Wuhan Virus Ethics Updates, Part 1

1. Why keep calling it the Wuhan virus? Because the largely successful news media and political correctness assault on the completely legitimate (and non-racist) label continues to bolster Chinese Communist propaganda and blame-shifting, and because the effort emerged as yet another use of Big Lie #4: “Trump Is A Racist/White Supremacist.”

As for me personally, I will keep using the term because I resent being told that what cannot possibly be racist is racist, especially when my capitulation enables similar political correctness bullying. See the Third Niggardly Principle.

2. Because it’s so darn difficult to maintain social distancing while playing tennis... About  200 yards from my home in Alexandria, Virginia, the public tennis courts have their nets removed by another proto-fascist. Yesterday, I saw two people playing on one of the courts using a self-rigged net.  Good for them.

3. The problem is, you can’t force bank employees to come to work. Our bank, a large national chain, has all of its offices closed in this area, Banking is certainly an essential  service, but the fact is that you can’t do banking completely remotely, though the bank is pretending you can. Its website asks for a social security number at the same time as scammers are sending out fake emails that lead you to an authentic-looking clone of the bank’s site so they can steal your personal data. Try to call to clarify or address any problem, and you get a message about how wait times are longer than usual. I’ll say they are: to try to get a fraudulent $4000 charge to our account cancelled, I had to wait for an hour and 40 minutes, then be transferred to wait another 35 minutes, then be cut off when a transfer failed.

Meanwhile, the bank’s on-hold music is played at an unbearable volume, and is an endless loop of some hellish arrangement of a melody that would have been rejected for a theme park ride. I am certain that the recording is designed to make you hang up, or, in the alternative, go crazy and run into the street naked.  It is exactly like the deliberately uncomfortable seats and garish color schemes fast food outlets use to ensure you vacate the premises the second you finish eating. I swear that there cannot be a single person on the globe who would find this music anything but torture. The genre is “loud, abrasive, repetitious semi-music,” and there is no market for that. It makes hip-hop seem like Chopin.

Banks are essential, and rather than stopping stores from selling “non-essential” items, the government ought to require really essential services to have open outlets to serve depositors and bank customers experiencing their own emergencies. If a 7-11 clerk can come to work, so can a bank employee. Banks have my property within their control, and in exchange for the privilege, they are obligated to respond when I need service related to that money.

4. “The Ethicist” vs the pandemic. , the real life ethicist who writes the Times magazine ethics advice column, confronted a question about a problem that I’m sure many thousands of Americans are wrestling with right now (including some members of my family.)

A woman’s roommate has continued to see her boyfriend while the two women are supposedly “sheltering.” He comes over to the  apartment every day around dinnertime; they typically cook dinner in the  kitchen,  he stays over, then the next day,  eats breakfast in the apartment. Then he goes home, where he lives with his roommates. “The roommates are continuing to see several friends,” the inquirer says. “I’m not confident that they’re all taking the proper precautions.”

The inquirer said that she gave her roommate four options:

  • Her boyfriend moves in with us temporarily;
  • She moves in with him temporarily;
  • She goes home to her family’s house nearby and continues to do as she wishes or;
  • She stays in our apartment and stops seeing her boyfriend in person until the pandemic dies down.

Her roommate rejected them all and  insisted that it is her right to see her boyfriend. The Ethicist’s correspondent writes, “I believe it is my right to feel safe and healthy in my own home, and that that right should outweigh my roommate’s perceived right to do as she pleases.”

The Ethicist’s answer is excellent, while also demonstrating how ultimately unrealistic the “experts'” advice is, however accurate it might be. Here is a shortened version (but do read it all.)

…. Because love is, for many of us, a central source of meaning in our lives, we have to figure out how to balance it against other concerns and obligations. That, in essence, is the challenge facing your roommate and her boyfriend….When you are engaged in social distancing, you are doing two things, as you point out. One is merely prudent and self-interested: you are lowering the probability of your acquiring this disease. But the second thing you’re doing is conforming to a policy aimed at reducing the risks to all of us who have not yet been infected. This part of distancing is, in large part, altruistic…When a policy is working for the general good, we owe it to one another and to the community to do our fair share. …By defecting from the policy, your roommate is betraying not just you but also everybody who is sticking to it. She is also displaying a lack of respect for everyone who is benefiting from the lowered risk of infection.

… it doesn’t matter whether a specific violation of our public-health policy causes harm. Breaching it is reckless and antisocial….Your roommate, who objects to being “controlled,” is concerned with her autonomy. But she and her boyfriend are disregarding yours. As John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle” tells us, autonomy reaches its limits when an action is a threat to others. She needs to open her eyes.

I don’t know what agreement you’ll be able to reach, …[b]ut you need to agree on a serious commitment to safe practices. That means treating your roommate and her boyfriend as if they were infectious….Everyone in your household should sanitize all surfaces, tableware and cookware after each use and practice proper hand hygiene before putting things away. You should keep your foods and plates in separate cupboards and divide the space in the fridge, so you aren’t touching containers that have been used by them and, again, vice versa. If you share a bathroom, you’ll want to keep your toothpaste and toothbrush in your bedroom and ask them to do the same.And so on. Perhaps, after contemplating what is necessary to keep you safe from her decisions, your roommate will reconsider one of the more reasonable options you have already proposed. Love doesn’t have to be blind.

41 thoughts on “Wuhan Virus Ethics Updates, Part 1

  1. Why not call it the “Wuhan virus”? Probably for the same reason that we don’t call HIV the “African virus”. It’s simply not very descriptive, and a more precise term exists which, incidentally, doesn’t happen to offend anyone.

      • As I said, there is another perfectly descriptive term available anyways ,so why deliberately choose to use a controversial one that isn’t even as precise?

        • I answered that, and so did Joel. It’s not “more precise” which is straw man anyway. Is “mumps” precise? “Cold”? “Chicken pox”? You are making up a phony requirement so you can say a term doesn’t meet it—and the term you advocate meets it less!

          “Controversial” assumes all positions are of equal weight. They aren’t, and this is a good example. Among the many definitions of racist, “Someone says so” isn’t on the list.

          Address the rebuttal. Just ignoring questions you can’t answer and repeating what you already said is a cheat.

        • It’s pretty precise. It defines the location of it’s first cases. Neither COVID-19 nor SARS-CoV-2 do so.

          Also, we refer to many viruses by their origin, such as Sudan Virus, Tai Forest Virus, Zaire Ebolavirus, MERS (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) a corona virus related to SARS-CoV-2, Marbug Virus, the list goes on and on.

          There are no controversies about the above because of their origin-based names. There is no rational controversy about the Wuhan virus. Your argument is insubstantial and baseless.

        • Mark,

          We watched Jeopardy! today, like we do most every day. One of the questions asked had “afro” as the answer…you know, the hairstyle? The woman who rang in gave her answer with utmost hesitation. I turned to my wife and said, “I think that woman knows that if she said ‘afro’ and it was the wrong answer, she would probably be labeled a racist.”

          See what’s happening? Any word associated with race used in any form conversation is now termed racist. Today it’s a woman answering a question (in the form of a question) on a game show. “Afro” is no more racist than is reading the word “nigger” from the Supreme Court case record…is no more racist than saying “Wuhan” is the source of the virus.

          People are being imprisoned by this notion of “right-speak”. I will never be intentionally offensive to anyone, but I have to be free to say things that might offend somebody without fear of a mob backlash…or I’m no longer free.

          Neither are you.

    • I suspect that the term “Wuhan virus” doesn’t actually offend the people who are crying most about its use. Rather, it’s a convenient political club to wield. How can I say this with any certainty? Because most of those decrying the use of “Wuhan virus” were completely comfortable using that term (or some variation of it) in the early weeks of the outbreak. It only became “offensive” when some people decided to try to paint Trump’s use of the term as racist.

    • So you pick out one of the tiny percentage of illnesses we don’t identify from its point of outbreak, and act as if that the norm? Good one. It wasn’t labeled by a place because at first nobody knew where it came from (it was first called “the Gay Disease” and second, it wasn’t a flu-like virus. And when someone claims to be offended by something that can’t possibly be legitimately offensive, that’s their problem, not mine.

      Why don’t you read the Third Niggardly Principle that I linked to? I do such things so people won’t make comments that make them look as if they haven’t been paying attenetion.

  2. “Meanwhile, the bank’s on-hold music is played at an unbearable volume, and is an endless loop of some hellish arrangement of a melody that would have been rejected for a theme park ride. ”

    I’m going to guess that this is the bank that got a big plug in The Music Man. Also compromised, I sat through about 100 minutes of that tune in three separate calls last week. Ugh!

    When I finally made it into the phone system, all it would say is that wait times were over ten minutes. They should give an accurate estimate of how long the wait is, or just not pick up a call if it’s going to be so long. Another possibility would be a dedicated line for people reporting fraud, as most of the call volume concerns requests for extensions right now.

  3. Jack,

    “As for me personally, I will keep using the term because I resent being told that what cannot possibly be racist is racist, especially when my capitulation enables similar political correctness bullying. See the Third Niggardly Principle.”

    Do whatever makes you happy, but I don’t see how you can unanimously declare something as “not racist”, then quote your own ethical principle as though that solves the matter. However consistent your internal logic, the argument becomes moot when you apply it to something inherently subjective. Groups of people themselves decide what counts as offensive, based on collective and individual standards. They’re not wrong any more than you’re right, as both truths don’t necessarily contradict.

    If you ask a stranger adorned in a lobster hat “Good catch today?” and he finds the comment upsetting because he wore said hat in memorial of his brother who died in a tragic trawling accident, you’re both right. He should have explained the context and given you benefit of doubt, but it still unintentionally hurt his feelings. Does he not have a right to at least express that pain, whether intentional or not?

    Lastly, the term itself is imprecise. The virus may have started in Wuhan, but has spread globally. The fact that viruses have historically become identified with their places of origin doesn’t mean they always should. Especially when epidemiology is imprecise and those locations are prone to changing as our understanding of an outbreak evolves. The Spanish flu is now believed to have started elsewhere, Ebola likely began in South Sudan, etc.

    This reminds me of a lecture I attended years ago in which the speaker, a prominent scholar of the Vietnam War confessed that when she first visited the country she realized the singular word “Vietnam” had become synonymous with the war instead of the country as a whole. She encouraged consideration of how words such words shape our thinking, especially when referencing human lives.

    Best to you.

    • “If you ask a stranger adorned in a lobster hat “Good catch today?” and he finds the comment upsetting because he wore said hat in memorial of his brother who died in a tragic trawling accident, you’re both right. He should have explained the context and given you benefit of doubt, but it still unintentionally hurt his feelings. Does he not have a right to at least express that pain, whether intentional or not?”

      This is sort of a weird example but I think I get your point. It reminds me of something I heard a little while back that I think was a good summary of a big problem we face in this country – liberals are becoming increasingly unwilling to forgive, and conservatives are becoming increasingly unwilling to apologize.

    • I wish I comprehended how your brain works, Neil. I just don’t.

      “I don’t see how you can unanimously declare something as “not racist”, then quote your own ethical principle as though that solves the matter.”

      1. Look up any definition of racism that isn’t so broad as to be satire, and under that definition, you will find that designating a thing by its origin doesn’t fit. That’s how. Moreover, a city name doesn’t become a racial slur just because most of its occupants belong to a single race. Calling it racist is just a non sequitur that makes as much sense as calling someone a lying dog-faced pony soldier. Since it isn’t racist by any previously accepted definition, the burden of proof is on the race-baiter to make the case. They can’t. (I already wrote two posts about this, Neil. It’s unethical to make me rehash an explanation when you could read it yourself. The argument that its racist consists of this terrible logic: “Real racists will use it as an excuse to beat up Asians.”

      2. I didn’t make up the reasoning behind the Niggardly Principles, so they aren’t “mine,” any more than I invested the 102 rationalizations on my list. They already existed, most for centuries. I just named them for convenience.

      You pick some awfully strange hills to die on, my friend.

      3. If you ask a stranger adorned in a lobster hat “Good catch today?” and he finds the comment upsetting because he wore said hat in memorial of his brother who died in a tragic trawling accident, you’re both right. He should have explained the context and given you benefit of doubt, but it still unintentionally hurt his feelings. Does he not have a right to at least express that pain, whether intentional or not?

      And if someone else finds “Good morning!” offensive, I’m supposed to be awash with remorse? In the Abbot and Costello “Niagara Falls” routine, is the fault the one who says the word that makes the crazy person attack him, or the crazy person?

      Wow. What a bad argument!

      Lastly, the term itself is imprecise. The virus may have started in Wuhan, but has spread globally. The fact that viruses have historically become identified with their places of origin doesn’t mean they always should. Especially when epidemiology is imprecise and those locations are prone to changing as our understanding of an outbreak evolves. The Spanish flu is now believed to have started elsewhere, Ebola likely began in South Sudan, etc.

      Worse than the argument before. So what? How many disease names are “precise? Most people don’t know what HIV means or refers to. COVID 19 isn’t precise if almost nobody knows what that means. It conveys no information to most people. A place name does convey information. To you, the fact that the Spanish Flu is a misnomer and misidentifies the origin means that it is inappropriate to correctly identify the origin? Wow. Or you argue that if a disease that originates in Wuhan (and, not incidentally, is allowed to become a pandemic because the Chines government deliberately covered it up) goes worldwide, then it shouldn’t be named after the place with which it was first associated? Double wow.

      By your logic, you can’t call it Lou Gehrig’s Disease because he wasn’t the only one who got it.
      By your logic, you can’t call it Lou Gehrig’s Disease because it’s imprecise. ALS is MUCH more descriptive. Or Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which I still can’t remember.
      By your logic, you can’t call it Lou Gehrig’s Disease because it’s racist, since Lou was German; or anti-baseball, because he was a baseball player, or anti-firstbaseman, because that was his position.

      Really, really bad hill, Neil. One of the worst.

      • Jack,

        What hill did I choose to die on? I offered a different point of view to consider or disregard. It’s not unethical to have an opinion you’ve already expounded upon, unless you suggest it’s my duty to daily read your posts. I never said it was racist or not (nor did I suggest it was offensive) only that you can’t unanimously decide. Why make attacks personal? You constantly complain about declining readership and yet bemoan that I don’t read enough?

        I end all of my messages with some sort of nicety to show that I’m only offering a point of consideration, never an argument. Yet, you bemoan my logic as though there is any. These are just musings. If you don’t want them, I won’t provide them anymore. If you don’t want my readership, I can stop that too.

        Why are you so unpleasant to me?

          • Jack,

            It’s not without substance if it’s how people feel. Whenever you say “Wuhan virus” a number of people will immediately stop listening to anythings substantive you have to say because it’s now colored by their perception of the term. Speaking of dying on hills, why make this yours?

            You don’t have to capitulate to the race-baiters, but they, then, also don’t have to pay attention to you. No one is “making” you say anything, but you have to meet them on their level if you expect them to listen. You’re the one seeking an audience, remember.

            • Good lord, Neil, did you really just say that feelings are substance?

              Insisting that one stand up to mobs, propaganda, liars and censors who wield such bullying terms as “racist” is no hill. It’s a fiercely held principle passed down from my father, and its my duty to model it. And I do. And will.

  4. 3. The Comptroller of the Currency is down with the bank branches being closed!? What the hell? Our bank has its drive up window open and a sign on the front telling customers to call for an appointment if they need to come into the branch. Overly cautious, but still somewhat accommodating. And I had assumed it was the most stringent thing allowed by the regulators to make sure, you know, people could get to their, you know MONEY!

    I’ve become convinced most of this shut down is being driven by risk management people advising their clients not to do anything that could possibly get them sued for negligence by the hoards of car wreck lawyers signing up survivors of elderly and unhealthy people (including employees) who succumb to the Chinese Communist Party Virus and those of the plaid jacket persuasion are doubtless already targeting juicy defendants. Come to think of it, there will be massive class actions filed against national grocery chains, drugstores, banks, restaurants, you name it. The television ads looking for plaintiffs are doubtless already in production. Larry Kudlow is right, there needs to be some sort of legislative intervention. But Jack, you well know the power of the plaintiffs’ bar in legislatures. But if nothing is done, the COURTS will be overwhelmed in every jurisdiction by a real tsunami. Forget hospitals being overwhelmed. Insurers are already on edge because of D and O exposure on this, never mind having to fend off business interruption litigation in every state they do business in. A true goat rodeo.

      • I suspect it would work at the bank out here. It’s a small bank. A subsidiary of a fairly good-sized Utah regional bank but still really good at customer service. And it’s essentially a business bank rather than a consumer bank. It’s not Chase or Wells Fargo or B of A. I avoid our former bank, now Chase, like the plague. Even in the best of times, going in a branch was worse than going to the Department of Motor Vehicles in terms of customer service.

  5. Here is an article related to the pandemic.

    http://groups.google.com/d/msg/UK.LEGAL/raUdR6-5gdI/VawVMEIEBQAJ

    London Police Ask Citizens to Report COVID-19 Hate Crimes
    by Judith Bergman
    April 21, 2020 at 4:00 am

    Asking the public for more complaints — specifically on hate crime —
    especially regarding incidents that are not even obviously criminal, seems a
    bizarre priority, to say the least.

    In 2014, the UK introduced the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines, which
    state that any non-crime incident that is perceived, by the victim or any
    other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a
    person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender
    identity must be recorded, even if there is no evidence of the hate
    element…

    Since the introduction of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines, police in
    the UK have recorded nearly 120,000 “non-crime hate incidents”…. The
    non-crime incidents are logged in a system and can even show up in a
    so-called DBS check, when employers ask for a copy of a prospective
    employee’s criminal record.

    The Hate Crime Operational Guidelines came under scrutiny in February… The
    police showed up at [Miller’s] place of work. They told him that his tweet
    was not a crime, but that it was nevertheless being recorded as a hate
    incident. In police reports, Miller was described as a “suspect”.

    The Hate Crime Operational Guidelines… are still in use.

    (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

    The Metropolitan Police (the Met, London’s police force) recently asked the
    public to report, “hate crime related to the Covid-19 pandemic”.

    “Are you a victim or witness of hate crime related to the COVID-19 pandemic?
    We do not tolerate hatred or abuse directed at communities because of their
    race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. If you
    experience hate crime, please tell us & we will act” the Met tweeted on
    March 28.

    “Someone using offensive language towards you or harassing you because of
    who you are or who they think you are is also a crime,” a constable told
    followers of the force’s Twitter account.

    “Another example is someone posting abusive or offensive messages about you
    online. You might want to shrug it off if it happens to you, but if you tell
    us then we can investigate and stop it from getting worse, for you or
    someone else. Even if you’re not sure if it’s a crime or not, you should
    report it so we can investigate.”

    The call to report hate crimes comes at a time when London is experiencing a
    crime wave, while also having to deal with the Coronavirus:

    The police recorded 146 homicides in London in 2019, up from 135 in 2018,
    making it the most lethal year in a decade. The majority of the killings
    were stabbings, which have nearly doubled between 2014 and 2019. Killings
    linked to gang-violence have more than doubled, from 17 in 2014 to 42 in
    2019.

    According to the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC),
    there were 221,003 instances of violence against people in London in 2019,
    up 4.5 % from 2018. Of those, 77,081 resulted in injury. Serious youth
    violence went up 9.7% in 2019 to 8,481 incidents. There were 46,086 drug
    offenses, representing an increase of 26.3%, and 15,438 knife crime
    offenses, up by 5.2%.

    There were 19,956 sexual offenses in 2019, down 2.6 % from 2018, including
    7,859 rapes. In 2019, there were also 39,716 robberies, up 19.1 %, 80,465
    burglaries, down by 0.1 % and 251,981 thefts, an increase of 13.6 %.

    In July 2019, the BBC reported that the proportion of crimes solved by
    police in England and Wales had fallen to the lowest level recorded since
    data began to be compiled in 2015. At that time, 15.5% were charged. In 2019
    (measured March-to-March), 7.8% of offenses saw someone charged, down from
    9.1% in 2018. For some individual crimes, the proportion of crimes solved
    was even lower: 3.8% for sexual offenses, 5.4% for criminal damage and
    arson, and 6% for theft.

    Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick admitted in June:

    “Overall police detection rates nationally are low, woefully low I would say
    in some instances, and the courts are emptying, not filling. It’s not good,
    and I’m not proud of it”.

    On the bright side, however, Dick said that the force was now “infinitely
    more accountable and trustworthy, less secretive, less, frankly, arrogant,
    more humble, more responsive and of course very much, but not enough, more
    diverse.”

    Asking the public for more complaints — specifically on hate crime —
    especially regarding incidents that are not even obviously criminal, seems a
    bizarre priority, to say the least.

    In 2014, the UK introduced the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines, which
    state that any non-crime incident that is perceived, by the victim or any
    other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a
    person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender
    identity must be recorded, even if there is no evidence of the hate element:

    “For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other
    person… is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a
    hate incident… The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of
    their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge
    this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident
    or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident”.

    Since the introduction of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines, police in
    the UK have recorded nearly 120,000 “non-crime hate incidents”, according to
    the Telegraph. The non-crime incidents are logged in a system and can even
    show up in a so-called DBS check, when employers ask for a copy of a
    prospective employee’s criminal record.

    The Hate Crime Operational Guidelines came under scrutiny in February when a
    former police officer, Harry Miller, won his legal battle against Humberside
    Police, who investigated non-criminal tweets he made, which they alleged
    were “transphobic”. The police showed up at his place of work and told him
    that his tweets were not a crime, but that what he had done was nevertheless
    being recorded as a hate incident. In police reports, Miller was described
    as a “suspect”.

    “The role of British police today goes beyond bringing offenders to justice
    when they commit crimes,” the College of Policing (the authority behind the
    guidelines) argued in defence of the guidelines, adding that “police now
    take an active role in the resolution of conflict within and between
    communities.”

    The High Court ruled that the police’s actions had a “chilling effect” on
    the free speech rights of Harry Miller and constituted “a disproportionate
    interference with… [Miller’s] right to freedom of expression”. The judge
    compared the actions of the police to the Gestapo and East Germany’s Stasi.
    He ruled that the tweets were lawful and said there was not “the slightest
    risk” Harry Miller would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.
    At the same time, however, the High Court found that the Hate Crime
    Operational Guidelines were lawful — so they are still in use.

    Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a
    Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

  6. #2, the day a government even thinks about this technology, I need you, Jack, to rally your fellow Bostonians to board a cargo ship and dump boxes of cameras into the harbor.

    I’m almost to the point of asking you to do the same with boxes of masks, if a local government begins compelling the permanent wearing of masks (except that those masks would be available for actual good purposes).

  7. #4) its a hard balance though… not taking proper precautions is “anti social behavior” in terms of “good civics”.

    But the proper precautions being prescribed for who knows how long the totalitarians want, are *by definition* destructive of the very *social behaviors* we humans MUST HAVE for good mental, spiritual and emotional health.

    The very kinds of social constructs we’re softly establishing are the same kinds of destructive *anti-social* behaviors encouraged by socialist/communist dictatorships to keep people from ever trusting each other or feeling community ever again.

    • I should clarify that the totalitarians are trying to destroy any feelings of community that derive from primary relationships OTHER than those deriving from a primary relationship of worker to State.

  8. I’ve been having trouble breathing after a flu early winter, so breathing through a mask is just not possible, so permanent masks is not viable. I’m stuck in place for longer, then… Our unbeloved governer’s termed protests as attempts at mob rule instead of Bill of Rights,

    Calling a location name racist is so contrived. Wuhan is more specific than the more generic ‘chinese’ name I’ve heard. I really dislike what looks like random letter names, as names mean more if they express context. If you see a baby’s name is Hans, Diego, or Sunshine Prism Gary Stew you learn something rather than Mon’gli-thx1138. And if there are multiple coronavirus strains, different strains should have different names, just to make educating and discussion more relatable to non-virus specialists. Jargon should not dominate the discussion with the mass of humanity, it’s just not that important to be elite. If you cannot speak clearly to a 12th-grade level, let someone else have the spotlight who can. That communication is more important than showing your elite ego.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.