Glenn Beck on Penn Jillette's new book about atheism


Recommended Posts

Here is the young flamethrower Dennis Hardin with the pitch...

Jonathan, an old pro, who has survived these flamethrowers for years, swings and

there it goes...a l o n g drive to deep center ...

WAY BACK ...

It is gone... he drove that pitch right out of the ole' philosophical ball park!

2-1.gif?t=1268721131

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I made a moral judgment about Penn Jillette—and expressed confusion about why others want to look the other way when we’re talking about the moral treachery of trashing a great man (NB) on national TV.

Dennis, I'm wondering if Ayn Rand qualifies as a "nihilist" by your standards. Earlier, you said that Penn "spits on everything and everybody, including things he professes to hold dear," and, "If that isn’t nihilism, we might as well dispense with the term, because nothing is." Well, Rand "spat" on "everything and everybody," including things she professed to hold dear (pardon me if I'm being "indecent," but I'd say that Rand went even farther and "pissed" and "shat" on certain things). Are you familiar with the hateful, bullshit judgments she made about some of the greatest thinkers and creators that the world has ever known, including those whom she recognized as great?

What do you think of the fact that Rand very publicly misrepresented Kant's views in the same way than Penn misrepresented Branden's? She "spat" on Kant despite the fact that he was a great thinker, and despite the fact that she had read very little, if any, of his work. She called him "evil" (in fact, she called him the most evil man in mankind's history) and blamed him for later political events that he and his ideas had nothing to do with. Also, she accused him of being the "father" of the type of art that she disliked, when it would be much closer to the truth to claim that he was the "father" of Romanticism and, more specifically, of her art and her aesthetic "sense of life." So, shouldn't she be condemned for having done such poor and minimal research on Kant before publicly trashing him? Shouldn't her "spitting" on such great men count as "moral treachery" and "nihilism" by your standards?

J

Here is the standard I provided in my earlier posts:

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

Definition by inessentials leads to the sort of confusion you expressed. Rand did not "spit." She criticized and she gave her reasons and she offered a rational alternative. Her body of work was strongly positive, not primarily negative.

I prefer to just give that general answer rather than devote time to analyzing some of the more puzzling details of your post. The details are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the young flamethrower Dennis Hardin with the pitch...

Jonathan, an old pro, who has survived these flamethrowers for years, swings and

there it goes...a l o n g drive to deep center ...

WAY BACK ...

It is gone... he drove that pitch right out of the ole' philosophical ball park!

Sigh. I'm losing all hope for you, Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the young flamethrower Dennis Hardin with the pitch...

Jonathan, an old pro, who has survived these flamethrowers for years, swings and

there it goes...a l o n g drive to deep center ...

WAY BACK ...

It is gone... he drove that pitch right out of the ole' philosophical ball park!

Sigh. I'm losing all hope for you, Adam.

You have a point, the baseball metaphor was below the belt, here is Jonathan as the corner back against some great QB:

http://youtu.be/lTVQxi7TVmQ

Better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the young flamethrower Dennis Hardin with the pitch...

Jonathan, an old pro, who has survived these flamethrowers for years, swings and

there it goes...a l o n g drive to deep center ...

WAY BACK ...

It is gone... he drove that pitch right out of the ole' philosophical ball park!

Sigh. I'm losing all hope for you, Adam.

You have a point, the baseball metaphor was below the belt, here is Jonathan as the corner back against some great QB:

http://youtu.be/lTVQxi7TVmQ

Better?

Damn, that's cool! I've definitely got to move Madden football up on my list of things to buy and waste my time on. :)

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think Quentin Tarantino is nihilistic--Oliver Stone not--but I'm not getting into a wrastlin' match with anyone over that! (The best contemporary director is Ron Howard, but Stone is a visual genius.)

--Brant

I do think Ron Howard did a fantastic job with The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. I've heard conflicting stories about whether he is or is not directing Dan Brown's latest--The Lost Symbol. I certainly hope so.

There are quite a few good directors working today. Too bad there are not that money good, original writers like Brown. Clint Eastwood once admitted that he is confident of his ability to translate written material to the screen, but feels inadequate to the challenge of confronting 'white space' (i.e., writing from scratch). I think that's a common dilemma in Hollywood today. Plenty of sequels and rehashes (e.g., Straw Dogs). Very little truly original work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the standard I provided in my earlier posts:

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

Well, then Penn and Teller aren't nihilists by the standard that you provided.

Definition by inessentials leads to the sort of confusion you expressed. Rand did not "spit." She criticized and she gave her reasons and she offered a rational alternative.

Her "reasons" for spitting on others were often based on misreadings or misunderstandings, just as Penn and Teller's were when criticizing Branden. Rand's views of what Kant believed and stood for are no more accurate than Penn and Teller's views of what Branden believes and stands for.

Besides, it's not true that Rand always gave reasons when criticizing someone. Maxfield Parrish is a good example. When asked what she thought of his art, she dismissed it with a single word, "trash," without giving any reasons for her harsh judgment (people are usually very perplexed to hear of her nasty judgment of Parrish because they assume that his work is exactly the type of art that she was writing about when describing her concept of "Romantic Realism").

Another example is one that I mentioned in a post above: After claiming, without proof, that the "goal" of the practitioners of "modern art" was the "disintegration of man's conceptual faculty," Rand asserted that Kant was the "father of modern art," and in doing so, she offered no proof, reasoning or argumentation, but instead merely instructed her readers to "see his Critique of Judgment". I've read his Critique of Judgment, and haven't found anything to support the claim that the ideas contained within it are the foundation of modern art, or that it or modern art had the goal of "disintegrating man's conceptual faculty," but I have found many similarities to Rand's aesthetics, especially her passion for including the Sublime in her art -- aesthetically, Rand was very Kantian, despite apparently not knowing it. It's really too bad that she either didn't read the Critique of Judgment or misread it due to hostility or what you would call "nihilism" or whatever.

Other examples would include Rand's spitting on Vermeer; she recognized him as great, but also presumed to know and judge his psychology -- that he must have had "inner conflicts" -- because he didn't heavy-handedly visually spell things out in his paintings in the overly-Romantic method that she would have presumed to instruct him to use from her perspective of being fairly ignorant of the visual arts; and her pissing on Beethoven and accusing him and his music -- based on nothing but her uninformed, subjective responses to his music -- of having the opposite "sense of life" of hers, and of expressing visions of mankind's malevolence, defeat and despair.

Her body of work was strongly positive, not primarily negative.

Ditto Penn and Teller, so quit spitting on them, you fucking nihilist.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I where Dennis is coming from and tend to agree with a lot of what he says. Matter of fact, I don't see anything by him (yet) that I disagree with. I am glad he is keeping his cool while others on these boards take him to task. Though at times I do find myself questioning if his critics really are Objectivists or libertarians for that matter.

You've expressed your opinion about P and T and NB. I agree with much of it. I don't think they are "nihilistic." I did get the feeling they had prior issues with NB that had little or nothing to do with self esteem. Regardless, isn't it time to go on to another subject? Don't forget that in spite of your high opinion of NB, he's Objectivist-movement controversial. Self-esteem is also controversial if by that we mean a "movement." I hate that; it's so collectivist in its implications qua human psychology. It isn't politics where movement this or movement that can all be legitimate.

--Brant

I appreciate the support, Brant. I'm not 100% sure that's what you intended to convey, but that's how I'm taking it.

Thanks.

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I where Dennis is coming from and tend to agree with a lot of what he says. Matter of fact, I don't see anything by him (yet) that I disagree with.

Mike,

So you agree with him that he has been given a choice to either agree with me or get moderated or banned?

Sorry, but that's BS. All you have to do is look at the different viewpoints on this board over years to see that this has never been my policy. My thing is fostering each person to think for himself.

I, personally, find the constant contest and us-against-them mentality a serious problem in our subcommunity.

It interferes with clear perception. There are far too many good minds barking and snarling at each other without the minimum amount of serious cognitive content. I think they do it just to feel good in a moment of the tribal-emotion weakness.

OL is not an Objectivist tribe--or a libertarian tribe--and it never will be. It's a discussion forum.

Look at it this way. The real enemy wants to kill you and take your stuff--all of it. I believe it's a good idea to start there in terms of perception instead lining up on a tribal side in an acrimonious contest of word games and unwarranted presumptions from behind a computer monitor.

Correct perception is a far better use of a good mind. You can build good ideas and plans--and actually produce something of value--out of it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of sequels and rehashes (e.g., Straw Dogs). Very little truly original work.

Curiously, Straw Dogs was a rehash of what?

I liked Straw Dogs, the story and Dustin Hoffman's character.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain about sequels, remakes and takeoffs as if they were special to our day and proved some invariably negative judgement about contemporary culture. In fact the practice is as old as commercial moviemaking.

Andy Hardy, the Thin Man and the Hope-Crosby road pictures come to mind. The classic comedy teams (Marx brothers, Laurel & Hardy, Abbot & Costello, Ma & Pa Kettle...) made pretty much the same movie over and over again, as did western characters from Tom Mix on. Universal had a few horror characters that that it mixed and matched year after year. Tarzan (first movie in 1912, last to date in the 1980s), Charlie Chan and Sam Spade kept coming back, too. Disney has gone even further than this since the 1930s, rereleasing literally the same movies.

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the standard I provided in my earlier posts:

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

Well, then Penn and Teller aren't nihilists by the standard that you provided.

Correct inference.

A premise that doesn't apply to the provided example contradicts it.

Rand herself pointed out (expressing it via D'Anconia's word's in AS) that contradictions do not exist.

AS, p. 199: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

D. Hardin's premise (which he provided in the above quote) is wrong because it doesn't apply to Penn & Teller.

It would be like trying to squeeze oneself into too small clothes, going by the wrong premise that the size indicated on the label 'fits'.

Definition by inessentials leads to the sort of confusion you expressed. Rand did not "spit." She criticized and she gave her reasons and she offered a rational alternative.

But weren't those "rational" alternatives often mere personal preferences on her part?

For example, on what "rational" grounds can one justify preferring over Brahms and Beethoven [rejected by Rand] the 'Tiddlywink Music' she loved so much?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I where Dennis is coming from and tend to agree with a lot of what he says. Matter of fact, I don't see anything by him (yet) that I disagree with. I am glad he is keeping his cool while others on these boards take him to task. Though at times I do find myself questioning if his critics really are Objectivists or libertarians for that matter.

You've expressed your opinion about P and T and NB. I agree with much of it. I don't think they are "nihilistic." I did get the feeling they had prior issues with NB that had little or nothing to do with self esteem. Regardless, isn't it time to go on to another subject? Don't forget that in spite of your high opinion of NB, he's Objectivist-movement controversial. Self-esteem is also controversial if by that we mean a "movement." I hate that; it's so collectivist in its implications qua human psychology. It isn't politics where movement this or movement that can all be legitimate.

--Brant

I appreciate the support, Brant. I'm not 100% sure that's what you intended to convey, but that's how I'm taking it.

Thanks.

Dennis

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your support more than I can say.

I do find myself questioning if his critics really are Objectivists or libertarians for that matter.

With good reason. Of course, in many cases, they obviously are not Objectivists by any stretch. But you wonder how they even claim to be "libertarians" if we use that term in any meaningful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of sequels and rehashes (e.g., Straw Dogs). Very little truly original work.

Curiously, Straw Dogs was a rehash of what?

I liked Straw Dogs, the story and Dustin Hoffman's character.

I liked it, too, Merlin. Vintage Peckinpah. And Susan George was sexy as hell.

I was referring to the re-make, starring James Marsden and Kate Bosworth, which opens soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find myself questioning if his critics really are Objectivists or libertarians for that matter.

With good reason. Of course, in many cases, they obviously are not Objectivists by any stretch. But you wonder how they even claim to be "libertarians" if we use that term in any meaningful way.

Oh, of course! But why stop there? Not only can anyone who disagrees with any of Dennis's opinions on any subject not properly be considered a true Objectivist or libertarian, but they probably don't even count as human beings! They should be referred to as "subhumans" and/or "savages," and those subhuman savages, like Penn and Teller, who commit blasphemy against people who Dennis has decided must be revered as Objectivist gods and saints (such as Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, etc.) are so evil that they might not even deserve to live according to Dennis's proper concept of Objectivist justice!

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find myself questioning if his critics really are Objectivists or libertarians for that matter.

With good reason. Of course, in many cases, they obviously are not Objectivists by any stretch. But you wonder how they even claim to be "libertarians" if we use that term in any meaningful way.

Oh, of course! But why stop there? Not only can anyone who disagrees with any of Dennis's opinions on any subject not properly be considered a true Objectivist or libertarian, but they probably don't even count as human beings! They should be referred to as "subhumans" and/or "savages," and those subhuman savages, like Penn and Teller, who commit blasphemy against people who Dennis has decided must be revered as Objectivist gods and saints (such as Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, etc.) are so evil that they might not even deserve to live according to Dennis's proper concept of Objectivist justice!

J

Hey, stop that! I'm at least 50% human!

--Brant

50% Martian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished the audiobook version of God, No! There’s a lot of funny stories in it. He presents each of the 10 Commandments, one by one creating his own version, then illustrating with stories from his life. Most of the stories are outrageous in some way, and there’s lots of sex tales. I imagine GHS’s memoir will be something like this. He name drops Ayn Rand several times, and mentions that he has framed handwritten manuscript pages of hers on display in his mostly unadorned dressing room. That’s all I can think of right now, I just did some Googling to see if I could find his Commandments listed somewhere, to listen again and transcribe would take too much time. No luck though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://books.simonan...9/browse_inside

http://tylerdawson.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/penn-jillettes-god-no/

^^^^ This has an hour of a Google "shindig" as Penn says.

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND: I just watched the Jillette "Google shindig." Phenomenal session with Jillette. Amazing man. He mentions Rand once about 10 minutes in.

Highly reccommend everyone listen to the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just did some Googling to see if I could find his Commandments listed somewhere, to listen again and transcribe would take too much time. No luck though.

The Commandments (ahem, suggestions) are on the Reason site. Here they are:

1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.

2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)

3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)

4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)

5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)

6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)

7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)

8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)

9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)

10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/31/penn-jillettes-10-commandments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great thinker, and despite the fact that she had read very little, if any, of his work. She called him "evil" (in fact, she called him the most evil man in mankind's history) and blamed him for later political events that he and his ideas had nothing to do with. Also, she accused him of being the "father" of the type of art that she disliked, when it would be much closer to the truth to claim that he was the "father" of Romanticism and, more specifically, of her art and her aesthetic "sense of life." So, shouldn't she be condemned for having done such poor and minimal research on Kant before publicly trashing him? Shouldn't her "spitting" on such great men count as "moral treachery" and "nihilism" by your standards?

How's Kant's ethics not evil? He said that moral actions are only those coming from duty, didn't he? The categoric imperative works to the same effect.

And Kant was highly influential. In Germany he's probably up until today one of the most highly regarded philosophers.

I can easily believe that Rand got his motivations wrong, didn't read him, whatever. But does that change her diagnosis of him being an arch-villain?

Don't argue that he was smart and right about a lot of things, that's immaterial. Tell me how his ethics isn't evil or how he wasn't influential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foul-mouthed, whim-worshipping nihilist that he is, he can't say anything explicit about the importance of being guided by reason. He just says we should go with the "evidence." Even so, I have to say I liked his wholesale denunciation of faith as total bullshit. His words would have a lot more power if he didn't give you the impression that he believes almost everything is bullshit.

Maybe I again didn't read the postings carefully enough, but the way I see it Dennis only stated his judgement of Jillette, which fits my first impression of the man (didn't know him until this thread).

To make such condemnation on an Objectivist forum seems appropriate enough to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foul-mouthed, whim-worshipping nihilist that he is, he can't say anything explicit about the importance of being guided by reason. He just says we should go with the "evidence." Even so, I have to say I liked his wholesale denunciation of faith as total bullshit. His words would have a lot more power if he didn't give you the impression that he believes almost everything is bullshit.

Maybe I again didn't read the postings carefully enough, but the way I see it Dennis only stated his judgement of Jillette, which fits my first impression of the man (didn't know him until this thread).

To make such condemnation on an Objectivist forum seems appropriate enough to me.

John:

Again a note of clarification, this is not, as for as I understand, an "Objectivist forum." Understandable to make the mistake based on the banner above, but it is like books and covers...

As the sub-heading explains, it is "dedicated to Ayn Rand and the art of living consciously."

Adam

feeling semi-helpful this year, but certainly not altruistic 2698039p814xx37v1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great thinker, and despite the fact that she had read very little, if any, of his work. She called him "evil" (in fact, she called him the most evil man in mankind's history) and blamed him for later political events that he and his ideas had nothing to do with. Also, she accused him of being the "father" of the type of art that she disliked, when it would be much closer to the truth to claim that he was the "father" of Romanticism and, more specifically, of her art and her aesthetic "sense of life." So, shouldn't she be condemned for having done such poor and minimal research on Kant before publicly trashing him? Shouldn't her "spitting" on such great men count as "moral treachery" and "nihilism" by your standards?

How's Kant's ethics not evil? He said that moral actions are only those coming from duty, didn't he? The categoric imperative works to the same effect.

That's an oversimplification. Kant's ethics said that an action is moral IF...

1) It is logically universalizable

2) It is decided upon through an independent process of reason (Rand and Kant both agree on this point re. "think for yourself on moral matters")

3) It treats everyone, including oneself, as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end

4) It is performed out of a sort of dutiful integrity; you do it because you are honestly convinced that the principle behind the action is RIGHT.

Now, first, we need to specify something: the meanings/implications of points 3 and 4 are still hotly debated because Kant was NOT a clear writer. That said, he's FAR from a Comtean altruist. It is correct to say he wasn't an egoist and his morality is acontextual and anti-teleological. But he wasn't the opposite of Objectivism.

That said, I disagree with Kant. And most Kantians wouldn't accept Kant's argument that masturbation was evil because it was using oneself as a means to an end ("Violating the Categorical Imperative" is the new "Killing Kittens").

And Kant was highly influential. In Germany he's probably up until today one of the most highly regarded philosophers.

Correct. But Kant's successors hardly repeated Kant's ideas word for word. They substantially modified them and introduced new ideas. Kant was the first of the German Idealists but he wasn't the last.

I can easily believe that Rand got his motivations wrong, didn't read him, whatever. But does that change her diagnosis of him being an arch-villain?

Yes, it does. Most of the damage which Rand accused Kant of causing was actually the product of his successors, the German Idealists Hegel and Fichte. Kant may have provided the noumena-phenomena split but Hegel and Fichte introduced PLENTY of new ideas into German Idealism, ideas which can be fairly characterized as instrumental in the growth of modern collectivism (Fichte, for one, is known as the Father of German Nationalism and argued for National Essentialism.... and then there's Hegel's Zeitgeist idea which had similar implications... then there's Marx's work etc).

If you want to cast the German Idealist tradition as the arch-enemy, you'd have a real case, but Kant himself was a classical liberal and an individualist that believed in independent moral reasoning.

Tell me how his ethics isn't evil or how he wasn't influential.

Kant was influential, but as stated above his ideas were substantially modified by a series of very powerful minds... Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidigger etc etc. were NOT orthodox Kantians even if they were German Idealists and were thus heavily influenced by Kant. The sins of Kant's followers can't be laid at the feet of Kant himself especially when Kant's followers weren't slavishly repeating Kantian catechisms.

As for the evil or not of his ethics, I've addressed that above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kant was influential, but as stated above his ideas were substantially modified by a series of very powerful minds... Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidigger etc etc. were NOT orthodox Kantians even if they were German Idealists and were thus heavily influenced by Kant. The sins of Kant's followers can't be laid at the feet of Kant himself especially when Kant's followers weren't slavishly repeating Kantian catechisms.

I'm curious, do you know in what way Nietzsche was influenced by Kant?

As for the rest, it basically comes down to different premises, as usual. My most important premise as to evaluating intellectuals is:

1. Irrational con-jobs are everywhere. People trying to fool you into jumping off the cliff are the norm. And neither do they known that they do it, nor do they have a low IQ. They are just resentful and sub-consciously thinking in the evil direction. I'm especially distrustful if it comes from loners and people who never successfully practiced a solid profession - they have reasons to be resentful. The rest have reasons to believe their profession and their lifestyle is the center of the universe.

On top of that comes:

2. When someone is difficult to understand (especially on something that should be rather simple) I am even more distrustful. There has to be a good reason to give this person the benefit of the doubt.

3. Whether someone believes himself good/pro-reason/libertarian/individualist is largely immaterial, as the understanding of these terms is extremely bad(supposed we two even agree on a meaning).

4. When people are liked by a majority and the wrong kind of person (net-tax-receivers), it's time to get worried.

5. When then other, later intellectuals are quoting the guy positively and also fall into this category a candidacy for arch-villain status should be considered. Those other intellectuals will never be slavish reproducers, they wouldn't be noteworthy intellectuals if they did. The only thing that matters is that they exhibit the same characteristics listed so far and *like* the former intellectual. (Yes, liking is all, they don't even need to take any single actual idea to make me suspicious.)

I'm sure his grossest quotations could be saved by defining duty in a peculiar way. I suppose I could take the categorical imperative and make it work by taking egoism as a principle and live by that. But that's not what he had in mind and it's not how it got interpreted. The Germans interpreted him the evil way.

I don't object to any single fact you mentioned, and I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is point 1 and 2. If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, why would I waste my time with an autopsy?

I tell you this in this form because you seem to know a lot more details about this that I do - if you think there's something that would convince me while I'm standing on above premises, I'd be interested to learn about it.

And tell me what Nietzsche took from him, that's a guy on my to-check-out-properly list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now