About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 8:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I posted this photo in the "getting ahead in a society that hates you" thread under this context


... sorry, it sucks that they need it so bad and it is hard for them, but they are going to have to deal with it or earn the money to pay for the change on thier own. Psychologically dealing with being the ‘wrong’ sex absolutely pales in comparison to the things the vast majority of humanity has had to suffer through and the things the vast majority of humanity still suffers through. Try telling this kid that your friend “needs” a sex change



Sam Erica wrote in repsonse


Michael:

That picture is truly the most heart-breaking one I have ever seen. It deserves a thread of its own and I'm not sure why you included it in your "trangendered" post.

I guess it goes with the times when there are so many scams being perpetrated that one has to wonder if this has been doctored or fabricated. It's sad to be jaded about something so horrible.

Sam


So here is it's own thread. Sam, the first time I saw this picture I had the same reaction, it is truly a sad and very disturbing image. I include this picture because in this thread someone is complaining about how rough thier life is, this is a picture I keep in my mind always. It is too easy to think suffering is relative, that when we lose our wallet it is the worse thing in the world, that being picked on or 'trapped in the wrong sex' body is the end of life, but suffering is not relative, it is absolute, one should always remember to take stock of things they value in life that they have. This photo perpetually reminds me that no matter how difficult times are for me, they really arent all that bad. This photo also reminds me of the many terrible things that go on in the world to real people, things I despise and seek to change.

I suppose the photo could be doctored, actually I did not check because it didnt seem that implausible that it was genuine, I also read a back story to it, that the journalist who took the photo was instructed by 'health officials' not to 'interfere' with the local population else they may get some nasty disease. The man who took this photo was too afraid to help this child and left him there, the story goes that she was trying to crawl to a UN food camp which was about a mile away. The journalist won a pulitzer prize for the photo (I'm sure that made the kid feel good) and felt so bad about not extending the most basic effort to help that he later killed himself. This site however says he chased the vulture away and that the girl 'made it to the food camp'

Post 1

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael: Thank you for posting that explanation. I had never seen this famous photograph that got the Pulitzer Prize. It is undoubtedly genuine —  and Snopes had nothing to say about it that I could find.

I was disturbed that the photographer could witness this drama without intervening but the explanation justifies his action.

Nonetheless, it's a sobering commentary.

Sam


Post 2

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

but the explanation justifies his action


If the explanation truly was some sort of fear of disease, I disagree. The disease affecting most people in Africa are from drinking bad water, malaria, and aids. None of these will infect a person just from physical contact.

Some of the sites I saw suggested that he was acting as a good photo journalist and just being an 'observer' others said that there were UN Health Workers around and he would have just gotten in there way, or that they were all ready over worked and couldnt render assistance to everyone. Who knows what the full story is, since the photographer killed himself, one can't help but think he felt guilty for not doing something that he thought he should have done, maybe it was this incident, or others, or a combination. But to be so tortured by guilt as to kill one's self?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dhaka, Cairo, much of Africa, and even, the hill behind Montego Bay looking up at a resort restaurant, just the other side of the road from beachfront condos in St. Croix, ...

...in much of the world, heart wrenching scenes just like this would be referred to as "a day ending in 'y'" 

The rare exceptions are the rare exceptions, plus America, a handful of other places.  Mostly the West, but not just the West.   Rims, enclaves, isolated pockets.    We in America are largely clueless as to what life is like in most of the world.    Through remote media, we see life on these 'must be other planets', and vice versa.

There are local political structures wherever life is like that, and those political structures have an obvious incentive to point elsewhere and lay blame, and those local political structures are succeeding in selling their PR campaign.  "The West/Modernity/Capitalism did this to you."    In fact, they are aided by petty local politics even in the West, where the Left chimes in with its "Yes, the West/Modernity/Capitalism did this to you,"  hoping to ride revolution by proxy  like a tiger to 'change.'   We barely have ever seen capitalism in this country.   Too much capitalism, or not enough?   Push comes to shove, is it 'capitalism' at work when there are cozy deals between the local guns of state and the local warlords, or is this meat eating fascist totalitarianism at its finest?

Rhodes: "Colonialism is philanthropy, plus 5%"     How is that possible without Her Majesty's guns of state in the mix, and what the Hell does that have to do with 'capitalism?'   Best not let the kids know what 'capitalism' is.  Better to let it be painted as 'when someone gets a favor from the directors of the guns of state , guts a country, builds a factory and charges for exploiting someone elses natural resources, that is capitalism.'   Aka, the current nonsense offered up as mere instruction in our schools.

David Reiff's "A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis"  is an interesting read on what purpose the UN and even NGOs serve in the modern West.   (Summary: Fig leaves, not olive branches: the official instruments of doing everything possible short of actually doing anything about the odd pathetic snapshot that manages to make its way from days ending in 'y' to distrurb the West's Cappucino sipping.  "It's a shame, but we're doing everything possible that can reasonably be done.  The NGOs and UN are on the scene, showing that we care, handing out blankets and bandaids to rapist and rape victims alike, no judgement involved."   Meanwhile, the human beings on the ground being directly educated about the Paradox of Violence are looking up at the skies, praying to see the bottoms of boots falling under parachutes that never come, except to cover surrender/retreats.)

Also recommended insight into our torturous, irrational psyche: "Dallaire: Shake Hands With the Devil."

The massacre ended in Rwanda only when the rebels won the war, by force.  The UN in NY instructed heros like Dallaire to watch.   Kofi gets the Nobe Peace Prize, Dallaire gets a lifelong rendezvous with the bottle trying to forget being deserted by the West when he was already deployed as the West's representative of justice from over the horizon.   The injustice of his desertion by the UN in NY and what he was forced to witness is incomprehensible.   Google "Mbaye Diagne"

PBS' transcript of 'Ghosts of Rwanda' has interesting conjecture by IRC officials about the the role of neutral observers in the face of situations like above picture, and worse.   

Is it in our selfish best interests to cross the street to subdue a thug having his way with a perfect stranger, or do we avert our eyes and hope/pray he doesn't cross the street _again_ and see us?

We are about to find out the efficacy of the latter strategy, and the cost of not fully comprehending why it is not in our self interests to surrender the world to the visions of throat slitters and head choppers and car bombers.    What we claim to be unable/unwilling to confront in Baghdad, we will no more be able/willing to confront in Baltimore when they cross that street again.

I guess we can be Europe, too...for 15 minutes, anyway.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred:

Is it in our selfish best interests to cross the street to subdue a thug having his way with a perfect stranger, or do we avert our eyes and hope/pray he doesn't cross the street _again_ and see us?

We are about to find out the efficacy of the latter strategy, and the cost of not fully comprehending why it is not in our self interests to surrender the world to the visions of throat slitters and head choppers and car bombers. What we claim to be unable/unwilling to confront in Baghdad, we will no more be able/willing to confront in Baltimore when they cross that street again.


Fred that was beautifully put. Well said. Thank you for giving us a sobering dose of moral clarity.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
~ In situations akin to this, one may feel 'fear' (from whatever causes, for whatever 'reasons' regarding whatever aspects of it) and think rationally about fighting it or giving in to it. Either choice can be a rational choice; either can be an irrational one (acting ONLY on the feeling.)
~ Or, 'journalist' or not, one may feel 'anger' AT the fact that this situation is existing, and think rationally about interfering...or not. Either choice can be a rational choice; either can be an irrational one.
~ These are not situations to judge what others 'should' have done, given 'expectable' feelings as a basis. Only what one would have done...were one there with the awareness of things that the other presumably had.

LLAP
J:D


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, I am not quite sure what you wish to say here. But if I happened upon a man photographing this scene and then walking away the vulture would most certainly get a satisfying meal - of paparazzo.

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But if I happened upon a man photographing this scene and then walking away the vulture would most certainly get a satisfying meal - of paparazzo. (Ted)

I'm with Ted.

Erica


 


Post 8

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But if I happened upon a man photographing this scene and then walking away the vulture would most certainly get a satisfying meal - of paparazzo. (Ted)
If I happened upon a man photographing this scene and then walking away, I wouldn't harm the man; I would help the child. This is reminiscent of Michael Kelly's argument that one has no right to neglect a starving child, if one has an opportunity to help him.

In reply to Michael, I quoted a passage from Rand's Anthem: "Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars." In other words, a need is not a moral claim one's time and energy, much less a reason to coerce others into satisfying it.

Of course, it was unspeakably callous and insensitive for the photographer not to do something if he had the opportunity, but it's possible that there really was nothing that he could have done in that situation. We don't know all the details. So, I would reserve judgment.

- Bill

Post 9

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, I would reserve judgment.

Precisely...  "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has all the facts." [Sherlock Holmes]


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 2:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course my urge to commit murder in this case might remain unrealized. But consider that this was supposedly a lawless area - every man for himself. Also, the photographer, if he did remain uninvolved, was proving by his actions that he intended to profit on the child's impending death - in a way little different from the vulture. In that case, where no higher authority existed, and a person by his own actions showed that he accepted the idea of profiting off the death of another, I would be happy to show him the results of the application of his own principles.

I'm not saying that anyone has a duty to hop on a flight to a third world nation to go looking for people to save. But this photographer was right there and the action of saving the child's life was paid for by the value of the picture he took. If this is an argument based on technicalities, did the photographer get a release from the child?

A few years ago, National Geographic showed a picture of a deer with its legs frozen in a few inches of ice. The photographer (who was armed) actually had the nerve to write that he was proud that he let the deer stay that way and suffer for days before it died. A hunter wrote in and said that even if the photographer didn't wish to take the risk of saving the deer which might have died anyway, the least he could have done was to kill the dear with a mercy shot to the head. The carcass would still have fed scavengers and the deer would have ceased suffering.

The press uses this "only observers" doctrine most selectively and hypocritically. Members of the press who have covered the war have said that they would not warn Americans of terrorist ambushes. Yet their colleagues go out of their way to reveal American plans to the Enemy. CBS had even made a deal with Saddam not to portray him in a bad light, so that Dan "I-didn't-know-it-was-forged-using-MS-Word" Rather could do softball interviews with that mass killer and make money for CBS.

If journalists aren't humans first and journalists second then they aren't even humans at all.

Ted Keer

Post 11

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
~ Bill Dwyer's on point here, even re the kinship prob MSK once brought up.

~ What I was 'trying to say' is to not jump to judgements (aka 'Think Twice') re RM's quote. It's NOT clear that the child was left alone to become a meal for Billy Buzzard and friends.

~ IF it was clear that he did become such or even get bitten, I'd shoot the photo bastard myself...in the legs...right there, and remove the kid.

~ A while ago, this type prob was debated amongst media 'journalists' as to whether they'd help a soldier in a firefight they were there to merely report/record on. Some said "My job comes 1st.'

LLAP
J:D


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John wrote:

========================
A while ago, this type [of] prob[lem] was debated amongst media 'journalists' as to whether they'd help a soldier in a firefight [when] they were there to merely report/record on [it]. Some said "My job comes 1st.'
========================

It's such inhumane examples like this that make my blood boil. Man is an end in himself, not a means for any others. In this particular case, I pictured these journalists as if they were using a wounded, helpless, alone-and-immanently-endangered soldier's life as a means to their next paycheck.

An analogy would be:

==================
Finding someone hanging on for dear life at the edge of cliff. His/her grip is slipping and he/she is terrifyingly begging you to hand them the nearby free end of a rope, which is already fastened around a tree. There's just a mere moment for you to react before he/she slips away to his/her doom.

As you spot the (nearby) free end of the rope, within your peripheral vision you notice a $100 bill just a few feet away. It's windy and there is a good chance that the $100 bill may take flight and be blown off of the edge of the cliff ...
==================

You see, I'm a radical for JUSTICE, as well as a radical for CAPITALISM. But it's times/situations like this that make me wish that the initiation of force was not immoral!

:-)

I would NOT kill such a reporter, having just witnessed his/her blatant disregard for human life -- but I admit that, if I knew I could get away with it, I would give him/her a such a physical and psycho-philosophical beating that he/she would remember it for the rest of his/her life.

And for counter-intuitive reasons which seem 'sick and wrong' to the Left-tarded mediocre mind, I would feel good about personally executing this retributive act of justice.

Ed
[former boxer; former vigilante; current philosopher at large]

Post 13

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Left-tarded."

LOL


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Subhuman Vultures

The Photographer who took this photo indeed committed suicide. I won't dignify him by repeating his name here. This is the wikikpedia link. One can find a myriad of references by searching Google for "vulture Pulitzer suicide." Songs, books and even movies have been based on the ghoul and this event. The cultural left shows no decency.

It was postulated that this was a war zone with no "controlling authority." If I were there and the photographer helped the child after he took the photo, then fine. I somehow doubt that the photographer would have acted so callously in front of onlooking third parties in any case. But had I seen this man choose to profit by this child's death, in complicity with the armed forces that had disowned this child, I'd have beaten him to death with his camera, if no better weapon were at hand.

This man was not an innocent random bypasser. He was using and hence fully complicit in the physical force of those who left the child homeless in a war zone in order to profit off the child's death. He lived and died as a ghoul. It is a shame there is no Hell.

Ted Keer


(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/04, 8:54pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I gotta tell you, Ted, my reaction is the same.  I'm not sure I'd be able to control my justifiable anger with this guy under conditions like that.  Short of throwing some swings, I know I would have thrown plenty of curses.

Post 16

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 1:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John wrote:

========================
A while ago, this type [of] prob[lem] was debated amongst media 'journalists' as to whether they'd help a soldier in a firefight [when] they were there to merely report/record on [it]. Some said "My job comes 1st.'
========================

Ed replied,
It's such inhumane examples like this that make my blood boil. Man is an end in himself, not a means for any others. In this particular case, I pictured these journalists as if they were using a wounded, helpless, alone-and-immanently-endangered [sic] soldier's life as a means to their next paycheck.
The idea that "man is an end in himself" does not mean that a journalist is obligated to help a soldier in a firefight. On the contrary, it means that he is not so obligated. To be sure, if the journalist with no danger to himself could warn the soldier, then he certainly should, out of simple respect for the soldier's life. But it is not his responsibility to actively defend the soldier to the point that he is neglecting his journalistic duties. If it were, he would be a soldier not a journalist. (Btw, the term is "imminently," which means impending, not "immanently," which means indwelling.)
An analogy would be:

==================
Finding someone hanging on for dear life at the edge of cliff. His/her grip is slipping and he/she is terrifyingly begging you to hand them the nearby free end of a rope, which is already fastened around a tree. There's just a mere moment for you to react before he/she slips away to his/her doom.

As you spot the (nearby) free end of the rope, within your peripheral vision you notice a $100 bill just a few feet away. It's windy and there is a good chance that the $100 bill may take flight and be blown off of the edge of the cliff ...
==================
Right, the moral thing to do in that situation would be to save the person not the $100 bill.
You see, I'm a radical for JUSTICE, as well as a radical for CAPITALISM. But it's times/situations like this that make me wish that the initiation of force was not immoral!

:-)

I would NOT kill such a reporter, having just witnessed his/her blatant disregard for human life -- but I admit that, if I knew I could get away with it, I would give him/her a such a physical and psycho-philosophical beating that he/she would remember it for the rest of his/her life.
You mean that you WOULD initiate force against the reporter; you just wouldn't kill him or her? If so, then you really don't accept the non-initiation of force principle. You are simply paying lip service to it, like a lot of Christians who don't practice what they preach.

- Bill


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 2:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

All's Fair in Journalism and War?

The non-initiation of force principal is not by itself a contextless absolute, Bill, and Rand herself castigated pacifists and Libertarians for treating it as such.

Also, this journalist didn't just happen to be walking down the road when a war suddenly broke out around him, and he wasn't just trying to save his own life. Indeed, he was happy to enter a war zone, happy to profit at the death of a child, and happy to explain that he wasn't really a monster, since non-intervention was a fine principle. Would that same fine principle not apply then to anyone who might witness someone killing him? Shouldn't they just take pictures and walk away?

If there were a state agency there to whom I could entrust the child with a clean conscience, I might have cursed the photographer and grabbed the child and taken her to safety - and then beat the shit out of him at my convenience. I have never held a gun, they make me sick to look upon. But I have witnessed murder close up, lost loved ones, and been in what were effectively low-level war zones. [Nix that eupemism, I have been on the front lines of the drug war and work mere feet from ground zero, where my neighbors and co-workersdied before my eyes.] Sometimes a crime is worth committing if one is willing to pay the consequences. This situation was much closer to that of a lifeboat than to a kaffeklatsch in Amish country. You won't see me travelling to any third-world hell-holes in order to go around saving tots from paparazzi. But I have my priorities, and civil behavior toward vultures with 23 pairs of chromosomes is not one of them. Evidently this waste of flesh agreed deep in his soul with our condemnation - he eventually killed himself and it wasn't due to a terminal physical illness.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/05, 2:50am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 2:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Thank you for the corrections and the insight. However, I have a 'potential' contradiction of yours which I would like you to explain:


======================
The idea that "man is an end in himself" does not mean that a journalist is obligated to help a soldier in a firefight.
======================

... versus ...

======================
Right, the moral thing to do in that situation would be to save the person not the $100 bill.
======================

It seems that you are trading on an ambiguity here, and also, possibly putting a word (obligation) into my mouth.

You seem rationalistic (read: meta-contextual) about the PRINCIPLE/rule? of 'man-is-an-end; not-ever-a-means' to another's life/happiness, in that 1st quote of yours (taking the phrase: "not-ever" literally). But then you seem to switch directions in that 2nd quote of yours (by not taking the phrase: "not-ever" literally)?

Would you please explain how you can get away with (in the 1st quote) taking the "not-ever" literally, but later (in the 2nd quote) not taking the "not-ever" literally?

I imagine that your explanation for the switch in direction will involve the true psychological "cost" of letting someone fall to their death over a mere $100 (and how that cost means more to you than "losing out on $100). But if so, then how come this sentiment can't be applied to the first quote (introducing psychological costs to it).

And would you agree that you brought up obligation (i.e., duty) -- and that I did not?

Ed

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
The non-initiation of force principal is not by itself a contextless absolute, Bill, and Rand herself castigated pacifists and Libertarians for treating it as such.
Very well, please justify its use in this context, if you believe, as Objectivists do, that a need is not a claim? If you are going to be making an exception to the non-initiation-of-force principle on the grounds of context, then you need to justify it, not assert it as if it were self-evident to an Objectivist audience.

I wrote, "The idea that 'man is an end in himself' does not mean that a journalist is obligated to help a soldier in a firefight. On the contrary, it means that he is not so obligated...."

and (referring to Ed's person-on-the-cliff example):

"Right, the moral thing to do in that situation would be to save the person not the $100 bill."

Ed replied,
It seems that you are trading on an ambiguity here, and also, possibly putting a word (obligation) into my mouth.

You seem rationalistic (read: meta-contextual) about the PRINCIPLE/rule? of 'man-is-an-end; not-ever-a-means' to another's life/happiness, in that 1st quote of yours (taking the phrase: "not-ever" literally). But then you seem to switch directions in that 2nd quote of yours (by not taking the phrase: "not-ever" literally)?

Would you please explain how you can get away with (in the 1st quote) taking the "not-ever" literally, but later (in the 2nd quote) not taking the "not-ever" literally?
Where does the phrase "not-ever" appear? I didn't see it in the quotes that you cited. In any case, what you seem to be ignoring is my qualifying statement: "To be sure, if the journalist with no danger to himself could warn the soldier, then he certainly should, out of simple respect for the soldier's life. But it is not his responsibility to actively defend the soldier to the point that he is neglecting his journalistic duties. If it were, he would be a soldier not a journalist."
I imagine that your explanation for the switch in direction will involve the true psychological "cost" of letting someone fall to their death over a mere $100 (and how that cost means more to you than "losing out on $100). But if so, then how come this sentiment can't be applied to the first quote (introducing psychological costs to it).
The psychological cost is not the only concern, and if it were, then I can't imagine that you'd even consider letting the person fall to his death. Your desire to save him would far outweigh any desire that you might have for the $100 bill. But even if you were so lacking in empathy and benevolence that you didn't want to save him more than grabbing the $100, it is nevertheless rational for you to do so, because his life is objectively of greater value to you than the $100 -- unless, of course, he's Charles Manson, in which case, you'd be better off saving the $100!
And would you agree that you brought up obligation (i.e., duty) -- and that I did not?
Ed, the term "obligation" is not confined to the Kantian concept of duty, and I certainly was not using it in that sense of the term. By "obligation" in this context I simply meant moral responsibility My understanding was that you were saying it was the journalist's moral responsibility to defend the soldier. That is what you were saying isn't it? As I indicated, I think it could be his moral responsibility under certain very limited conditions, but as a general rule, it is not his responsibility to defend the soldiers at the risk of his life and to the neglect of his journalistic duties. His focus needs to be on his job as a journalist, not on defending the soldiers from enemy fire.

- Bill

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.