Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

You Don't Need To Believe In The Big Imaginary Friend To Have Character
No need to waste your life on some hard bench closing your eyes and making wishes to a figure there's no evidence exists. Just copy The Six Pillars Of Character and start living by them:

Trustworthiness
Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends and country

Respect
Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements

Responsibility
Do what you are supposed to do • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your choices

Fairness
Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly

Caring
Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need

Citizenship
Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment

These points are found at charactercounts.org, via The Josephson Institute For Ethics -- secular ethics. And I'll let them answer the question that maybe came to mind for some of you:

But Isn’t Ethics Relative?

No. There are many areas in which we legitimately differ: politics, religion, sexuality, wealth, ethnicity, personality, ambition. But there is such a thing as right and wrong. Coalition members believe that adults and institutions have a duty to teach the young, in word and deed, that honesty is superior to lying, responsibility to dissolution, fairness to greed and caring to callousness.

OK. Whose Values, What Values?

Everyone’s values: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship.

See? For those who think being an atheist means being absent an ethical framework, when it's merely refusing to live according to primitive superstition, you don't need to believe in god, Santa, or little green men to be good. You just have to want to be good, and live accordingly. Think long and hard about the kind of person you want to be. Be comprehensive, and maybe even write your requirements down. Then, when you're confronted with an ethical choice, ask yourself what I ask myself (inserting your own name, of course): "Is that how the Amy Alkon I want to be would behave?"

No fire, no brimstone, no fear-based morality; just readily available answers for how you're supposed to behave in a given situation, once you've set standards for the kind of person you want to be.

I recently read one tip that resonated with my personal standards in my friend Sue Shapiro's book, Lighting Up. It's advice from her therapist:

"Live the most truthful life you can."

While I don't reveal other people's confidences when I'm asked to keep them, there's little about my own life I won't talk about. Frankly, my greatest concern isn't keeping secrets; I'd just hate to bore anyone.

But, generally speaking, because I have a well-articulated personal code of behavior, I don't do stuff I am or would be ashamed of. When I do behave badly, I try quickly correct my behavior, and any flawed thinking that went into it, and I do my best to make amends.

For example, on Amazon, I sell review copies of books I get that aren't right for me for mention on my blog or in my column. After a guy bought one of these, and I went to mail it to him, I realized that it had "review copy" stamped along the side. I wrote him to let him know and said I'd refund his money if he wanted. He did want a refund, which I gave him right away. Of course, I said I was sorry, too.

But, I realized something -- because I was careless, and didn't look the book over too well before I posted it for sale, he'd wasted time and energy, and was probably a little annoyed, too. I dropped him a couple of bucks in the mail, too, and a note apologizing for being careless and wasting his time.

He e-mailed me to tell me he was bowled over and truly appreciative. The experience highlighted something I believe -- what really bothers people is not that others make mistakes, but that they don't take responsibility for them or show accountability in any substantive way. By sending the guy the cash and the note -- a small gesture -- I showed him that I cared that he wasted his time, and truly felt sorry about it...beyond just giving him the easy-out lip-service of a verbal (or, in this case, e-mailed) apology.

Posted by aalkon at April 13, 2006 11:57 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1230

Comments

The second pillar of character is respect, which you routinely ignore in your diatribes against religion. Yes, athiests can be ethical people. But they can also be real bastards just like everyone else. You don't need to attack Christianity in order to make this point.

Posted by: nash at April 13, 2006 6:23 AM

I read carefully through Amy's post, and I don't see a single instance of her attacking Christianity. There are plenty of non-Christians who believe in the supernatural - some of them belong to other religions (like Muslims, for example) and some don't go to any church at all but still think there's an invisible man who lives in the sky.

I think the point was just that no one needs to be afraid of ghosts to behave morally.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 13, 2006 7:47 AM

First, Nash, to clarify something, those aren't my exact personal standards, merely a suggestion for those who don't have an articulated framework of their own. And, for me, disrespect isn't something I show by speaking freely, as I do. I consider that an important quality which actually takes some courage. I see religion as one of the most -- or the most -- damaging forces on the planet, and something I have to attack as fiercely as I can...before it fiercely attacks or gases or otherwise continues to degrade our quality of life. Stem cell research, anyone? And I'm going to post a piece about how bioconservatives are against life-extension in the next day or so.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 7:55 AM

I think it's very important to disrespect religion. I don't respect grown people who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Why should some supernatural beliefs be respected and others not? Equal treatment for all!

Posted by: blackbellamy at April 13, 2006 8:31 AM

It's teh same with medical malpractice: they've showed that doctors who apologize for fuckign up someone's life get sued very rarely; it's the people who won't apologize and react badly (arrogantly), when faced with their own mistakes, that just make the patient/victims madder and madder until somebody's got a lawsuit. The lawsuits are more about the bad attitude than the mistake in the first place.

Posted by: rebecca at April 13, 2006 8:39 AM

I won't comment on the silly "ethics" guidelines contrived by fools who are ignorant of the Philosophy (which is why they should be characterized as "fools"), but I will comment on your comment on your reference to God as "the big imaginary friend" for which there is "no evidence." First of all, by referring to God as an imaginary friend, you mean to say that he is a metaphor, because that is the purpose of imaginary friends or imaginary characters of any other kind: to metaphorically express something that could be understood clearly and completely. Thus, you the atheist has the burden of proof of explaining what the metaphor refers to. If you are to claim that God is "imaginary" and not real, why do people use this "imaginary friend"? If you can answer that, then you can not justify your atheism. By the way, before you attempt to justify your atheism, I wager that it is impossible for you to do so. You will come up with theories that are THEMSELVES guilty of the crime that you attribute to the idea of God: namely, metaphorical status - by saying something like "people believe in God because it brings them comfort," as though that makes any logical sense. Then you may say that you do NOT have the burden of proof: that the burden of proof is on the believer rather than the non-believer. But that would just be an abuse of language given that we are BOTH believers: I believe in God, you don't believe in God. To call me a "believer" and to call me a "non-believer" would be ridiculous and arbitrary. It could be said that I am the non-believer in atheism and that you are the believer in atheism. I have the burden to prove the existence of God, and you have the burden to prove that what people mean by "God" is imaginary rather than real. That is my thesis, and that is your thesis. And if you were to investigate the validity of the theses, you would find that though there is evidence and logic to support the believe in God, there is none to support the believe that the only possible interpretation of God is metaphorical in nature. Rather, it is possible to have a logical interpretation of God grounded on evidence aplenty. I present the evidence for the existence of that which should be called "God" in the first volume of The Philosophy; in the second volume of The Philosophy, I explain the nature of the universe and the mind; and in the third volume of The Philosophy I explain how to live.

Posted by: Edward Brent at April 13, 2006 9:42 AM

Um, I'm commenting on how others see god. I don't see god at all, anthromophosized or otherwise. I can't read the rest of your post, but I appreciate your effort to help me reminisce about college by attempting to replicate unreadable college texts!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 9:49 AM

Brevity is the soul of readability. Clarity helps, too.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 9:56 AM

> I think it's very important
> to disrespect religion.

If you don't admire them, fine. But if people know that you're dropping dark energies on the table before a word is spoken, they'll be less inclined to trust your judgment.

> no one needs to be afraid of
> ghosts to behave morally.

Maybe not, but if it helps. Y'know, we have terrible surpluss of immorality on this planet. Maybe we should take warm spirits as we find them

Posted by: Crid at April 13, 2006 10:35 AM

"Brevity is the soul of readability" is silly. It doesn't matter how long a writing is: it can still be readable. My comment is both readable and comprehensible. And insofar as it is not comprehensible, it can be comprehensible, which you should bring yourself to realize. You should read the entire post, for I am wiser than you despite that you are more popular at this time in history. Here's some advice for you: read my book, realize that what I say is true, and advise others to read it. That would be the best advice you can give this world.

As for your rebuttal of a post that you haven't even read in completion, you say "Um, I'm commenting on how others see god. I don't see god at all, anthromophosized or otherwise. I can't read the rest of your post, but I appreciate your effort to help me reminisce about college by attempting to replicate unreadable college texts!" First, you shouldn't start sentences with the word "um." Second, your comment on how others
see God is not necessarily true; you say that to others God is an imaginary friend. That's not necessarily how people see God. That's not what God is. That's not how God should be understood. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some fools use guns to murder people, that doesn't mean that you should ban guns. Similarly, just
because everyone except for me doesn't have the perfect [definition of the] word/name of "God" at this time in history, that doesn't mean that you should dismiss the word/name. That would be a horrific abuse of language. The proper and ideal concept of God is explained in The Mind of God.

As for "I don't see God at all, [anthropomorphized] or otherwise," that's false. There is absolutely nothing that you do not experience that is not a part of God. So you do see God AT ALL. Also, God is not to be anthropomorphized. That's what makes the Judaic concept of "God" unique from any other theism in history. Don't you know that God is not an object to be "seen" like a teddy bear or a pipe? You have a horrific concept of God. The proper concept of God can be gleaned from The Philosophy; specifically, The Mind of God.

Posted by: Edward Brent at April 13, 2006 11:21 AM

But Amy, you still don't want to recognize that some people have religious or spiritual beliefs because it enhances their experience as human beings in this lifetime - not necessarily because they need to have someone tell them how to behave. There are lots of very spiritual folks that don't pay any attention to the rules laid down by the Bible, preachers, or other so-called authorities. They believe in a supreme being or beings and are doing their best to live the most truthful lives they can.

It ain't all one thing, Amy. It might be more precise to say that you're against organized religion. It's the organized "our beliefs are the only right ones" people that we have to worry about.

Mr. Brent, do have a cup of tea and relax. Clearly, God wishes to have an experience of herself through Amy's eyes, as a non-believer with a forum. Let it ride. It makes all of us really think about this issue.

Posted by: Harris Pilton at April 13, 2006 11:54 AM

Dear Amy Alkon,

"I start sentences any way I like. I prefer ways which make them interesting and fun to read, a concept which escapes you. Post on my blog, I'm not about to become your pen pal."

What I say is interesting and fun and what you say is uninteresting and boring to those with the highest standards. Similarly, watching cartoons used to be interesting and fun until I grew out of them. You can elevate your standards by reading my writings.

is not a part of God.>>

"Substitute Zeus or Santa here. As much evidence for them. Not going to correspond with you further."

That doesn't make sense. Your flighty ditsy pseudo-rebuttals do not justify your position. You don't make sense. Where should I substitute Zeus or Santa? Should I substitute the word/name of "God" with Santa? Okay, let's try that. "There is absolutely nothing that you experience that is not a part of Santa." No, that doesn't work. Santa is an imaginary man who's supposed to live in the north pole. And as for Zeus, he is supposed to be the father of other Greek gods and mortal heroes. But that's not the Judaic concept of God.

And what about the rest of what I said?

Posted by: Edward Brent at April 13, 2006 11:59 AM

Debating with you is a waste of time, because you just spew a lot of sentences with not a lot of rationality behind them. Moreover, bunwad, if I'd wanted to post my response to you on my blog, I would have done so -- in context, as a response to your seventh-grade fascist notion that I'm not allowed to start a sentence with "Um." I'm not going to correspond with you further, because you are clearly unpersuaded by rational thought, and tedious, to boot.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 12:53 PM

"it enhances their experience as human beings in this lifetime - not necessarily because they need to have someone tell them how to behave."

And it's fine and dandy if they believe in The Great Pumpkin or in a pair of tap shoes that rules over all. The problem is, when their religion is divisive, damaging, and anti-science, as almost all are.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 12:59 PM

Amy's critics here are missing the point. In the context of secular character, "respect" means "sneer gratuitously and misrepresent other's claims." Once you've got that translation down, the rest all makes sense. Being "truthful" doesn't mean using words in their actual meanings, it means using words for their emotive impact.

You're a smart woman, Amy, but you're not going to win the self-examination prize at this year's Maypole Festival.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at April 13, 2006 1:19 PM

Again, AVI, the notes I posted above aren't my standards, but simply a boilerplate for those who have none. I don't consider it disrespectful to tell people they're irrational and clinging to beliefs that tend to be damaging to the rest of us - I consider my duty. I also don't have a fucking problem in the world with "foul" language. Like Albert Ellis, whom I do respect, for his accomplishments and for his rationality, I rather enjoy using it.

Where, however, am I not using words in their actual meanings, whatever that means? Frankly, I sometimes make words up in my writing -- which I enjoy and which some finds adds to what I write. Your mileage, apparently, varies.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 1:41 PM

I think people tend to conflate respect for individuals and their right to form their own opinions, with respect for those opinions. The fact that someone disagrees with an opinion you hold, no matter how dearly, does not by itself constitute a lack of respect for you as an individual, or an attack on your character. There is a world of difference between "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is dumb", and "People who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are dumb". If you can't see the difference when it's your ox being gored, that's something for you to deal with, rather than always responding as though the two statements are identical in meaning.


While I'm on my soapbox, I'd also like to say that I have never convinced someone that their opinion was wrong simply by stating that mine was superior. In fact, by beginning with that rhetorical position, I have virtually assured that no matter how reasoned or eloquent my argument, the other person will no longer be listening, but will at best only doggedly defend their own position.

Posted by: Alan at April 13, 2006 1:58 PM

Well put, Alan.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 4:12 PM

Just to interject here... did anyone see that episode of wife swap with the crazy woman from Louisiana or something? Sorry, that comment earlier about "dark energies" reminded me of it. Does anyone else get the sense that this person arguing with Amy is one of those people that thinks that by using complicated language you'll convince everyone you're a genius? That also reminds me of the Eddie Murphy movie where he talks so fast and so long that no one can understand a word he's saying and just lets him have his way. Good try, guy, but I don't think it works that way in real life. Go peddle your book elsewhere.

Posted by: Christina at April 13, 2006 6:50 PM

I would consider the use of comparisons such as imaginary friend and Santa Claus to be a fairly idiosyncratic definition of "respect." As an analogy, a misogynist rapper might legitimately claim a right to sing what he wishes; he may have a point if he states he is giving voice to the real experience of black people in the city; but to claim that he has respect for women would be just silly.

You are using the word "respect" in two different ways, conveniently switching as suits your purpose.

You certainly have the right to think and say whatever you wish about me and mine. And not all disagreement with ideas is necessarily disrespectful, even if forcefully put. But your comments are most emphatically not respectful. They may be valid, or deserved, or clever, but they are not respectful.

Alan, I agree that the two statements in question are logically different, and that there is indeed a large philosophical difference between having contempt for an idea and having contempt for the person who holds it. I would suggest that the use of phrases such as Flying Spaghetti Monster in the context of whether one believes in a god is transparently an attempt to ridicule, however, and weakens your point. My point is that Amy's comments (and those of other commenters) show both types of contempt, attempting to hide the illegitimate behind the legitimate. I don't think I'm the one missing the distinction here.

In the context of all comments, I do love the accusation that religions are divisive.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at April 13, 2006 9:15 PM

Amy:

I see great irony in the fact that you owe your liberty to the very same people you gratuitously insult and scorn. In other societies, especially secular societies, your freedom would be in serious jeopardy. I wish, just for once, you would acknowledge this fact.

Posted by: nash at April 13, 2006 9:54 PM

"First, Nash, to clarify something, those aren't my exact personal standards, merely a suggestion "

You quoted the Josephson Institute that said those standarnds weren't "suggestions," but universal, absolute truths.

Personally, I think ethics are relative. In our society we hold individual freedom and liberty as absolute truths even though other societies do not. The only thing that protects freedom and liberty in our society (80% Christian!) is our willingness to use overwhelming force to defend them.

Posted by: nash at April 13, 2006 9:57 PM

"I would suggest that the use of phrases such as Flying Spaghetti Monster in the context of whether one believes in a god is transparently an attempt to ridicule, however, and weakens your point."

Now you're swinging at shadows. Since I had no intent to belittle or cause offense to anyone's personal belief in a deity of their choice, I used an example that included a humorous alternative to a higher power. If you see that as a deliberate attempt to mock religion you are mistaken, and I take offense to the accusation.

Posted by: Alan at April 13, 2006 11:01 PM

I owe my freedom to irrational religious fanatics? Please. No, I owe my freedom to people who set up this country with separation between the state and the fundanutters. If not for those laws, I'd be in a work camp somewhere with a bunch of drag queens -- or dead.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 13, 2006 11:44 PM

The older I get, the more mockworthy I find religion to be. Now when I think about it I get the giggles. How on earth can grown people take these ideas seriously? If it wasn't for the threats and violence that invariably accompany it, religion would simply be laughed away.

Posted by: Norman at April 14, 2006 12:55 AM

> As an analogy, a misogynist
> rapper might legitimately claim
> a right to sing

That's a powerful analogy. I was named for my grandfather, the Methodist minister.... It's not that other people's religious beliefs don't deserve respect, because they do. But in the instant faithful people start intruding on our conduct irresponsibly, we have be ready to kneecap them without hesitation.

I think Amy's too snotty towards people who don't share her precise cosmology. I think Sharia is infinitely worse.

> I don't consider it disrespectful
> to tell people they're irrational

OK, but we oughta wait until they say something irrational first... On an individual basis. (And most of us DO wait)

Posted by: Crid at April 14, 2006 2:24 AM

> I also don't have a fucking problem
> in the world with "foul" language.

It's why we keep coming back for more!

Posted by: Crid at April 14, 2006 2:27 AM

Edward Brent writes:

I won't comment on the silly "ethics" guidelines contrived by fools who are ignorant of the Philosophy (which is why they should be characterized as "fools"),

Actually, I would like to hear more comment on this. I'm not sure what you mean by those who are "ignorant of the Philosophy." What philosophy? Do you mean ethics?

but I will comment on your comment on your reference to God as "the big imaginary friend" for which there is "no evidence." First of all, by referring to God as an imaginary friend, you mean to say that he is a metaphor, because that is the purpose of imaginary friends or imaginary characters of any other kind: to metaphorically express something that could be understood clearly and completely.

Since when? Children adopt imaginary friends all the time. Does this make them trying to create metaphors to express something they otherwise could not? I doubt it. They don't seem to be that sophisticated.

Thus, you the atheist has the burden of proof of explaining what the metaphor refers to. If you are to claim that God is "imaginary" and not real, why do people use this "imaginary friend"? If you can answer that, then you can not justify your atheism. By the way, before you attempt to justify your atheism, I wager that it is impossible for you to do so.

Shifting the burden of proof. It doesn't fall to the person to prove their disbelief of something that can't be shown in evidence. It falls to the person who asserts something lacking evidence. Our five senses have never furnished proof of an existence of God. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who maintain He exists, in spite of the apparent lack of evidence.

You will come up with theories that are THEMSELVES guilty of the crime that you attribute to the idea of God: namely, metaphorical status - by saying something like "people believe in God because it brings them comfort," as though that makes any logical sense. Then you may say that you do NOT have the burden of proof: that the burden of proof is on the believer rather than the non-believer. But that would just be an abuse of language given that we are BOTH believers: I believe in God, you don't believe in God. To call me a "believer" and to call me a "non-believer" would be ridiculous and arbitrary. It could be said that I am the non-believer in atheism and that you are the believer in atheism.

I agree. It would be ridiculous and arbitrary. Also confining. Who says we have to label people as "believers" and "non-believers"? This sounds like an instance of bifurcation (the "black and white" fallacy), the idea that everything is one or the other, when in fact, other options exist.

Moreover, you are changing the definition of believer in mid-argument. When you call yourself a "believer," it seems to mean a believer in God, a supernatural being. When you apply it to Amy, it seems to mean a believer in atheism, a philosophy. This fallacy is known as equivocation.

I have the burden to prove the existence of God, and you have the burden to prove that what people mean by "God" is imaginary rather than real. That is my thesis, and that is your thesis. And if you were to investigate the validity of the theses, you would find that though there is evidence and logic to support the believe in God, there is none to support the believe that the only possible interpretation of God is metaphorical in nature.

Since the argument has been disproven that Amy must believe that God is a metaphor, conclusions reached from this erroneous premise are invalid, and don't need to be addressed.

Rather, it is possible to have a logical interpretation of God grounded on evidence aplenty. I present the evidence for the existence of that which should be called "God" in the first volume of The Philosophy; in the second volume of The Philosophy, I explain the nature of the universe and the mind; and in the third volume of The Philosophy I explain how to live.

You explain the nature of the universe and the mind, and then explain how to live...perhaps your argument is that God exists, because you yourself are Him?

Posted by: Patrick at April 14, 2006 2:38 AM

"No, I owe my freedom to people who set up this country with separation between the state and the fundanutters."

The first amendment is merely a concept put down on a piece of paper. It only has weight because Christians that make up a majority of U.S. society today continue to hold that philosophy dear.

Posted by: nash at April 14, 2006 8:09 AM

Both Amy's and nash's categorical statements would be hard to sustain in a debate. Evidence is seldom unambiguous. I have a recent post on the subject for those interested. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/04/faux-logic-part-v.html

If your FSM example was truly lighthearted, Alan, then I am sorry I mistook your meaning. It doesn't read that way to me, but the fault may be in my eyes and not your appearance.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at April 14, 2006 9:09 AM

Amy, you still aren't playing fair about acknowledging that there's a difference between people who adhere to an organized religion and its dogma, and those have a spiritual life that is outside of organized religion.

You have big ol' blinders on, my dear, and you're pushing your own brand of dogma. Not a whole lot of difference between you and the old witch hunters back in Salem.

Posted by: Harris Pilton at April 14, 2006 1:49 PM

Umm... except for the glaring fact that Amy's not trying to kill anyone.

Posted by: Christina at April 14, 2006 5:08 PM

Assistant Village Idiot writes:

In the context of secular character, "respect" means "sneer gratuitously and misrepresent other's claims."

Irony, thy name is Assistant Village Idiot.

Posted by: Patrick at April 14, 2006 9:06 PM

Nash writes: "The first amendment is merely a concept put down on a piece of paper. It only has weight because Christians that make up a majority of U.S. society today continue to hold that philosophy dear."

Wrong, wrong, WRONG - Christians have virtually nothing to do with upholding the First Amendment, except completely coincidentally, like if an ACLU lawyer happens to be a Christian.

The First Amendment has "weight" because (a) it is embedded in the Constitution, which is the ultimate source of U.S. law, (b) the language is relevant to different eras and a wide variety of situations (damn, our forefathers were good drafters), and (c) people like the ACLU work tirelessly to try to keep it from being undermined - often fighting Christians who would prefer to ignore or change the First Amendment when it suits them (like prayer in public schools).

Posted by: Melissa at April 18, 2006 8:22 PM

Edward Brent, you are correct that "It doesn't matter how long a writing is: it can still be readable." However, your posts don't qualify as readable by any stretch of the imagination.

Amy, I could pick Edward's posts apart line from line, as I'm sure you could, but in reading his posts and repostes, I'm reminded of the old saying "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and just annoys the pig."

Posted by: Melissa at April 18, 2006 8:53 PM

I once taught our pot bellied pig to sing "Camptown Races", but it was ME that got pissed because he insisted on using the Daffy Duck voice, instead of taking the whole job seriously.

Pigs....

Posted by: SteveHeath at April 22, 2006 4:54 PM

Leave a comment