ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Let Science be silent

There is an wise old saying that I very much attempt to apply to life, the universe, and everything.  "Let Reason be silent when Experience gainsays it."  In this postmodern scientific age, we very much require a new aphorism.   

Let Science be silent when it cannot predict future events.  

The fear and outrage being expressed in light of the conviction of the Italian geologists who are guilty of manslaughter at L'Aquila are entirely misplaced, as it is not science that is being found guilty, but rather, the abuse of the common man's faith in science by scientists.  Consider the facts of the case, as described by Nature, a publication that can hardly be considered hostile to science:
The indictments have drawn global condemnation. The American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), both in Washington DC, issued statements in support of the Italian defendants. In an open letter to Napolitano, for example, the AAAS said it was "unfair and naive" of local prosecutors to charge the men for failing "to alert the population of L'Aquila of an impending earthquake". And last May, when Italian magistrate Giuseppe Gargarella ruled at a preliminary hearing that the scientists would have to stand trial this September, the Italian blogosphere lit up with lamentation and defence lawyers greeted the decision with disbelief....

The view from L'Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population. The charges, detailed in a 224-page document filed by Picuti, allege that members of the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks, who held a special meeting in L'Aquila the week before the earthquake, provided "incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information" to a public that had been unnerved by months of persistent, low-level tremors. Picuti says that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness.

"I'm not crazy," Picuti says. "I know they can't predict earthquakes. The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila." Part of that risk assessment, he says, should have included the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre. "They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors," he says, "and they did not."

"This isn't a trial against science," insists Vittorini, who is a civil party to the suit. But he says that a persistent message from authorities of "Be calm, don't worry", and a lack of specific advice, deprived him and others of an opportunity to make an informed decision about what to do on the night of the earthquake. "That's why I feel betrayed by science," he says. "Either they didn't know certain things, which is a problem, or they didn't know how to communicate what they did know, which is also a problem."
The article and the account it provides of the fate of the Vittorini family is damning to guilty geologists.  It is clear that the Italian families resident there no longer abided by their traditional custom of clearing out of their houses when there were tremors, primarily due to the assurances they received from the National Commission, which is why the death toll was larger than it would have been if it hadn't been for those assurances.  The defenders of the scientists around the world are observably bending the truth, even lying, for claiming that science is on trial or that the basis of the charges are that they failed to do the impossible by not "pinpointing the time, location and strength of a future earthquake in the short term", as Nature puts it.

As the prosecutor points out, the basis of the charges is not that the scientists didn't predict the earthquake, but rather that they did not fulfill their legal duties to perform a proper risk assessment.  Moreover, if it is impossible to predict an earthquake, then how could any honest geologist accept a paid position on a government body called the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks?  If you know you can't do the job required, then you had better not accept it in the first place.

I have to disagree with Instapundit's take on the matter.  He sees this Italian attempt to hold scientists accountable for engaging in unscientific activity that led directly to great loss of life as creating "incentives for scientists to leave Italy and to avoid giving any sort of earthquake advice to the Italian government. I predict a run of bad luck."

First, I note the inapplicability of the quote to the situation.  Heinlein was talking about entrepreneurs and technological and conceptual innovators when he described his "extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people".  He most certainly wasn't describing publicly acclaimed, government-funded individuals hailed as the nation's "most respected geophysicists".

Second, I very much doubt Italy will have any trouble at all finding top-credentialed scientists to continue accepting government funding.  And to the extent that those scientists learn to keep their mouths shut about things they can neither predict with any reasonable accuracy nor support with credible scientific evidence, that would be an entirely desirable advancement from the current state of scientistry, which so often attempts to confuse credentialed democracy and amateur editing for genuine scientody.

Labels: ,

44 Comments:

Anonymous Paradisum October 23, 2012 6:28 AM  

If their job is to "predict" risk and they "calculate" low risk is this not fulfilling their legal obligations?

Operational risk management is not an exact science. Usually, it is the practice to err on the side of caution thus inflating the predicted risk and resultant response. This is similar to the inflation of tropical storms into hypercanes.

And of the residents, do they not bare a large portion of the blame? If nothing else it betrays the publics' singular faith in the government super nanny.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie October 23, 2012 6:33 AM  

It's certain a large portion of the worlds scientist have become politicians. Science under the current conditions is detrimental to ones health.

HKC

Anonymous Paradisum October 23, 2012 6:35 AM  

This situation, I think, is related to a similar abuse of science and politics - the trivial percent success rate. At least in medicine, only doctors can tout 2% survival in 5 years as a victory and the public - from what I observe - buys it. Imagine an engineer declaring that in 5 years an amazing 2 out of 100 bridges were still standing! What wonder it would be.

Anonymous lup October 23, 2012 6:46 AM  

The courts have killed more people by their blind justice. The is more then enough factual date to prove that lawyers and judges should be imprisoned

Anonymous VD October 23, 2012 6:47 AM  

If their job is to "predict" risk and they "calculate" low risk is this not fulfilling their legal obligations?

They didn't do that. The Commission convened a special meeting at L'Aquila not long before the earthquake specifically to debunk the claims of a non-scientist there who was warning that an earthquake was imminent due to his tracking of radon being released in the area.

Then the earthquake occurred....

Anonymous DrTorch October 23, 2012 6:53 AM  

From this article it reads like the real problem were some patronizing assurances made after the official meeting. I'm not sure the entire committee is to blame, rather the two, Barberi and De Bernardinis, really mucked things up.

Anonymous willneverpostagain October 23, 2012 6:53 AM  

I have just acquired a newfound respect for Italy and things Italian.

Anonymous Paradisum October 23, 2012 7:02 AM  

"...to debunk the claims of a non-scientist..."

Then it would appear that scientISTS should be silent and not science since this is an example of politiical hackery using scientific credentials for cover.

Obviously, the non-scientist was employing science of some kind - and he wasn't silent about it either. He just wasn't the right kind of scientician.

Don't get me wrong I'm as opposed to the reification and deification of science/scientists as you. But I think the bigger story is the publics' perverted perception of scientists and their reliance on the academic prognosticators. The courts are simply punishing their gods.

Blogger Crude October 23, 2012 7:23 AM  

I wonder if this will give any pause to the scientists who talk up how scientists should be taking a strong, even leading voice in dictating public policy and the like.

Anonymous lup October 23, 2012 7:35 AM  

hey didn't do that. The Commission convened a special meeting at L'Aquila not long before the earthquake specifically to debunk the claims of a non-scientist there who was warning that an earthquake was imminent due to his tracking of radon being released in the area.

This is like a higher court over ruling a lower court
The question is what defines one as a better scientist and a judge

Blogger Bob Wallace October 23, 2012 9:04 AM  

"Be calm, don't worry"

The first thing I thought is that when the first place flew into the World Trade Center, the loudspeaker in the second told the people to stay put, be calm, don't worry.

It was at that point I decided there are no experts, and damn few legitimate authorities.

Anonymous zen0 October 23, 2012 9:34 AM  

But I think the bigger story is the publics' perverted perception of scientists and their reliance on the academic prognosticators. Paridisum

An attitude which is totally divorced from the influence of scientists on public debate, I presume.



Anonymous Feh October 23, 2012 9:36 AM  

@ Bob,

It was the stupid rent-a-cops (aka "security") in the second tower who told everyone to return to their desks. When you listen to someone like that, you're not listening to an "expert" but to a minimum-wage dumbass in a position of "authority".

If the building next to me explodes and people start jumping out of it to their deaths, time to call it a day no matter what the "authorities" say.

Anonymous HH October 23, 2012 9:38 AM  

Earthquakes are very rare events --- the probability of rare events is very difficult as the traditional methods of predicting frequency, expert determinations etc do not work right on this... when P = 1e-8 what can you do ? People want to live in the beautiful old stone buildings built before any building code .. thats fine but theres a risk to that...

Maybe just another example of Italian legal system ? Obviously too many lawyers... sure .. just blame the geologists...

Anonymous harry12 October 23, 2012 9:56 AM  

.
Earthquakes are "VERY" rare events??
.

Blogger Spacebunny October 23, 2012 10:07 AM  

Earthquakes are very rare events --- the probability of rare events is very difficult as the traditional methods of predicting frequency, expert determinations etc do not work right on this... when P = 1e-8 what can you do ? People want to live in the beautiful old stone buildings built before any building code .. thats fine but theres a risk to that...


Apparently a lot, or they might just as well quit with all of the tornado sirens then too. I can remember the number of times as a kid I was woken up and taken to the basement because there was a bad storm and the sirens were going off, and yet in my entire life was I even close to a tornado. I've been in a couple of earthquakes though....

Now, I'm sure you'll be happy define to very rare for us - just a ball park figure will do just fine. Especially since " The NEIC estimates that several million earthquakes occur in the world each year. Many go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes.
Source: National Earthquake Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey."

Anonymous MendoScot October 23, 2012 10:51 AM  

Yeah, extremely rare events.

Anonymous zen0 October 23, 2012 10:54 AM  

Real Time Earthquake map:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

Anonymous disinterested 0bserver October 23, 2012 10:57 AM  

Don't look at MendoScot's earthquake site. It is being phased out. Look at zen0's offering. It is cutting edge.

Anonymous MendoScot October 23, 2012 11:15 AM  

My link has more data and lets you score the earthquake yourself.

Wikwakes!

P.S. A 5.1 just down the road this a.m.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, UCLA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics October 23, 2012 11:29 AM  

Geophysicists are respected? Half the time the public has never even heard of them.

"Are they the guys who do dinosaurs? I loved the raptors in Jurassic Park!"

Blogger RobertT October 23, 2012 11:34 AM  

"Let Reason be silent when Experience gainsays it."

Perhaps. But experience is not all that good at predicting unexpected events. Looking backwards toward experience will give you no clue about the future. e.g. Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center, Vesuvius, Katrina. Completely unexpected events come out of nowhere more frequently than people think.

Projecting the past into the future is perhaps as accurate as we can get, but it is essentially unreliable. I think a better saying is, "Whenever everybody thinks they're safe, look for dissenting opinions". See Taleb's Black Swan.

I do like your approach of watching patterns develop, but it has its limitations.

Blogger RobertT October 23, 2012 11:52 AM  

Now that I read the entire article, I see you are placing blame on the people's faith in science rather than science itself. I would encourage you to listen to a scientist speak about "intelligent design" some time. You will hear nothing but scathing disrespect. Or think back to some of the comments about global warming. "Scientists" ridicule people who don't agree with them. I don't see anything wrong with holding them to the same standards as the rest of society. If they're so special, let them prove it. Ordinary people can go to jail at any time for much less than causing a death. Look at the guy who put the Muslim video on the internet. He's been in jail for a month. Why should scientists have special protection?

Anonymous Stephen J. October 23, 2012 12:22 PM  

"Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population."

Potential risk is always measured by the likelihood of an event occuring within a certain specific time, which amounts to the ability to predict that event. I can predict right now that there will be another devastating earthquake in Japan in the future, and be 100% certain of that prediction, as long as you don't ask me to tell you whether it'll be sometime in the next two weeks or sometime in the next two centuries.

I really am sorry for the victims and their loved ones, but it's getting harder for me to see this as anything other than bog-standard sue-whoever-you-can-to-pay-for-your-bad-luck litigiousness.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 23, 2012 12:31 PM  

Pulling a comment forward from the previous thread on this topic that I think illustrates the issue:

There was a mini-thread about liability for an engineering failure a while back, and who was to blame - the engineer for a bad design or the contractor for improper material substitution.

The buck was passed between the two during subsequent investigation as to who needed to do the final calculations on weight/stress testing for the double rod design, but ultimately GCE and Gillam were found liable.

Which is actually the relevant point. Someone was supposed to be liable for the failure - either the engineers or the contractors. Arguments about who gets what share of the blame can get shady, and money can buy leniency, but ultimately someone is "held accountable" to some (perhaps inadequate) degree.

That, I think, is the fundamental difference between Engineering* and (traditional) Science. Egineering promises results, Science promises (or used to promise) nothing more than ideas that might prove useful someday. Now, Science! done that way can be valuable, but the Rubicon (since we're in Italy) that was crosses was when scientists wanted to dictate social policy. They wanted to engage in, shall we say, Social Engineering.

Well, wanna do Engineering? Sign your name to the design and take the blame when your bridge to the future falls down. If you don't want to be held liable when you're wrong, then stay out of Engineering and stick to proposing theories. Nothing wrong with proposing theories, so long as you don't demand people do what you say.


* just to keep the Contractor in the loop here, Engineering is basically Construction-with-Math.

Anonymous HH October 23, 2012 1:01 PM  

"I'm sure you'll be happy define to very rare for us"

Rare events and the statistical analysis of such is a specialized study -- the term itself "rare events" is a specific term... when you have very high catastrophic risks with very low probabilities. Its not an absolute P but rather a relative to other risks. And its not the existence of earth quakes that the risk analysis would take as rare but rather the risk of an earthquake causing a fatality -- and that varies a lot with location. In the US -- I stand by my statement as being very very low.... in the rest of the world ...

I have to admit I was surprised by what I saw below for the rest of the world ... although when compared against the world populations (very tragic that so many innocents would die) as a cold equation the proportion in regards to the world population of over 7 billion it is still not significant.

"The annual estimated figures can vary significantly from year to year depending on the occurrence and location of large earthquakes. For example in 2000 there were only 231 estimated earthquake deaths globally, whereas in 2004 there were 228,802 (which most likely corresponds to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) and in 2010 there have been an estimated 226,215 (due in part to the very large number of deaths in the January 2010 Haitian earthquake). "

It certainly would be interesting to see the number of deaths in the modern US vs the rest of the world (I could not find data for US deaths )... places like India, Iran, Haiti etc where they live in dirt houses maybe they should have earthquake sirens - but even there I would be surprised if death by earthquake represented high in the list of things that cause death.

Anonymous Paradisum October 23, 2012 1:18 PM  

RobertT: "But experience is not all that good at predicting unexpected events."

I think the correct interpretation is "obervation trumps theory."

Or commonly, "This is what happens when a beautiful theory runs into a brutal gang of facts."

Blogger IM2L844 October 23, 2012 1:37 PM  

But experience is not all that good at predicting unexpected events.

Of course it is. I predict that within the next 9 months several people in the United Stated will be totally dismayed when tornados unexpectedly devastate their lives. Experience is less useful for predicting the fine grained details, but it is not altogether useless.

Anonymous JCclimber October 23, 2012 1:56 PM  

HH,
are you being deliberately obtuse? These "scientists" were held to account because they contradicted two other methods of prediction, publicly, by stating there was nothing to worry about.
1) Traditional method of fleeing the buildings and area when a number of low-level quakes start hitting. Been pretty effective for the last few centuries.
2) The non-credentialed scientist who publicly pointed out the radon gas level release predicted a large earthquake would hit, soon.

These arrogant A-holes went on to publicly reassure everyone that no large earthquake would hit, "trust us, we're scientists and smart and stuff, see all our degrees and credentials?"

They're lucky that some bereaved family member hasn't taken a private contract out on them already.
I bet that none of them has even apologized for getting the call wrong. Being thrown into jail is perhaps too light of a punishment to drill through the arrogance of these "scientists".

Anonymous DrTorch October 23, 2012 2:16 PM  

2) The non-credentialed scientist who publicly pointed out the radon gas level release predicted a large earthquake would hit, soon.

If you include #2, then you should include horoscopes and pig entrails. That guy had a method, but he had a zero-percent success rate prior to this earthquake. Giving him regard added to this mess, b/c reacting to him fueled the overstatements by the committee members.

Anonymous Fanny State October 23, 2012 4:15 PM  

Let's carry this verdict through to it's natural conclusions. The future of advice in Italy:

Is the carnival ride safe? You might die.
Is it safe to mountain bike? You might die.
Should I start skateboarding? You might die.
Is the bridge safe? Maybe. Possibly not. If you feel it wiggling, run like hell!
Is this food safe? You might die of it. Maybe allergy, maybe you choke. Be careful!
Is this Porsche safe? You might drive it too fast and crash. And die.
Is this coffee safe? No! If you spill it on yourself it will burn you. The good news is that you probably won't die immediately of it.

It's like in the USA where the warning labels on everything are so long nobody reads them. The Italians, if they weren't already done as a society, are now one nail in the coffin closer.

The obvious truth of the matter is that people die of earthquakes. Nobody wants it to happen. Sometimes people make mistakes. Jailing well meaning scientists for being wrong is not addressing the root problem: The world is unsafe and people are unreliable. Get used to it!

Anonymous Eduardo October 23, 2012 4:34 PM  

And, people want justice... Get used to it.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 23, 2012 4:43 PM  

It's all in the difference between saying "Trust us, we know what's best for you" and "well, here's what I think, you make up your own mind."

How much were these scientists doing the former, and how much the latter?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 23, 2012 4:56 PM  

VD,

It's pretty obvious the science fetishists are trying to make martyrs out of these guys similarly to Galileo. Eventually they will get around to blaming the church. I don't know how, I just know that's what always happens.

Presumably it's easier to nip this in the bud. But how?

Anonymous kh123 October 23, 2012 5:14 PM  

"Is the carnival ride safe? You might die.
Is it safe to mountain bike? You might die.
Should I start skateboarding? You might die...Jailing well meaning scientists for being wrong is not addressing the root problem:"


The difference being if you had a panel of nationally funded individuals who used their scientific credentials to state to the public that all the above have no chance of leading to injury or any outside chance of fatality. Recall the film reels from the 40's or 50's concerning cigarettes or over-the-counter meth.

It's interesting to see how the regular readership which lambastes (rightly so) the AGW prognosticators somehow considers that lack of actual, proper warning - on the part of those who are paid to be on a commission to do just that - is somehow acceptable, with no consequences. The commission would have been better served to say "We honestly don't know."

Kitchen, heat, threshold, etc.

Anonymous kh123 October 23, 2012 5:17 PM  

This and the last thread reminds me of the reaction some Jews have to any criticism of Israel, or of actually addressing pre-WWII grievances stemming from redrawn borders or Versailles.

Anonymous bw1 October 23, 2012 5:40 PM  

I see this less as an indictment of science and more as an indictment of government. These scientists worked for a government agency tasked with assessing risks, something that used to be a personal responsibility of the individual. According to the article, people died because they suborned their own common sense, which dictated evacuating buildings when the earth shakes, to Big Brother's admonition to "keep calm and carry on." Most people don't place any credence on scientific statements unless they are endorsed by public agencies and officials.

Is a paternalist, authoritarian regime any more palatable if it lacks scientists? The focus here should be on the role of the government which paid these scientists to pontificate not on future seismic activity, but on how people should go about securing their own safety. In Italy, government empowers scientists to send people back into collapsing buildings in an earthquake, and in Saudi Arabia, government empowers religious leaders to send girls back into a burning dormitory because they aren't wearing their headscarves - what's the difference?

Anonymous HH October 23, 2012 8:33 PM  

"HH, are you being deliberately obtuse ?"

If I must be labelled as a deliberate triangle I think I prefer being right :)

I was asked to define what I meant by rare events -- the rules of this blog are that if you are asked a question by SB you must answer it to the best of your abilities :)

But imagine the other side of the coin .. scientists go out and say "Hey .. eventually there will be an earthquake and structures have been known to collapse .. people could get hurt so we better spend a lot of money studying how to make the buildings stronger and impose more demanding building codes " or maybe even " hey.. all this carbon in the atmosphere is likely to cause a raise in the earths temps and that could be bad .. we should do something about it now "... do anyone think the outcome would be any different.


Anonymous HH October 23, 2012 8:37 PM  

Here's an interesting article on rare events in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/20/rare.events

Anonymous Toby Temple October 23, 2012 9:23 PM  

Scientists should know how to play it safe. Declare that there is no way to know for certain that there will be a massive earthquake tomorrow. But since the risk of them being wrong is far too great, warn the people and tell them to leave places that would get them buried when a strong earthquake occurs tomorrow.

There is no need to go asshole level ATHEIST and say "there will be no earthquake tomorrow you morons!"

Blogger Spacebunny October 24, 2012 2:33 AM  

Don't worry HH - I'm sure nobody noticed you moved the goalposts in your lame attempt.

Anonymous DrTorch October 24, 2012 7:27 AM  

But imagine the other side of the coin .. scientists go out and say "Hey .. eventually there will be an earthquake and structures have been known to collapse .. people could get hurt so we better spend a lot of money studying how to make the buildings stronger and impose more demanding building codes " or maybe even " hey.. all this carbon in the atmosphere is likely to cause a raise in the earths temps and that could be bad .. we should do something about it now "... do anyone think the outcome would be any different.

HH made a good point here. But I'm not sure it's the one he wanted to make. This is what the panel scientists should have said...but they didn't. At least the two who decided to go on camera and overstate their case.

Anonymous Apollo October 24, 2012 8:55 AM  

From an Op Ed piece at New Scientist, found here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128310.200-dont-blame-italian-seismologists-for-quake-deaths.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news


The [DCP Major Hazards Committee] meeting concluded: "There is no reason to say that a sequence of small-magnitude events can be considered a predictor of a strong event." This statement was scientifically correct.

At the later press conference, however, DCP vice-president Bernardo De Bernardinis, who is not a seismologist nor a member of the Major Hazards Committee, said: "The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable." This statement was not scientifically correct. 

So, essentially, scientists make scientifically correct statement (verified by peers) that there was no evidence to suggest a quake was likely in the near term, a bureaucrat misinterprets the conclusion from the committee and presents it to the public as certain fact, and the scientists then get charged with Manslaughter.

The argument about not performing a proper risk assessment is a furphy. Any risk assessment would have to be based on the likelihood of a quake, and the scientists had no evidence to suggest that a quake was likely to be imminent. On the basis of the science (which is certainly not perfect but was all they were able to base their decisions on) it was only slightly more likely that an earthquake was going to occur then than at any other time within that region. I think I have seen the numbers 1 in 10000 thrown about. If you have a 5% certainty that an earthquake might occur on a particular Tuesday it would certainly be reasonable to advise people to try and stay outdoors, stay away from heavy cabinets, etc but an infinitesimal chance that a quake might be slightly likely sometime soon, maybe within the next month or two. What do you do with that?  

The DCP official was certainly wrong to provide such a definite and unsupported message of unconcern to the public, but Manslaughter wrong? As for the scientists, despite the fact that they turned out to be wrong (as can happen when attempting to predict the future), they did provide scientifically valid advice on the likelihood of a quake, as verified by their peers.  As scientific advisors that is their job (to provide scientific advice), and they did it correctly. A manslaughter charge is ludicrous.

Anonymous E. PERLINE October 24, 2012 9:54 AM  

You might say that the scientists should have had a disclaimer in their contract. But in US law, a written disclaimer does not get you off the hook.

When I had a sign business, I noticed that a sign that said "Beware of Dog" was sold to a customer and the bill was pre-dated. My assistant said that a burglar was injured by the dog, and could sue if no warning was posted.

Actually, a warning sign does get the customer off the hook either.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts