it but in a bad way. He said this alot when Van Jones was still on the job but even after he resigned as green czar The Theme continues uninterrupted and so the other day he amplified that we are on the verge of something as important as the Civil War, maybe even more important (that's debateable).
I don't buy the idea that Obama is planning an apocalypse any more than I bought the loony-tunes idea that Bush (during his 8 years) was planning to declare martial law and make himself a dictator.
Sure, I don't agree with the current President many of his policies on key issues. But that does not mean that I think he is the devil.
23 comments:
I deleted that post due to the fact I can't seem to put two words together tonight.
Anyways, this is the original post, edited for correctness.
Gosh there SK I must be dense tonight because I don't get the relevance of this piece at all.
I mean, really, who cares? ;-)
Don't laugh at what I'm about to write:
Beck is becoming too over the top, even for someone like me.
I'll deny ever having said that.
Jim,
Glenn Beck has referred to himself as a "rodeo clown."
His weeping on camera has become a signature act of his.
This all made me think of another clown--Pagliaccio, from the Italian opera "Pagliacci." ["Pagliacci" is the plural of "pagliaccio," which means, in Italian, "player or clown."]
"Pagliacci" pronounced:
pah lee AH chee.
The "gli" sound in Italian is similar to the "llion" sound in the English word "million."
I wanted to show people how a REAL performer plays the clown.
Placido Domingo outshines Beck in the role of a weeping clown.
Compare and contrast.
PCC,
I didn't hear you say it.
O, not into opera at all. To much screaming for my sensitive ears! ;-)
I remember an even simpler, more beautiful than Glenn Beck.
A Kodak ad from the 1960's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBWVWjdNWC0
We'd just move from Kodak moments to sitting on a hillside teaching the world to sing. In perfect harmony no less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOEU87SBTU
Those were the days...Sob
Mark K what a neat trick to copy paste from your blog to this one.
So. Mr. K. You believe in the undeniable truth of Evolution? It is a scientific fact and not theory, correct? I have a few questions for you.
So. Mr. K. Just how far along the evolutionary "political" path do you want this once great country to go? I am assuming you believe in evolutionary politics from your blog that you copied pasted from and I know all about assumptions and the comparison to a particular body part. If you do, I have a few questions for you.
So. Mr. K. You are less than thrilled by the religious right. I don't get the born again evangelism either to tell you the truth. I am more in line with the apologetic Catholic, which is my faith. You may want to look that up on the internet. However, are you atheist? I have a few questions for you if you are.
Listen, Mr. K., you gotta great blog going. Kinda gets my hackles up ya know. Not a bad thing. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
I don't know which of those two MK commenters were the real commenter, so I deleted both. Something seemed not quite right about the comments.
To answer your question, though, Jim: Evolution is a fact.
Biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
But I'll let the late Stephen J. Gould explain it:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
I just like the default still from the 2nd video which shows John Candy just having taken a pie to the face.
Steven Gould, are you kiddin me? Gould? OK, as you wish. You stand in for Mr. Gould.
Question 1. What is fact and what is theory in science?
Question 2. With all the fossils found from the billions and billions of animal species, why is there not one transitional fossil to point to?
Question 3. The Evolution tree of Man shows an ape evolving into a human. Why are there still apes?
Question 4. Many species seem to have stopped evolving, such as sharks, alligators, insects. Why did evolution stop for them?
Question 5. Pigs and mice have more DNA commonality with ours than the apes. Why aren't we then pigan or mousan?
Well, that should be enough for now. Consult with Mr. Gould. He wrote lots and lots of papers.
If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to
unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question
mark. To date, there has been nothing found to
truthfully purport as a transitional species to man,
including Lucy.… If further pressed, I would have
to state that there is more evidence to suggest an
abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of
evolving. Richard Leakey, Paleoanthropologist
The final hurdle that evolutionists have not (and
cannot) overcome involves the co-dependence of the
respiratory system and the circulatory system. The heart
muscle requires oxygenated blood to remain alive. The
respiratory system depends on the circulating blood to
deliver oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. So which
came first, and how was it able to function properly
without the other? Yet, another chicken-egg problem
for Darwinians! Evolution may continue to be taught
as a “fact” in the classroom, but it has yet to answer
such basic life-dependency questions as these. Brad Harrub, Ph.D., “The Breath of Life—Not a Product of Evolution”
Wow.
Evolution explained.
Thanks!
Lots more 'data' here:
http://creationmuseum.org/
Jim,
I can't go through all of your points. Suffice it to say that you choose to disregard the fact of evolution, and nothing anyone says to you will change that.
I'm sorry about that. Really.
Evolution is a fact. It is only here in America, among the advanced western democracies, that people question this established fact. I don't understand this. We are right down there with third world countries such as Turkey, and other countries in the Middle East, where they too question the fact of evolution.
I'm not going to try to dissuade you. IF you want to join those cultures who choose to ignore fact of evolution, that is your choice.
Arguing about evolution is like arguing with someone about the theory of gravity.
I don't want to waste my time.
Sorry.
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi
It's not that I'm close-minded, that is far from the truth. It is that evolution is theory, not fact. Do things evolve? Yes, they do. It is in the application of the change that is in dispute. Darwin's Theory is only that, a theory. Go here for a discussion and definitions of the scientific method.
Jim,
I blame the educational system in this country for your statement:
It is that evolution is theory, not fact.
You're wrong there. Evolution is a FACT.
Jim typed: Darwin's Theory is only that, a theory.
When you type that, it is the same as typing "Gravity is only a theory," or "Einstein's theory of Relativity--general and special--is only a theory."
As I said earlier in these comments, it is your choice to dispute what is fact. The page you linked to does not argue against Evolution, but rather enforces and defines what a scientific fact is.
You will not find one student or professor at MIT who would agree with you and the conservative movement when they say Evolution is "only" a theory and not a fact.
It is a failure of our educational system that so many Americans (45%) are so misinformed over this subject.
You can take your place among the populations in the Middle East, where religious education trumps secular education, where people do not "believe" in Evolution.
You have bought into the conservative thought that was explained in the current post: that somehow you and other Evolution deniers have some special insight and truth that the rest of the world does not.
You don't. You've allowed yourself to be deceived and, sadly, left in ignorance.
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation.
But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.
The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century."
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
"There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts.
That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution."
Source
A liberal 's diabolical cousin said...
whenever I discuss Glenn Beck or Rush or Sean for that matter I very purposely put in my labelling system "media" as they are clearly members of the media even when they air their persecution theories so there's no escaping it, they are full-fledged members of the msm now as much as Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews is. OK so here's how this Beck phenomenon breaks down for me. It ain't his books per se, it's some of the things he says on the air that, well put it this way, it's an either/or situation with me. Take his latest, he revealed on the air the other morning that he has two Deep Throat sources that have popped up in literally the last few days and he literally meets one in a parking lot. Now we're either on the verge of one of the biggest news stories of all time or he's crazy. Alright, so a few days before this I'm driving along and he's talking about the usual, OBAMA. Nothing wrong with that, he gives it a freshness that Hannity sorely lacks but he's talking with a woman caller and he goes "liberalism always leads to death camps" and the woman completely agrees and starts saying she's willing to go to the gallows together and I'm like - WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN HOW??? - Obama is setting up some gulags and concentration camps? He keeps talking about some Big Event that's coming, no it's coming and it will completely transform the country as we know it but in a bad way. He said this alot when Van Jones was still on the job but even after he resigned as green czar The Theme continues uninterrupted and so the other day he amplified that we are on the verge of something as important as the Civil War, maybe even more important (that's debateable).
October 20, 2009 8:43 AM
Diacousin:
I don't buy the idea that Obama is planning an apocalypse any more than I bought the loony-tunes idea that Bush (during his 8 years) was planning to declare martial law and make himself a dictator.
Sure, I don't agree with the current President many of his policies on key issues. But that does not mean that I think he is the devil.
Post a Comment