The Dunning–Kruger Effect aka Confirmation Bias on Steriods aka Creationists aka People Who Watch Fox News

dumb_and_dumber

In my Does Religious Faith Instill Hatred & Distrust of Science post I mentioned confirmation bias – a person’s tendency to recognize evidence that supports their position, while ignoring and/or downplaying that which opposes their position.

According to the Dunning–Kruger effect, some poor unfortunates suffer from something far more severe.

Apparently, they are dumb + they are prone to confirmation bias + they have an inability to recognize their dumbness + they ironically think that they are the opposite of dumb, and that smart people are the dumb ones.

Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch!glenn-beck

Tags: • • • • • •

December 2, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

9 Comments 

Godless ≠ Without Morals

I sometimes get emails. The latest one is from a Christian who shared his opinion (a tired old claim) that, without his god, there is no morality.

As if that weren’t enough to get the last hair on my head standing up, last night I watched Dinesh D’Souza make the audacious claim that all of the good morals in western society are Christian morals.

I’ve often heard it said that the 10 Commandments is the ‘ultimate moral code’ (Dinesh has said something to this effect on numerous occasions). Let’s focus on them to see if the claim is true.

Screen shot 2009-12-01 at 2.56.57 PM

Table via Wikipedia

As you can see, the first three or four commandments (3 vs 4 depending on what brand of Christian you are) are all about worshiping god (note that I am lumping ‘keep the Sabbath’ in this grouping). Are these first commandments really about morality? It seems to me they are not – that they are about brow-beating people into accepting an insecure god’s authority. I would challenge anyone to show me how those 3/4 commandments make us more moral.

On to the remaining commandments…

Honor your father and mother: Sounds reasonable on the surface, but is it as wise as it could be? Why not “respect others as you would like to be respected”? And, while we’re on the subject, do all parents deserve to be honored, or is it more accurate that some parents are worthy and others are not?  What about parents who abuse their children? Are they to be honored at all times as the commandment commands?

You shall not murder: A pretty darn good rule. My questions about it are 1) Would we all be running around killing people without it, and 2) Does this rule not exist in other societies (religious and secular)? In other words, does Christianity think it’s the only world view to think not killing is a good thing?

You shall not steal: Again, this is a pretty good rule but I can imagine there to be nuances that it doesn’t consider. For instance, if your family is starving, and you live under a rich tyrant, would it not be acceptable to steal from him/her to keep your loved ones from perishing? This is similar to the ‘honor your father and mother’ commandment in that I don’t think it’s as wise as it could be (remember we are basing this discussion on the claim that the Ten Commandments are the ultimate moral code).

You shall not lie (bear false witness): I think we can all agree that, sometimes, lying is perfectly acceptable. Lying to avoid hurting a person’s feelings is ok. Lying to avoid being persecuted by an unjust ruler is ok. Again, couldn’t this take a wiser form?

You shall not commit adultery: This commandment really gets to personal feelings about what a marriage is and should be. The problem is that there are some variations in what people believe in this regard. What if two people no longer love one another, but have amicably agreed to remain married until their children have grown? What happens if, under these conditions, they want to have an ‘open’ marriage? Of course, a very religious person may view this choice as unacceptable in the eyes of their god, but a more secularly minded individual may think otherwise. Their viewpoint may be, “adultery is ok as long as each partner agrees and it doesn’t hurt the children”.

You shall not covet: There is a lot I could say here, but I will just say one thing – while it may not put a person’s mind at ease to be always wanting something he does not have, I cannot see it to be such a crime as to be worthy of eternal damnation. You could go your entire life wishing to have your neighbor’s wealth (or wife) but how does that mental wish make you hell bound?

Other Shortcomings of the Ten Commandments: I am sure there are others, but here are just a few off the top of my head:

  1. Child Molestation: This should be a no-brainer if you’re making commandments.
  2. Rape: Ditto
  3. Slavery: At one time, Christians justified slavery using verses in the Bible. Now we know better. Why wasn’t something about slavery included in the ultimate moral code?
  4. Equality: Women, blacks and now gays have all struggled for equality. Why didn’t something about basic human rights get included in the Christian moral code?

Ok, so we’re done looking at the Ten Commandments. To me anyway, it’s pretty clear that they are anything but an ‘ultimate moral code’. Some Christians will say that the Ten Commandments are not everything – that there is lots of other good stuff in the Bible. My answer is to agree that there is some good stuff in the Bible. However, there is also a lot of bad stuff. There are passages about stoning disobedient children, stoning women for not being virgins, carrying out genocide and much, much more.

To those charges, the liberal Christian pleads that much of the Bible should not be taken literally – that there are hidden meanings and positive messages to be found behind those passages. The passages don’t mean what they say. In other words, we need to better interpret them.

morality-rooted-in-heart-beliefsOk fine but, at this point, I think it’s worth mentioning that interpreting and re-interpreting Bible passages has been going on for a long, long time. In fact, this sort of thing is what’s led to the multitude of Christian denominations we have today. Generally speaking, what happens is a person (or group of people) disagrees with the moral code being promoted by a given faith. In some circumstances, the dispute ends gracefully with a new moral interpretation. A good example of this is how most of Christianity eventually recognized that slavery was bad. In more extreme cases, new denominations & religions have splintered off to propagate their own moral preferences.

In both cases, their is one commonality – people engage their brains, review the Bible, strip away the bad stuff, and evolve their understanding of the Bible so that it can be made consistent with the morality of the day.

Did you pay attention to that last bit? It is people who have historically evolved their moral codes – not the Bible, and it is the re-interpretations that have  allowed the Bible to stay morally relevant.

And even then, it seems to me that the Bible is grossly inadequate compared to other sources of morality. Which sources? How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a clearly secular document)? I’m sorry but, on issues of human rights, the Bible doesn’t even hold a candle.

That specific document aside, there are many places where you can begin satisfying your desire to learn about morality and to formulate your own code of ethics. Philosophy loves ethics and morality and has a nasty habit (according to some!) of failing to mention deities. Here are a few links to get you started:

  1. Wikipedia’s Ethics Page – a good jump-off point
  2. Index of Ethical Movements (another good jump-off point)
  3. Objectivism
  4. Humanism
  5. Secular Ethics
  6. Hedonism
  7. Utilitarianism
  8. Stoicism (A.C. Grayling says much of Christian thought was co-opted from Stoicism)
  9. Consequentialism
  10. Alternatives to the Ten Commandments

Or you might read up on what some of the world’s most famous philosophers have had to say. Great thinkers like:

My own morality leans heavily on humanism and the Ethic of Reciprocity (a virtually universal ethical standard – not found solely in the Christian version of the ‘Golden Rule’) but I enjoy reading about other schools, and view the subject as a lifetime pursuit. I think one of the most important things we can keep in mind when considering ethics and morality is that we aren’t obligated to buy into any one school of thought. It’s your brain – use it.

I’m curious if any of my readers subscribe to a particular school of ethical thought, and what resources they’ve used to arrive at their own views on the subject. Please share.

In the meantime, I hope it’s now clear that Godless ≠ Without Morals.

Tags: • • • • • • •

December 1, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, finding meaning

47 Comments 

Attempts@Rational Behavior Is Good For Your Health

attempts-at-rational-behaviorI often have a sore neck. The Doc says I need to do more neck exercises so I’m visiting Attempts at Rational Behavior more than I used to. What does AARB do? They provide highlights of the weird shit religious people say on Twitter (and elsewhere, but mostly on Twitter).

The incredulous “no, no no” side-to-side shaking of my head is going to do wonders for my neck – I just know it.

Tags: • •

November 30, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, links

3 Comments 

Does Religious Faith Instill Hatred & Distrust of Science?

I have a friend who I’m finding myself disagreeing with more and more lately. This person is intelligent and generally makes a lot of sense – even when we have ideological disagreements (such as on political matters).

sciencevtruth

But lately, the disagreements have baffled and troubled me as I’ve put pieces of the puzzle together to realize how amazingly anti-science he is. Examples:

  1. Climate Warming: He continually quotes out of date research and the ramblings of “scientists” with iffy (at best) credentials who claim that climate warming is a hoax.
  2. Evolution: I am not exaggerating much when I say he sounds like a Ray Comfort clone. “Evolution is not a science because it’s not repeatable or observable” and “Evolution takes faith” have escaped his lips on more than one occasion.

And, in addition to those two specific examples, I’ve also heard him call science “scientism” and say that  “science is a religion”.

However, because the conversations have been widely spread apart (months at times), and because he is elusive about his beliefs, I was never able to make sense of him …until recently.

I was listening to an episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe when one of the hosts made the statement that, when science conflicts with a person’s ideologies, that person will often reject the science. Then, he went on to say that the most prevalent cases of these rejections flow from conflicts between science and religion.

Suddenly, two years of discussions with my friend came into clear focus…

  1. He has conservative leanings.
  2. He’s a climate warming denier.
  3. He’s anti-evolution.
  4. He’s made statements about people and even countries being punished by God for their wrongdoings.

All of these things paint a picture that we tend to ascribe to conservative Christians. Here are two of the consistencies expanded a bit to help illustrate the point I’m making:

  1. Global Warming: It’s very common for conservative Christians to deny that we humans are having any appreciable effect on the planet’s temperature. This comes partly from the biblically inspired belief that it would be arrogant to think humans could have that much of an impact on God’s creation. It also comes from the connection to the end-times prophecy that – even if we were impacting the earth’s temperature, it is just part of God’s plan to bring on the rapture. In other words, bring on the destruction of the earth – because the worthy won’t be here to live on it anyway. This sort of thinking is exactly why non-believers feared George Bush being at the helm of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
  2. Evolution: Most of the world’s Christians have no issue with the theory of evolution via Natural Selection (e.g. Catholics & Anglicans are a-ok with it). Indeed, there are other religions (e.g. Hinduism) that also accept it as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Not so with the conservative Christian crowd. For them, evolution – especially human evolution – is an attack on the belief that God created man in his image. Humans did not come into exist by a “chance” sequence of events over billions of years – we are here according to divine plan. Humans are not simply the most intelligent of millions of species – we were created to preside over the earth and everything within it. To conservatives, evolution undermines faith – plain and simple.

The bottom line is that science opposes the conservative Christian world view – and that of my friend’s – in multiple and significant ways.

When this happens, a serious case of cognitive dissonance tends to set in. The two opposing ideas of science and religion simply cannot occupy the same space so the brain attempts to solve the problem. Unfortunately, science often loses to faith because the latter is such a hugely emotional thing (it’s tough for a scientific explanation to compete with the promise of eternal life).

One of the tricks the mind plays on itself to support its emotional choice is confirmation bias – it finds support for its viewpoint, while ignoring or downplaying contrary information. Remember my colleague’s reliance on outdated information and unqualified climate science “experts”? Yup, a perfect example.

Like millions of other conservative Christians, my friend has solved his dissonance by rejecting science.

The irony for the conservative faithful, is that they live in a society that is utterly dependent on science for virtually every aspect of the the lifestyle we’re accustomed to in 21st century North America. I imagine this irony is not entirely lost on them, and it must be difficult to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay. After all, they would find their views in opposition not only with secularists, but also with most other Christians.

I’m not interested in destroying anyone’s faith but, as a humanist, I also do not want anyone to suffer. Therefore, if you are a person who’s troubled by the collision between your faith and science, my advice to you is this…

You don’t necessarily have to abandon your belief in God to accept what science has to offer. All you have to do is adjust your faith. Not every Christian believes every word of their faith so why should you? It’s worth mentioning that there are many varieties of Christian faith that do not clash violently with science. It’s also worth mentioning that the Christian faith has been evolving for over 2000 years, so any adjustment you might make to your faith would be done in good company.

Tags: • • • • • • •

November 30, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, finding meaning, understanding

14 Comments 

Oprah Woo-Woo Is About To Grow Exponentially

homepage_header_oprah_166x145Well, the Queen of Talk has announced that she’ll be retiring her long-standing talk show. Seems reasonable. After all, she’s worked tirelessly on building her empire for almost 25 years and probably could use some down time. But …hang on just a second. Did I read the article right?

“After her broadcast talk show winds down, Ms. Winfrey will concentrate on her coming cable channel, OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network.”

…whoa, whoa WHOA! It sure doesn’t look like down time is what’s on her mind. What she really wants to do is build her own cable channel and put more shows on the air. The Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) will be developing it’s own brand of TV and, based on her track record so far, I think it’s safe to assume she’ll be giving skeptics a great deal to talk about for some time to come.

Oprah’s featured lots of woo in the past (e.g. The Secret) and has already committed to helping anti-vax nutbar Jenny McCarthy start her own show.

An Oprah cable channel is not going to be good news for rationalism in America. Now, instead of one talking head, you’ll have an Oprah army of them.

Get your note pads… and shovels ready.

Tags: • •

November 19, 2009 · Filed Under skepticism

1 Comment 

Hiding in Plain Sight

profileI’ve had a few friends find this place, expressing surprise that I’m an atheist and that I’m “secretly” blogging about it. It got me thinking there may be others who’ve been lurking here and wondering about the same things.

For the answer to the first question, I’d ask you to read the “about” stuff in the top menu of this blog. With respect to the second question, the blog is really not secret at all. From the beginning, I’ve linked to it from all my other internet haunts. Hell, I even link to it from my Facebook profile.

On the other hand, I’ve never promoted or discussed this place with any non-atheist/agnostic friends either. I’m no missionary and am not one to drag people in here to read my ramblings – especially if I know they are the believing type. I guess I’ve seen enough evangelism to know it’s something I’d rather not take part in.

Then why write about atheism? Well, first, because even though Canadians are pretty low-key about religion, it’s still pretty pervasive in our society. Ask any atheist and they’ll probably tell you there’s a lot of god talk out there – god talk that often spills into our public institutions and law (e.g. google ‘Bill 44 Alberta’). That sort of thing creates a need for a place where I can analyze the atheistic/religious world around me and maybe blow off a little steam. It also helps me to meet like-minded people and talk about things. In other words, I blog to help me keep my sanity and deal with the isolation I often feel from being part of a minority.

Oh, there’s one more reason I blog here – to help people. Specifically, to help people who are struggling with their faith – those looking for a safe place to ask the questions they may be afraid to ask elsewhere. Doubting Christians who arrive on this doorstep are treated gently because I know how hard it is for them to even begin questioning their faith.

If you choose to hang around this place, be warned that I speak my mind here. There will be days when you might like what I have to say, days when you will not like what I have to say, and days when you would rather not have stopped by.

So, while I understand you may be surprised or even shocked to read what I have to say here, I will make no apologies. You can accept that …or not – it’s your choice.

Oh, before I forget, WELCOME.

Peace, out!

—

(Edit: I’ve decided to just get it all over with and posted a link to this post on Facebook)


November 18, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, about me

6 Comments 

Stupid Google Search

I am not kidding – someone came to this blog by searching for does Richard Dawkins believe in God?

Someone’s obviously just returned from being cast away on a remote island.

This would make him laugh

This would make him laugh


November 17, 2009 · Filed Under funnier than hell

3 Comments 

Does Majesty & Wonder Have To Come From A Creator?

in-the-shadow-of-the-moonI was in the mood last night for space stuff so I popped In the Shadow of the Moon into the DVD player. The film is a wonderful documentary (directed by Ron Howard) of the US moon landings. It begins, appropriately enough, at the beginning with John F. Kennedy’s bold challenge, and ends with the landings made by Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and a few lesser known successors.

You can view the entire film in 10 minute segments on youtube but, before you do, I’d like to call your attention to the final segment where some of the astronauts share how their journeys changed them. The segment starts with Eugene Cernan and Charlie Duke describing their feelings of wonder, and how those feelings convinced them of God’s existence (Duke actually became a born-again Christian not long after).

Being a fairly recent (2 year) de-conversion to atheism, I can relate to these men. I’ve shared similar experiences of wonder and majesty – most notably while hiking in the mountains, or going for 10+ mile runs (runner’s high’ll get ya every time). And, yes, two years ago, I too would have given credit to god for those wonderful feelings.

However, since the de-conversion, the source of those feelings has changed, and I’ve become more and more fascinated with the seemingly universal tendency for us to attribute these emotions to a god or creator.

Why is this so?

Some think it’s connected to our affinity toward anthropomorphizing – attributing human qualities to things that are not. In this case, humans create things, so we assume that the universe must also have been created by something human-like, only much more powerful.

Scientists who study the brain may tell you that our willingness to invoke god is connected to our ability to identify patterns. In this case, the pattern is that most everything we observe has a cause, and we extend that pattern to the assumption that the universe must also have a cause.

But is this correct thinking? Just because we see cause and effect around us, does that mean the same rule applied to the formation of the universe? If a god can simply exist, then why can’t a universe? Also, could the Big Bang have been preceded by a Big Crunch, and that crunch have been preceded by a different Big Bang? Might this process be cycling on eon after eon after eon?

And, even if the universe did have an external cause, why would that cause need to be an intelligence or a god? Might it just as easily be another universe, as multi-universe theory proposes?

And then there’s the fact that most of us were raised by parents who told us that God created everything, and many of us grew up in churches where everyone agreed the universe was created by God. How many of those people really examine these claims from authority? After all, all those smart people couldn’t be wrong – could they?

I wonder, if parents stopped teaching this idea to their children, how would it take long before our sense of wonder aimed itself at the natural world instead of some unknown, undetectable entity?

There is a world of science awaiting those who would ask these questions. There is a world of wonder awaiting those willing to entertain the idea that maybe, God didn’t do it. And, in my opinion, the fact that our universe came to be without a deity makes it even more wondrous and majestic.

crabmosaic

Tags: • • • • • • • •

November 16, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, science, understanding, video

8 Comments 

Excellent Documentary of Charles Darwin

Head on over to CBC. The Nature of Things by David Suzuki has an excellent documentary of Charles Documentary. You can currently view parts I and II on the site. Part III will be available next week.


November 13, 2009 · Filed Under video

1 Comment 

Oprah Dashes the Hopes of Atheists Everywhere

Ok, a slight exaggeration but watching the video below was, quite frankly, maddening.

It’s the part where she says, “Maybe you believe and you don’t know you believe” which translates to me as “I can’t conceive that you really don’t believe in God, therefore, you must be in denial – you really believe – you just don’t know it”.

Oprah, you’ve just insulted a large number of atheists but, just in case you don’t know why your words are insulting, replace “God” with “Xenu” and pretend you are the one being interviewed.

Got it?

Tags: • • •

October 23, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

2 Comments 

Be A Grown-Up, Responsible Member of Society: Get H1N1 Vaccinated

I am so tired of the childish, selfish, crank-pot based reasons people give for not getting vaccinated.

I get that you don’t like needles.

I get that you don’t like that one to two day slightly icky feeling some of us get after getting the shot, and that you’d rather get really sick for two to five days instead.

I get that you don’t trust “Big Pharma”.

I get that you have questions – concerns. By all means, ask your questions but get your answers from the right sources.

But, HOLY FUCKIN’ SHIT, please get a clue about the shaky ground your decision is based on. And, more seriously, please, please please get a clue about how your decision to not vaccinate could impact the high-risk among us!

Anyone who does the research – using reputable sources of information (start with the World Health Organization) and not your friend’s blog – will quickly get answers to their questions. But there are those who are too lazy to research, and those who only seek out information that supports their conspiracy theory (google “confirmation bias”). Do they seek information from the scientific community that cured Polio and wiped out Smallpox? No, they trust other sources. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

By trusting non-credentialed sources, you are saying you don’t trust the VAST majority of medical scientists, doctors, local and state/provincial health agencies, national organizations (e.g. the CDC) and the World Health Organization – a United Nations agency. Do you really think all those people and organizations are that inept and/or corrupt? Are you seriously that paranoid?

Setting aside all this, I’d like to point out that YOU – yes YOU – are putting the welfare of others at risk.

H1N1 has been shown to be hard on children and women. THEY CAN DIE FROM THIS FLU.

So, let’s say you don’t get vaccinated and you get sick. And let’s say you get sick because you were not vaccinated. No big deal, right? After all, you won’t die.

No, you probably won’t die, but you will likely pass on the virus. And then it will be passed on by another dipshit like you, until it finally gets to a pregnant woman or a child who wasn’t vaccinated in time. Or maybe it gets to another high risk individual like my son who happens to be a Type 1 diabetic and who hasn’t been vaccinated because it’s not yet available in my community.

Statistically, someone among those groupings is going to get very, very sick and maybe even die. Maybe it will turn out to be your neighbour’s kid. Maybe it will turn out to be the pregnant woman you work with.

But, that invisible bug you may have passed along is out of sight out of mind, right? After all, you didn’t kill that person …did you?

No, you only played your part.

—-

For a less emotional response to your H1N1 questions, I strongly recommend Science Based Medicine.

Tags: • • •

October 22, 2009 · Filed Under stuff

11 Comments 

Vacation Book #1: On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

charles-darwin-8221Well, a year after purchasing it, I finally finished On the Origin of Species. It was quite the read – all 650 Victorian Era pages worth.

Although Darwin’s writing style was a lot more accessible than I expected, it was still a bit dry in places. That said, there were multiple rewards for my perseverance. Darwin did not disappoint – I was, in many places throughout the book, inspired in unexpected ways. For anyone interested in evolution, it really is a must-read. How could it not be? After all, it set the stage for the study of life on earth for the next 150 years (and counting)!

The Origin of Species was as much science as it was prophecy of the science that would follow it. Its author had an amazing grasp of was to come following the introduction of his dangerous idea to the world. While his excitement at the prospects of future discoveries was palpable, I imagine if he would have lived to see future discoveries (e.g. in the field of genetics) he would have calmly said, “Well, of course. Natural Selection would have it no other way”.

Another thing I was struck by was Darwin’s knowledge of so many varied fields of science. Not only was he eminently learned in his chosen field of biology, but his mind seemed absolutely brimming with knowledge about geology, paleontology, physics and more. He was a master at connecting the dots between various fields of science.

Upon reading Darwin, you come to really understand how badly he’s been misunderstood and misconstrued – especially by the creationist/intelligent design movement. Darwin himself was all-to aware of this unfortunate reality, and spent considerable time addressing it. In reading the book, you get a good sense of why it took him so long to finish it – he’d obviously spent a great deal of time debating both creationists and old-thinking naturalists, and wanted to do his best to address the objections he’d heard on what I’m sure were countless occasions.

The book makes it clear that Darwin was accustomed to seeing his words and work misrepresented. However, in the face of that, he was still an optimist:

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.

The most famous misrepresentation is probably this quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Creationists – to this day – insist on quoting the first paragraph whilst conveniently leaving out the second. The result is to portray a Darwin who is seemingly dumbfounded by the complexity in nature. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin, and his theory illuminated our understanding of the diversity of life on earth.
And that’s why it’s a must-read – because, even today, The Origin of Species is a candle in the dark. I, for one, am committed to passing on the flame.

Tags: • • • • • • • •

October 4, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, understanding

2 Comments 

Dear Imaginary God: Fuck You & The Imaginary White Horse You Are Supposed to Ride In On

I’m not the swearing type but I figure if you’re gonna do something, you ought to do it right (fyi for those who don’t know, it’s Blasphemy Day).


September 30, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism

8 Comments 

Back from Vacation

Getting organized… Nice to be home. How are you?


September 30, 2009 · Filed Under stuff

2 Comments 

On Vacation

As of tomorrow (Wednesday, Sept 15), I’ll be on vacation for a couple of weeks. Therefore, I will likely not be doing a lot of writing here for a little while. Then again, you never know – I imagine my evenings will be quiet so…

Just don’t expect much!

And to all of you would-be thieves, there are people staying in my home while I’m away. :)

Ciao for now!


September 15, 2009 · Filed Under stuff

1 Comment 

Next Page →