Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mike Pence is a witch


US presidential candidate Mike Pence is— says Phil Plait at Slate— a creationist: Which is pretty much like being a witch, I guess.

You know anyone picked by Trump to be his running mate almost certainly will have a problem with established science, of course, but it turns out Pence is also a young Earth creationist. And one with a lot of conviction about it, too. In 2002, while a congressman from Indiana, he gave a short speech on the floor of Congress denying evolution, and used quite a few misleading, if not outright false, claims.

It’s a curious feature of US politics, as seen from Canada, that American media—in the face of serious present-day problems—continue raising a stink about what politicians believe about evolution.

I remember a Canadian political maven turning to me one day some years ago, with respect to a different campaign, and asking: Yes, but who cares how old that guy thinks Earth is? Why?

Who indeed? The broad collapse of legacy media can be usefully assessed from multiple directions, but the one that stands out for me is this: No one but them really cares about most of their issues, or else is on the other side.

That fact hit me forcefully in early 2015 when I witnessed a squawk of legacy media airheads obsessing over Wisconsin governor Scott Walker refusing to discuss where he “stood on evolution.”

No one but them likely cared and it was awful TV.

Walker gained his rep scrapping with public service unions. That’s what made him important. He wasn’t running for president of the Evolution Society.

A good way of unintentionally promoting bad government is to advance irrelevant issues over critical ones.

See also: Time Magazine quizzes Scott Walker’s high school science teacher on his evolution views

Added, based on some comments below:

Golly, do some people just not get it. My point is, who cares what some politician thinks about “evolution”?

Who cares whether he thinks there are space aliens out there or not?

These are not political issues.

By contrast: Climate change policies? The war on polio? Maintaining control over who gets plutonium? These are all genuine science political issues in the sense that a nation state will have agreements with other nation states about how to handle them, agreements that may include legislation and funding. Voter/taxpayer issues.

Convenient shorthand for someone trying to politicize evolution: Sponge looking for foundation support.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"Walker gained his rep scrapping with public service unions." Yes he did. He found an easy target, and fearlessly used their unpopularity to gain public plaudits: What a hero? Who are some of your other heroes NEWS? A man attacks an organisation, built by working class people, to protect hard won working class rights, and NEWS views this as a reason to endorse him? It is important to know if a candidate believes in Biblical creationism because this gives the voter a clear view on the rationality of the candidate; their state of mind. Imagine Ken Ham as commander in chief. Oh, wait, he would be unconstitutionally viable, as he actually was born in Kenya, or some such place. rvb8
I now think that Martin's book is hogwash, just for the record. I'm glad I heard about Teilhard de Chardin, however, even though I don't agree with him regarding evolution. Davem
News. i don't agree. It should be on the table. The establishment wages war against Christianity and creationism, for many christians, is another doctrine that is attacked by the state. The democratic part is antiChristian. not neutral. Republicans not much better are useful. SO the issue of ending this state attack is the issue of ending state censorship on origin matters or any matters in education. This includes the supreme court problem It is a mockery that origin issues comes up and demonstrates the fantastism , of some, who fear the ID/YEC revolution. Yet it does tap into religion. there is opportunity for good guys everywhere to re-establish the old contract of separation of state/church and that everyone tolerate everyones faith. Say its wrong or right but don't wage war. Right now there is a war against Evangelical and the Roman Catholic church and Christian doctrines by way of state censorship. maybe not on the table but the elephant is in the room. Robert Byers
Why don't theists/Christians running for political office just tell hostile reporters that they believe that the Universe and the life within it couldn't have come about mindlessly and accidentally? The reporter could then say the politician isn't an atheist, which would be fine. Of course, the reporter would probably instead assert that the politician is a "creationist," hoping his audience will assume that means a YEC, but that is just the nature of the dishonest, corrupt media. The essence of our position, regardless of differences among us about how old the Universe is or how God brought life about, is that the evidence indicates that it couldn't have come about mindlessly and accidentally via natural causes alone. That leaves us with a supernatural cause. harry
daveS at 17: Should Pence become US vice prez, the only important issue would be whether he lobbied to uphold, alter, or repudiate agreements addressing climate change with other nations (including Canada). It is unlikely his personal opinions about the age of Earth, however derived, would be an important factor. That's the trouble with Airhead TV's Bimbette Fluffarelli-style coverage of US politics. Given the rate at which those outfits are headed south in ratings, it appears that many potential American voters agree. I say, get "evolution" off the table, in favour of science issues about which nations need to make collective decisions. News
daveS, and politicians believing in the pseudo-science that is called Darwinian evolution, (and IT IS indeed a pseudo-science), has helped the betterment of society how exactly?
Hitler's debt to America - 2004 Excerpt: Germany had certainly developed its own body of eugenic knowledge and library of publications. Yet German readers still closely followed American eugenic accomplishments as the model: biological courts, forced sterilisation, detention for the socially inadequate, debates on euthanasia. As America's elite were describing the socially worthless and the ancestrally unfit as "bacteria," "vermin," "mongrels" and "subhuman", a superior race of Nordics was increasingly seen as the answer to the globe's eugenic problems. US laws, eugenic investigations and ideology became blueprints for Germany's rising tide of race biologists and race-based hatemongers. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm The Leading Cause of Death in the United States (is abortion) http://infographicaday.com/infographic-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-united-states/ "When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment or as the Nazi liked to say, of Blood and Soil. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." Viktor Frankl - in 'The Doctor and the Soul' In 1921 the Second International Eugenics Congress was held in New York at the American Museum of Natural History. Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son) was the keynote speaker, and he used the opportunity to advocate aggressive eugenics programs for the “elimination of the unfit.” Eugenics had already made some headway in the United States, but after the Second Congress it really took off in the scientific community. Hundreds of universities instituted courses in the subject, and prestigious foundations like the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation began funding Eugenics research programs. Public policy soon followed the scientific consensus of the time and eventually 36 states adopted eugenics laws of some kind. In 1927 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Supreme Court blessed the movement, famously declaring in Buck v. Bell that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” These laws were supported by the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day. In the following decades nearly 60,000 people were legally mutilated in the United States. If today’ terms of derision had been in use in 1928, anyone opposed to the eugenics movement would have been called a “science denier.” UD blogger American Eugenics on the Eve of Nazi Expansion: The Darwin Connection - Michael Flannery October 18, 2011 Excerpt: For example, Harry Laughlin (1880-1943) helped create a "Model Sterilization Law" that was vindicated in the Buck v. Bell decision (1927). In Germany, one of the first legislative acts of Hitler's National Socialist government was to pass in the summer of 1933 a "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring" modeled upon this American precedent. It was the influential American physician George Dock (1860-1951) who translated the German document for the Human Betterment Foundation. "I think the reference to the California work [in the German law], and the work of the Foundation is a very significant thing," exclaimed Dock. "The matter," he added, "has given me a much better opinion of Mr. Hitler than I had before" (Better for All the World, p. 273). Likewise, Laughlin, noted with some pride, "To one versed in the history of eugenical sterilization in America, the text of the German statute reads almost like the 'American model sterilization law.'" No wonder that in 1936 the Nazi regime awarded Laughlin, under the aegis of the University of Heidelberg, an honorary doctorate for his contributions to "racial hygiene" (Better for All the World, p. 17). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/american_eugenics_on_the_eve_o_1051991.html
"that could affect their ability to understand the behavior of climate over hundreds of thousands of years" daveS, Current climate science only cares about anthropocene and how to milk it for political purposes. Actually understanding climate? lol What? That's so previous era. Andrew asauber
By contrast: Climate change policies?
This is one area where YEC beliefs could be relevant, surely? If someone believes the earth is just a few thousand years old, that could affect their ability to understand the behavior of climate over hundreds of thousands of years. daveS
Golly, do some people just not get it. My point is, who cares what some politician thinks about "evolution"? Who cares whether he thinks there are space aliens out there or not? These are not political issues. By contrast: Climate change policies? The war on polio? Maintaining control over who gets plutonium? These are all genuine political issues in the sense that a nation state will have agreements with other nation states about how to handle them, agreements that may include legislation and funding. Convenient shorthand for someone trying to politicize evolution: Sponge looking for foundation support. News
Robert Byers you remain a complete embarrassment. Upright BiPed
Axel. i do not agree women are more spiritual. Whatever that is. I do not agree that all witches were not rightly punished. I don't agree with death but they knew that when they got involved. if it was a false accusation then thats another issue. more men in history were falsely accused of crime and punished then women. Except for innocence any sympathy for witches is a rejection of satan and the ability of people to tap into that which is clearly said in the bible. Fair trial but no moral duty to suffer real witches. there are no real ones today I'm sure. however in a society that believes in them a woman involved, proven, is a very evil person. Robert Byers
Dear News, If you want to dress otherwise non-scientific ideas up in the garb of science it's best to get all the masses on board! Maybe politics is different up there. :) Mung
I just read how a priest, who was influenced by Teilhard de Chardin, became possessed. The priest who was doing the exorcism was almost deceived by the same spirit, also. Chardin believed in evolution and conceived the idea of the Omega Point, a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving. The book is called "Hostage of the Devil", by Malachi Martin. Davem
'Many witches in the old days were evil and deserved punishment...' I doubt that, Robert. I mean the women who, in earlier centuries were burnt at the stake for their alleged witchcraft. Women are generally much more spiritual/psychic - like the angels, for better or worse - and gender-wise having appreciably lower status, would have been more vulnerable to accusations of villains. In particular, I have in mind men who, whether innocently subjected to demonic persecution or culpably so, in the form of what today are termed, 'obtrusive thoughts' : in fact, wicked, vile thoughts (I am currently afflicted in this way). A few hundred yards up the road from where I am in Edinburgh, many, many unfortunate women were burnt at the stake. What would be more natural for the local dignitary, ecclesial or secular, who was, himself, a wicked, carnal hypocrite, than to fear women who could read their evil thoughts, and decide to have them 'terminated with extreme prejudice', to use the old term favoured by 'spooks' of our intelligence services. African women with their exceptional emotional intelligence would be more than usually victimized I should imagine. Axel
Many witches in the old days were evil and deserved punishment.. The bible teaches that witches were not to be suffered. By defination they were involved in satan stuff and so evil. First its the only ideas, almost, that are censored by the state. they must be important. then they are Christian doctrines for many. so the attack on them or advocay of them can't be divored from religious truth and opinions. The bad guys know many Christians, millions, believe in YEC and so they are really attacking these peoples faith and status in the nation under the giuise of origin issues. Then these days there is a enforced conclusion in matters from the establishment on origin issues, global warming etc. Then there is with the iD/YEC revolution a fear of it and so they attack any politician too obvious about it. I don't like tRump for america, or the affirmative action alternative, however republican could do something important by attacking state censorship. These days however they are too dumb. Robert Byers
Of note: although Dr. Behe had been mercilessly vilified by neo-Darwinists for daring to suggest that there could possibly be an ‘Edge’ to evolution (i.e. possibly be a limit to what Darwinian processes could be expected to accomplish), Dr. Behe’s was vindicated when his 10^20 number was recently verified in the lab in 2014.
The Vindication of Michael Behe – podcast/video - 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkxFbyzyro "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 The Origin of Man and the "Waiting Time" Problem - John Sanford - August 10, 2016 Excerpt: My colleagues and I recently published a paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, "The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population." It is one of the journal's "highly accessed" articles. A pre-human hominin population of roughly 10,000 individuals is thought to have evolved into modern man, during a period of less than six million years. This would have required the establishment of a great deal of new biological information. That means, minimally, millions of specific beneficial mutations, and a large number of specific beneficial sets of mutations, selectively fixed in this very short period of time. We show that there is simply not enough time for this type of evolution to have occurred in the population from which we supposedly arose. Historically, Darwin-defenders have argued that time is on their side. They have claimed that given enough time, any evolutionary scenario is feasible. They have consistently argued that given millions of years, very large amounts of new biologically meaningful information can arise by the Darwinian process of mutation/selection. However, careful analysis of what is required to establish even a single genetic "word" (a short functional string of genetic letters) within a hominin genome shows just the opposite. Even given tens of millions of years, there is not enough time to generate the genetic equivalent of the simplest "word" (two or more nucleotides). Even in a hundred billion years, much longer than the age of the universe, there is not enough time to establish the genetic equivalent of a very simple "sentence" (ten or more nucleotides). This problem is so fundamental that it justifies a complete re-assessment of the basic Darwinian mechanism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m103062.html The waiting time problem in a model hominin population - 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ Whale Evolution vs. (The Waiting Time Problem of) Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson - (excerpted from 'Living Waters' video) (2015) https://youtu.be/0csd3M4bc0Q Time: The Unlikely Villain Excerpt: When confronted with the problem of equilibrium, most scientific materialists will appeal to the magic ingredient of time. In chapter one we saw this appeal by Nobel Laureate, George Wald: "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: Time itself performs the miracles." 49 However, Dr. (Harold F.) Blum, who is a materialist, points out that Wald's faith in the miraculous ingredient of time is mere wishful thinking. Prolonged time periods, he asserts, actually worsen the dilemma: "I think if I were rewriting this chapter [on the origin of life] completely, I should want to change the emphasis somewhat. I should want to play down still more the importance of the great amount of time available for highly improbable events to occur. One may take the view that the greater the time elapsed the greater should be the approach to equilibrium, the most probable state, and it seems that this ought to take precedence in our thinking over the idea that time provides the possibility for the occurrence of the highly improbable." 50 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life13.htm
In other words, entropy and time share a deep connection which makes what's impossible, over short time periods, more impossible still with more time added to the equation
Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/ “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century
Douglas Axe: Can Evolution Work (even) if you have Billions of Years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3-MQT4SEaLNloU5v2poZKf&v=npJyQLhz7Ic "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - January 1, 2015 Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year092291.html When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ About a Bike Lock: Responding to Richard Dawkins - Stephen C. Meyer – March 25, 2016 Excerpt: Moreover, given the empirically based estimates of the rarity (of protein folds) (conservatively estimated by Axe3 at 1 in 10^77 and within a similar range by others4) the analysis that I presented in Toronto does pose a formidable challenge to those who claim the mutation-natural selection mechanism provides an adequate means for the generation of novel genetic information -- at least, again, in amounts sufficient to generate novel protein folds.5 Why a formidable challenge? Because random mutations alone must produce (or "search for") exceedingly rare functional sequences among a vast combinatorial sea of possible sequences before natural selection can play any significant role. Moreover, as I discussed in Toronto, and show in more detail in Darwin's Doubt,6 every replication event in the entire multi-billion year history of life on Earth would not generate or "search" but a miniscule fraction (one ten trillion, trillion trillionth, to be exact) of the total number of possible nucleotide base or amino-acid sequences corresponding to a single functional gene or protein fold. The number of trials available to the evolutionary process (corresponding to the total number of organisms -- 10^40 -- that have ever existed on earth), thus, turns out to be incredibly small in relation to the number of possible sequences that need to be searched. The threshold of selectable function exceeds what is reasonable to expect a random search to be able to accomplish given the number of trials available to the search even assuming evolutionary deep time. ------- (3) Axe, Douglas. "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds." Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295-1315. (4) Reidhaar-Olson, John, and Robert Sauer. "Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor." Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7 (1990): 306-16; Yockey, Hubert P. "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977c): 377-98; Yockey, Hubert. "On the Information Content of Cytochrome C," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977b) 345-376. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible (over the entire history of life on earth) is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
"Correction: we -> he" Don't worry. He knew what you meant. Erasmus Wiffball
"Yes, but who cares how old that guy thinks Earth is? Why?" It can matter a lot for a governor. Some governors have a lot of control over state board of education. The board sets science ed standards. Politicians against evolution usually don't believe in AGW. Of course you can ask them directly. Trump promises to eliminate regulation of energy production. Clear enough. (I will wreck the environment to save the Christian Nation. I hold my nose and vote.) Erasmus Wiffball
Correction: we -> he daveS
kairosfocus, "Whom the gods would destroy, first they rob of good sense." Trump got 75-80% of white evangelical votes in some states. In primaries, with descent options. Nothing but bad sense in that. What happened to values of "values voters"? Now I hold my nose and vote. The Christian Nation is no more if Clinton wins. It is very very sick if Trump wins. But maybe it can get healthy again if judges aren't antireligious. Erasmus Wiffball
Would it be relevant if we was a witch? :-P daveS
News, sobering point: A good way of unintentionally promoting bad government is to advance irrelevant issues over critical ones. -- letting the shrill and urgent displace the priority of the pivotally important. Whom the gods would destroy, first they rob of good sense. KF kairosfocus

Leave a Reply