Friday Ethics Open Forum!

Finally—back on schedule!

The past week was an unusually lively one, both ethics news-wise and in the comments amphitheater, though my own attentions were more divided than usual. And AS usual, when I believe Ethics Alarms has been particularly useful and interesting, it lost subscribers.

This trend has puzzled and annoyed me for years. Well, the runaways can bite me. Their loss.

If no one discusses here the “Let’s silence Joe Rogan!” story of last week, when two ex-hippy iconic artists decided to use their economic power to try to censor someone whom they disagreed with—that’s what being “progressive” means today, somehow.

38 thoughts on “Friday Ethics Open Forum!

  1. Ethics Issue Worth Discussing:
    How, in legal terms, would you describe or otherwise identify the acts of a sitting judge in a pending case — be it for “progressive,” “woke,” or just straight-up “dishonest” reasons — who makes an ethical u-turn concerning his or her duty under oath to administer justice fairly and honestly (i.e., impartially apply existing law to the known facts in order to resolve the legal dispute)?
    “Judicial Corruption” is one term I use.

  2. About the movement to cancel Joe Rogan.

    I really had no clue who Joe Rogan was before this lunacy came up, I’d heard his name a few times here and there but I really didn’t know what he did. The musicians trying to cancel Joe Rogan by removing, or threatening to remove, their music from Spotify are brainwashed virtue signaling imbeciles, their actions alone have already grown Rogan’s followers. Actions have unintended consequences and the actions of these virtue signaling dumbass imbeciles backfired and it’s a well earned backfire! I’ve already removed all their music from my digital devices. These musicians canceled themselves, fuck them all and the all horses they rode in on. On top of that, I listened to some of Joe Rogan’s podcast interviews and now I’m someone that will routinely view his interviews and it’s all because of these virtue signaling blithering idiots. Nice job you fucking imbeciles.

    Are we sure that Joe Rogan didn’t conspire with all these virtue signaling musicians to boost his viewers, it’s a hell of an effective promotional campaign.

    • Of course no one can be sure, but I’ve listened to his podcast a few times and the apology he gave and I don’t see him causing a incident like this. I see it as the illiberal left angry at someone they think is a threat. He has all kinds of people on and they just talk. He’s not really “far right” like they claim, although he has people of all walks of life on to talk.
      I think it is nearly “ethics train wreck” status since the White House commented on it and people are jumping on sides. The pressure to participate censorship of free speech is alarming. Maybe Rogan’s people he interviewed are right, maybe not, but I would like to hear what they have to say. I know someone who had quite a few side effects from the vaccine. They told her “what a coincidence”. They didn’t seem to think it was a problem that it caused her to have a 20 day cycle. This shouldn’t happen from a vaccine. What’s going on? Idk, do you? Does anyone? It’s suspicious at best when anyone who voices concerns with this vaccine is being silenced or called a denier or a conspiracy theorist and removed from the online platforms. So yes even if his people are wrong, they should be heard. Just because they are in the minority of scientists and against the “mainstream ideas” doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong and it doesn’t mean they don’t have valid scientific questions that should be considered, even if they are wrong. Plus, this silencing of the opposing views is going to do the exact opposite of what they want. It’ll just make people more suspicious of current consensus.

      • Rogan isn’t on the right at all. He is a leftist. He votes left, is in favor of most left wing economic policies, in favor of most leftwing social policies and in general believes left wing things. He just isn’t crazy. Somehow, not being crazy is the new definition of right wing.

      • Yeah…. Rogan isn’t a righty. He’s kind of similar to Bill Maher, without all the smug smarminess.

        The thing is (and by all mean, Democrats, keep doing this, our tent has room) that they’re being pushed out of the left because the thing that the left seems to prize most is conformity of thought. If you can’t give them conformity, they’ll accept silence, and if you actively disagree, they kick you out. It’s not a long term winning strategy.

    • “I really had no clue who Joe Rogan was before this lunacy came up, I’d heard his name a few times here and there but I really didn’t know what he did.”

      I think… This is a problem. We can’t all be aware of everything, obviously, but Joe Rogan has (by far) the largest podcast on Earth. His brand is huge, his platform is massive. He left YouTube for Spotify for a $100,000,000 contract. I’m wondering, and I mean this gently, but does not knowing who Joe Rogan is before now signal cultural illiteracy in a current event context? I really don’t understand how someone misses that, and if you miss that, what else are you missing?

      • Humble Talent wrote, “I’m wondering, and I mean this gently, but does not knowing who Joe Rogan is before now signal cultural illiteracy in a current event context?”

        That’s a fair question and sure it shows some level of cultural illiteracy but I ask gently “so what”? Frankly I haven’t been too inclined to sit and watch podcasts (I much rather read things) with the exceptions of The Dershow, Epoch TV once in a great while, or a link that someone send me about a specific topic. I’ve known that there are podcasters out there but I just don’t care to spend all that time watching/listening to pundits etc, I’d much rather watch something on C-SPAN instead of listening to others opinions about it.

        Humble Talent wrote, “I really don’t understand how someone misses that, and if you miss that, what else are you missing?”

        I ask myself that question every single day but in all seriousness there is only so much time in a day and I have obligations that trump browsing the internet and keeping up with absolutely every cultural change that rolls around. Maybe after I retire I can keep up with absolutely everything that happens on the internet every day. 😉

        That should address your points.

        • “I ask gently “so what”? Frankly I haven’t been too inclined to sit and watch podcasts ”

          Look, there’s something like 200 hours of content uploaded to YouTube every minute of every day. We could not possibly consume all the information that exists out there. But there’s a difference between actively consuming something and knowing that it exists, and in a current context, not knowing Joe Rogan’s podcast exists is (in my opinion) similar to not knowing that CNN is (allegedly) a News Organization.

          I’m waffling on this, but I’m playing with the idea that it might be a necessity of good citizenship to be at least aware of things like Rogan.

          • Humble Talent wrote, “I’m waffling on this, but I’m playing with the idea that it might be a necessity of good citizenship to be at least aware of things like Rogan.”

            “necessity of good citizenship”? WOW!

            You’re welcome to your opinion on that but I think that viewpoint is way out there.

            • I think you’re misunderstanding the term.

              People define “good citizenship” in all kinds of ways, but all the definitions boil down to a list of responsibilities that moral people strive to undertake as an offset the rights and benefits of citizenship. Good citizens won’t do everything on the list, but things that are on the list are done by good citizens. And it’s not just “show up for jury duty” or “vote” (although I would include both), I would argue that returning a shopping cart is a mark of good citizenship. Failing to return the shopping cart doesn’t make you a bad citizen, or even a bad person (just an ungovernable animal… Seriously… return the damn cart).

              Aristotle wrote on the subject: “there cannot be a single absolute excellence of the good citizen. But the good man is so called in virtue of a single absolute excellence. It is thus clear that it is possible to be a good citizen without possessing the excellence which is the quality of a good man.”

              “Scouting for Boys: A handbook for instruction in good citizenship” has been printed since Robert Baden Powell wrote it the boy scouts of America in 1908. It lists things like taking first aid courses, or leaving the campsite cleaner than when you found it.

              In this context, I think that Good Citizenship requires a base understanding of the world around you and how it interacts. Again… Still waffling on this, but I’m leaning towards knowing that large, culturally effecting phenomenon like Joe Rogan’s podcast being a part of that.

  3. I have to admit to enjoying a bit of shadenfreude as mainstream media outlets join forces with the White House press secretary to cancel someone and the only people to flock to their banner are a handful of artists over 70.

    • Gotta remember that damn hear all of those artists that are now over 70 years old were part of the anti-establishment hippies and/or communists in 1960’s and 1970’s, so those horses didn’t change their colors. That lack of change should scare the hell out of people because the lunatic totalitarians in the first quarter of the 21st century are also not likely to change their colors either, what’s going to happen when the wackos like ANTIFA and BLM, and their ignorant supporters, are running the government?

      Be fearful of what we’re leaving behind for our grandchildren.

    • I saw a meme about this that made me laugh… a lot. I know our host hates memes, but this one was hysterical.

      Everyone under 30: Who’s Neil Young?
      Everyone 31-65: Neil Young is still alive?
      Everyone 66+: What’s Spotify?

      Mostly, who cares? These guys are irrelevant to our lives.

  4. I would be interested to hear your take on the Maus controversy in Tennessee.

    Recently, I’ve been running the FB page for the part of the college I work at. Because of this, I’m seeing a whole lot more liberal posts than I used to since all my liberal friends deleted me during Trump’s reign.

    If you haven’t heard of it, there’s a holocaust book that the Tennessee school board banned for 8th graders (I don’t know if it’s been banned for the high school). The school board did not say they thought the book was filth or anything like that, just that it wasn’t age appropriate for 8th graders.

    I am on the more conservative side, so while I don’t know if I agree with banning the book from the middle school library, I see the concern from the school board.

    The author of the book is claiming he is being censored. Many of the liberal posts I’ve seen from people friends with the official page are crying censorship and how conservatives deny history. I mean, it’s predictable.

    The thing that really bothers me is that these liberals who are crying about book banning were all in favor of *actually banning* those Dr. Seuss books awhile back. The Tennessee school board did not try to get Maus’s book pulled off of Amazon or stop any new copies from being published. All they did was say it wasn’t age appropriate for middle schoolers.

    It took everything in me not to explode at the hypocrisy. A school board saying a book isn’t age appropriate is book banning, but actually banning Dr. Seuss books is fine and great.

    I don’t know how people can lack such self-awareness, especially with advanced degrees!

    Here’s a link to the story if you haven’t seen it yet:

    • Might not have been directed at me, but I’ll chime in.

      The school board is saying that they’re removing the book because there were depictions of nudity in the book, apparently there were some drawings of mice-tits in the book. Not to be confused with tit mice. What they haven’t said, and what they maybe should point out, is that they aren’t banning all holocaust books in their libraries, only the ones with illustrated mouse tits. Do I think that the banning is an overreaction? Oh yes. Do I think it’s ideologically motivated? Probably not.

      The Dr. Seuss comparison is important. “The right”, who is bearing the brunt of the PR fallout of this current spate of book bannings, did not drive that movement. And sure, the historical importance of holocaust education probably outweighs a lot of Seussian works, but from a scope and scale context, there’s really no metric where the left’s push to ban Seuss was not worse.

      So I think the left has to get over themselves on this. Similar to the hypocritical professions of support for Jews, this isn’t something where they actually have the good standing to make this issue partisan. If they want to profess a position that books should not be banned, welcome to the struggle! I agree. If they’re just looking to score the points du jour, they can fuck right off.

      • “If they want to profess a position that books should not be banned, welcome to the struggle! I agree. If they’re just looking to score the points du jour, they can fuck right off.”

        I have respect for consistency, and for those who think “book banning” is almost always wrong, I am extremely sympathetic to that point of view. A school library is different than a public library and Amazon, and my standards are a thousand times more lenient in the public space where adults can make free decisions. The only ban in the public sphere I would be okay with is either hardcore or child pornography, but the hardcore porn is my more conservative side (and I would be in favor of just blocking and banning in rather than locking people up for looking at it). I am not in favor of banning ideas.

        The left I am speaking of did not come out in favor of Dr. Seuss. In fact, they all cheered it. They explicitly and openly say they want to make “hate speech” illegal. They ridiculed conservatives who defended Dr. Seuss, saying the only explanation for defending the problematic books is racism.

        This case is just a virtue signaling ploy to make themselves feel good and inaccurately portray the school board as somehow being anti-history.

        Again, I think you can reasonably disagree with the school board on this, but the left’s framing is outright dishonest.

      • Regarding the nudity, the way the anthropomorphized characters are drawn, they have animal heads, but from the neck down are shaped completely human. When the author’s father (whom the story is about), begins his stay in Auschwitz, there’s a panel were he and the others are showering (in a regular shower, not the gas kind), where you see full frontal nudity, with the genitals crudely drawn.

        In my comment farther down I described the inclusion of the author’s more extreme work, which has female frontal nudity, and the characters are drawn completely human. I’d say the comics are “okay” for teen readers, but not any younger.

    • Because they merely removed it from the curriculum, rather than mount a crusade against it, I’m inclined to think “banned” is an exaggeration. Would you say that any and all books not included in school libraries or curriculums are “banned”? I do agree that the Left is being hypocritical with their reaction, and if I saw the same person protest this “ban”, that I saw cheering the removal of Dr. Seuss, I’d call them on it.

      Now, banning hypocrisy aside, I’ve read “Maus” as a teenager, around eighth grade or sooner. It wasn’t part of any school curriculum, and I don’t remember seeing it in any school libraries. As I recall, I’d seen the graphic novels (there are two in the series) in a newsletter of children and young adult oriented books, and my parents got them for me. I loved them, and I dare say the average teenager, as well as anyone interested in WWII, would love them also. But they are not for the faint of heart. In addition to illustrating the Holocaust in all its horror, inserted in the books is the author’s “Prisoner on Hell Planet”, a comic where he basically vented his feelings about his mother’s suicide. One panel illustrates his father walking in on his mother’s naked, dead body in the bathtub. Only half her body is shown, partially submerged, but her breasts are clearly visible. Language-wise, I can understand the school’s policy of “if our students can’t say it, the books we use can’t say it”. But I think teenagers are ready for some of the rougher facts of life. I was aware of the Holocaust before I read “Maus”, but it was those comics that really drove home how horrible it really was.

      • There’s a Movie, a musical, called Repo: The Genetic Opera. It came out before the critically panned Repo movie that recycled some of the plot. And Anthony Stewart Head was in it (who knew that Giles had pipes?). Repo was incredibly violent. Ridiculously violent, but the music accompanying the violence had this upbeat, carnival quality to it…

        Content Warning: Ick. Murder. Disembowelment. Turning a man into a human meat puppet.

        The clip ends too soon, right before the next scene it pans to the repo man’s face and you can see this moment of “what the fuck did I just do?”. The brilliance of this movie is the music. Without the soundtrack your mind doesn’t have the happyish place to retreat and your left viewing a run of the mill gory, grisly, over the top organic horror. It’s funny sometimes, the tricks we play on ourselves. The rules we enforce, liminally or otherwise… Repo was not JUST an over the top gory grisly organic horror, but it was A gory grisly organic horror.

        In this case, I wonder if the nudity of Maus would have been seen as more or less serious, more or less acceptable, had the author just straight up drawn people, or does the thin veneer of animality distract the mind enough to draw a distinction?

    • I’ve read “Maus” and its follow-up. The drawings of naked Jewish mice are less provocative than Mayella Euell implying she’s the victim of incest in “To Kill a Mockingbird”. I wouldn’t pull it from the 8th grade roster and I wouldn’t pull “Maus” either.

      “Maus” is a great introduction to the Holocaust to middle-schoolers.

      The censors need to pick their battles more carefully. Neither side seems capable of doing that, though.

  5. When I was a kid, the schools, cartoons, and books fed us propaganda about the importance of having tolerance. At some point tolerance was redefined to mean “agree with everything the democrats say, and attack everyone who disagrees”, but that was not always the case. There are still a lot of people my age and older who grew up with a different definition. That older definition involved keeping an open mind and being willing to listen to people you disagree with. The definition switch seems to have occurred about half of the way through the millennial generation. A fairly generous percentage of GenX and older millennials don’t particularly care for the new definition. GenX is usually categorized as people born between 1965-1980. Rogan was born in 1967, making him a GenX baby.

    Rogan ascribes to the earlier definition of tolerance, and his podcast centers around the idea that it is good to listen to other people’s perspectives. He likes to do long form interviews with people of all different stripes and dig into their views on any number of issues. Politics, comedy, self-improvement, healthy living and social issues are just a smattering of the topics he covers. He is not bound to any one lane, and he is not and does not claim to be a news source.

    Rogan interviewed multiple people about topics related to covid. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Alex Berenson, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. John Abramson, Dr. Robert Malone and others. These people have different viewpoints on the subject of covid. The left does not want there to BE different viewpoints on the subject of covid. The left is mad Rogan demonstrated that there ARE different viewpoints on covid, and those alternate viewpoints have merit. So the left is throwing a giant temper tantrum like toddlers and trying to cancel Rogan. I think that there is far more to this controversy, however, than mere elimination of threats to the covid propaganda.

    Rogan has over 11 million listeners. Those 11 million listeners listen to Rogan because he is open minded, seeks out varying viewpoints, doesn’t demonize the people with viewpoints that conflict with his own (or doesn’t do so as much as everyone else does at any rate) and is good at presenting things in a calm and informative way. People who grew up with the earlier definition of tolerance crave open minded discussions free of the screeching and propaganda the mainstream media spouts like a busted fire hydrant. They want the return of civility to debate, the return of open mindedness, and so they seek out people who provide sources and examples of civil debate and open mindedness.

    I think part of what we are seeing now with the Rogan cancel drama is the elites trying to crush the people who define tolerance by the old definition. They want the entire concept of open mindedness crushed, dismembered, burned to ashes, and tortured into submission. GenX is in their way. Rogan is not the only GenXer out there spreading the message of open mindedness, and he is not the only one being attacked. He is just the latest and possibly most high profile example.

    Open mindedness is the enemy of much of what the left currently stands for. Open minded people do things like listen to other people’s opinions without freaking out. They look for common cause and consider the idea that they might have the wrong solutions to problems. They consider the idea that the elites, such as the media, are wrong about things. The elites, in tech, media, politics and business, are openly at war with the entire concept of open mindedness.

    Tech companies, media, politicians and business have great power over people’s knowledge of everything. If you see the same opinion on CNN, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, in your Google search results and your company announcements, you are likely to confuse those opinions for being facts. Tech can easily control people’s perceptions through secret algorithms that are hard to spot, particularly when they coordinate with one another. Then add television, film, music and politicians to the mix and you have near total control of what people think other people think. It becomes easy to make fringe ideas seem mainstream.

    People like Rogan threaten that control over perception. They demonstrate that the illusion isn’t real. Rogan reintroduces the ideal of open mindedness to people who might never have been exposed previously. The elites are worried people might start listening to each other instead of the them, and they don’t want that. Cancel culture is their weapon. It’s all very totalitarian and unethical.

    Trying to divide everyone up into tribes so you can keep them fighting instead of finding common ground is despicable. Doing so through coordinated attacks on free speech is also despicable. Attacking the concept of open mindedness is just evil. I cannot fathom any possible motive for such actions that comes close to being ethical.

    I don’t think the drive for control, the crushing of dissent, and the seeming desire to eliminate open mindedness is necessarily a conscious decision, but rather stems from an instinctual recognition that the elites are losing control. It also stems from general ethics rot that has become pervasive in our society. Activism culture contributes greatly, and is at least partly a conscious decision. Some of the behavior is revenue driven, due to ad based revenue generation on “free” websites. Whatever the root cause, this behavior is destructive.

    • I agree. I would disagree with you on one point though.

      Some people on the left are very conscious of what they are doing. They are so close minded that they don’t see value in anything but their own hyper progressive worldview. Everyone else isn’t just wrong but dumb and evil. The old liberals were condescending, but they saw people who disagreed as “less enlightened” and not an evil person. The new left hates conservatives, which has made conservatives react with defensive towards the new left.

      I think deep down the far left knows a lot of their ideas can’t stand up to debate, so they insulate themselves in universities and try to silence those who disagree with them. Their strategy is to win through coercion rather than through an actual debate. And very few of them are open to being wrong. In fact, the more extreme you are, the more “woke” you appear now.

      • Humans process information through pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is great for most things, but it creates problems when looking at chaotic systems as we often see patterns in non-patterned data or see the wrong patterns. I honestly don’t know how much of the left’s behavior is intentional. Sometimes, when I’m mad, it all seems like a giant coordinated plot. In my more rational moods, it seems more of an additive problem created by individuals who all have disparate but related common goals.

        The activists definitely do some of it on purpose, but on a micro level I think. They intentionally distort their rhetoric to inflame emotions and to win arguments by shutting down dissenters. I don’t think they look at the bigger picture, though. They are focused on whatever pet issue they are focused on, and mostly copy the tactics they see all the other activists using. It’s like a swarm effect. No one individual activist is leading the swarm, they just all move around together doing similar things, and the net effect of all the individuals added together is what causes the problems.

        Tech companies do what they do to make money, and because they think big data tells them the whole picture. It doesn’t, but most of them don’t understand what big data really is or where it came from. Big Data is nothing but behavioral statistics software. SPSS was acquired by IBM in 2009. SPSS stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. It’s what academic psychology researchers use to do statistical analysis on the data from psychological studies. Without a solid background in the application of the scientific method to social sciences and behavioral statistics as it was originally used for analyzing psychological studies, it is easy to misunderstand what the analysis tells you. Industrial psychology and marketing don’t really mesh well. The marketers think you can use multi factorial analysis to do a/b testing on software user interfaces to maximize profits, but they don’t realize that cumulatively their a/b tests are driving behavior rather than quantifying it. It’s unethical to conduct psychological studies on people without their informed consent, particularly with the sole goal of driving profits. They would call it market research rather than psychological research, but it’s the same thing only misapplied. Ethical issues aside, it’s also stupid and dangerous, and directly responsible for a lot of the civil unrest we are seeing today. It isn’t a plot, though, just people who think they are smart doing incredibly stupid and unethical things. Add activists to the mix as programmers of algorithms and moderators for who can say what, and you have a recipe for what we have now.

        Individual behaviors by particular actors are intentional, but the miasma of coercion as a whole probably isn’t.

  6. Just got back from a solo trip to a client’s open casket funeral. I sat in the way back because I only knew most of the extended family, who were understandably otherwise occupied, and I was pert near the only white person there.

    Throughout the visitation, attendees were taking very close up camera photos of the deceased. I have a flip phone (left in my vehicle) without picture-taking capability, but am not so (IMO) culturally illiterate (H/T HT, above) to be unaware of the frenzied desire to photograph every last f*cking person/place/noun one encounters.

    This struck me as odd, borderline disrespectful. Yet it not only continued during the tributes, but during the Preachin’ as well. Folks walked up past speakers practically non-stop during their tearful tributes and snapped away; that struck me as odd, borderline disrespectful…ratcheted up by several orders of magnitude.

    My view from the rear also allowed me to observe the illuminated screens of many, many, many, attendees checking their phones non-stop throughout.

    Is this “The New Normal?”

    I thought solemnity might loosen the iron-clad grip phones have on their owners, but then again, they tore down the school I attended in order to erect the Old School.

    Not only that, but I seem recall besting…um…seasoned contributor dragin_dragon (you out there, big guy?) in a head-to-head “Who’s the Dinosauer” competition.

  7. Superb essay relating to the recent Whoopi Goldberg gaffe by Andrew Sullivan:

    (Note: I’m not sure the link will work — if I go directly to his substack, I encounter a paywall on this article)

  8. More unprecedented covid treatment stories from front line health care workers.
    Illuminating, tragic, infuriating, and grossly unethical.

    “Rumble — On January 24, 2022, Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion.”

  9. As a registered flight nurse that could manage a ventilator, Nicole Sirotek became valuable on the frontlines in New York City in May, 2020. (Later, she founded American Frontline Nurses).

    Please listen to the end to the powerful testimony Nurse Nicole Sirotek gave, surrounded by other nurses, to Senator Ron Johnson’s panel in the US Senate on Monday.
    8 minutes of your time.

  10. Late post for Friday Open Forum but I try to avoid off topic comments on main posts.

    We had to get a Notary Public to witness my signing of a spousal waiver for my wifes pension as she is retiring next month. A spousal waiver is required for lump sum option. So, we had to go to the bank for the notary and I’m like Jack when it comes to the masks. Every entry door into the bank had the red “Mask Required” sign. My wife still wears a mask in public but that’s her choice. She had an extra mask and offered it to me; I said, “No Thanks”. My wife: “You have to wear the mask because they have the sign that the mask is required”. Me: “We’ll see.” Everyone in the bank was wearing a mask, both customers and employees but not me. Nobody said anything and we got our Notary seal and left. I did expect someone to say something to me but there were no challenges to me being maskless.

    I know some people still want to wear a mask like my wife, but, I think it should be by chioce, not mandated as these cloth and paper masks people are wearing aren’t effective as has been discussed here on EA. How long will it be before businesses stop posting these “Mask Required” signs?

    My wife gets slightly perturbed with me because I keep asking her, “Are you going to wear those masks for the rest of your life?” She wears gloves too. Personally, I don’t have any problem with her doing those things but I’m not going to live that way. Plus, she doesn’t question my decision not to wear a mask, so, everything is okay there. We’re both over 60.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.