So who do we trust now?
Over the past 40 years there has been a systematic erosion of trust in the institutions we were brought up to respect.
The lessons of the Sunday Schools that we absorbed as children were shown by science to be nothing more than fairy tales, the men of God in the black cloaks revealed to be child abusers – when they weren’t attending bondage parties. (Thanks News of the World).
The NHS? Until the Doctors and Nurses were shown to be mistake prone individuals who required rafts of legislation to prevent them from killing us all.
Our Royal family? Divorced, dysfunctional, slightly mad, apparently able to shake hands with the murderer of sections of their family without making a tearful ‘victim’s statement’ from outside a court room, unlike those who have just emerged from court to tell of the trauma of being described as a ‘scrote’ on Facebook….
Our Civil Service? Those steady, reliable, slightly boring non-political figures that Maggie Thatcher decided couldn’t be relied upon to sensibly advise Ministers, so we acquired the raft of ‘special advisers’ – that went well, didn’t it?
We had the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ – until the Telegraph got hold of the un-redacted version of MPs expenses, and we found that MPs were a corrupt and unscrupulous bunch ripping us off.
The City of London, that powerhouse of world finance? Until the banking crisis showed them up as a bunch of wide boys running round like headless chickens when they found that profits didn’t always go upwards.
Our genial Policemen, those trusted figures that could always be relied upon to tell you the time? From Macpherson onwards apparently we know them today as racist, unscrupulous, lying, conniving, chancers…..
Our media then? The BBC, the great newspapers of Fleet Street? Until the Leveson ‘Truth and Reconciliation Board’ revealed them to be regurgitators of press releases and illegally acquired personal information…
Our banks? Not just the witchhunt against overpaid bankers in general, but now the fine against Barclays has shown them to be champagne swilling liars fraudulently manipulating interest rates.
I think back to the childhood images we grew up with; the avuncular Bank Manager with his gold watch chain, the Dixon of Dock Green policeman, the City stockbroker in his pin stripes and bowler hat, the Matron ruling her wards (and Doctors) with an iron fist, the towering figures of the Press Barons bestriding Fleet Street, the Church as a sanctuary from all evil. In a series of orgasmic, rhythmic exposures, we have removed trust in every one of those institutions.
Interestingly, the Judiciary appear to have escaped this process relatively unscathed so far. So far. They must surely be next in line.
I was arguing discussing calmly, with Mr G last night, as I pondered all this. We do have a basic, logistical, need to trust some people, some of the time. It’s all very well saying ‘look after number one’ (which we do nowadays), its all very well saying become self sufficient (which we have, most successfully) at some point we have to engage with our fellow man and other than face to face barter, we have to trust a middleman in the process.
That was the origin of money, the token exchanged which had a known value. We lodged our gold with the bank, and they gave us a note or a token in exchange. We didn’t need to carry a pound of gold around with us and scrape off a sliver to buy a loaf of bread, we trusted the bank with the gold and exchanged a token for the bread.
So I have just one question for you today. When we have finished our witch hunt against the banks and worked ourselves into a lather of show trials of bankers, hung every last CEO, and made banking a criminal offence, what are we going to do? Carry our Gold and a sharp Stanley knife around with us, or lodge the gold with someone else that we trust?
And who would that be, pray tell?
June 30, 2012 at 14:53
-
We have been forced to change our behaviours by a government increasingly
telling us how we should live our lives in their (imaginary) image, by the
disappearance of the notion of connectedness with others around us- most now
see their neighbours as enemies not friends, few know whoo they are any more
to even ask for simple help knowing it will not be denied. At the heart of the
matters is political correctness which controls free thought / expression,
even when the law is not being broken. As an example forty years ago a
neighbour had no difficulty intervening to stop a fight between two youths,
there was no fear attached to this ‘community act’. Today there would be many
reasons to not interfere a) you could be charged with child abuse, b) the
parents would come after you, c) you could be knifed…get my drift. Britain has
become a society where getting involved has ramifications. Breakdown of trust?
No of society, of which banks and their executives know only too well. Such a
breakdown end up with finger pointing, media and public derision but no one
able to act with authority. My money? matress or bank / building society (look
at some of the big ones who are no better than banks in some respects)… George
Orwell’s animal farm comes to mind ‘from pigs to man and man to pigs- what’s
the difference in the end? Power corrupts.
- June
29, 2012 at 20:57
-
For what my idle thoughts are worth – I take the view that trust should be
personal not attached ex officio.
Trust me, I’m a politician! http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/trust-me-im-politician.html
- June 29, 2012 at 14:05
-
We live in a nation where creeps climb to the top of just about every
management pyramid, and where poor management led to strong unions. For if you
have decent management then you don’t need a union.
For the moment, my money, such as it is, is going into one of the few
remaining building societies.
- June 29, 2012 at 13:58
-
well – I don’t have a tin-foil hat, and this is not green pixels – but it
probably is the result of a plan. Isn’t the break down of trust the result of
the “long march through the institutions”? I think the comment about the lack
of respect form the church also helps to explain what’s going on, followed by
the unintended consequences of the internet. I am an atheist, but I can see
how the reduction in influence of an agreed and commonly subscribed to moral
centre to (any) society is going to leave the way open for all sorts of
competing influences – groups and sectors of society each proclaiming they
have the right and true way to happiness.
- June 29, 2012 at 11:24
-
Banks and other financial institutions are run by people, as are
universities, industries, businesses. People who tend to wield ever greater
power and influence as their control on the affairs of others increases.
To
greater or lesser extents they become the effective power in the land, the
continent and/or globe.
At various times “the people” have demanded greater
power over their own lives and the general outcome has been a system of
appointing (electing) representatives who are supposed to hold the ultimate
decision-making power.
However, those with the effective power control most events and resources
so it tends that those appointed by the people become effectively controlled
by those with effective power, rather than the other way around. (Power
coming, as it does, out of the barrel of a gun, or, somewhat more acurately,
out of the ability to fund and provision.)
Should “the people” begin to see their representatives being hijacked by
the very people whose inluence they are supposed to guard against, that they
have become front men for them, it may arise that the bankers, the professors,
the captains of wealth, business and industry give their front men a stick, in
the form of ‘banker’s bonusses’ or other similar unseemly and unjustifiable
advantage, and cause their front men, the people’s appointees, to pretend to
beat them, to pretend that they have the actual power. It can even happen that
given the extended timescales, some of the front men even delude themselves
that they do have that power. Well, almost.
Operating as or through the people’s representatives also enables the power
positioned individuals to infuse their activities with the people’s (tax
payer’s) wealth. As in “rescuing the banks” with “bank bailouts”.
This also requires them, or can decently seem to require them, to regulate
their banks through their state (people’s representatives) mechanism.
Thus
acquiring ever greater control over what remains of independent transactions
of wealth and tending ever more towards a command economy (so much simpler and
effective for the assimilation of other’s wealth!)
It is, indeed, a win-win situation.
-
June 29, 2012 at 10:36
-
Given that the state doesn’t trust you with much of your money, it’s hardly
worth worrying about whom to trust with what’s left.
In any event, you’d have to be crazy not to arrange things so as to die a
pauper.
- June 29, 2012 at 00:38
-
Things can’t be too bad because you all have not beeen arrested for writing
what you have writen – well so far.
What it all may well show is that the
institutions are more cunning and clever than the ordinary people. As they
have the cash and the muscle.
-
June 29, 2012 at 15:19
-
“Things can’t be too bad because you all have not beeen arrested for
writing what you have writen ”
Special Branch are due at your house about 1.00am to collect you .
Thought Crimes
- June 28, 2012 at 20:48
-
A combination of drivers have got us to this position. In the past, those
institutions we trusted (Police, Schools, Churches, Doctors, Employers,
Bankers, Lords of the Manor etc) retained that trust due to simple deference –
because someone had put them in those exalted positions, they must be good,
mustn’t they ?
Then along came education. Beyond teaching us to read and write, it then
started to teach us to ask questions, to challenge and to debate. And once you
had bested a teacher in a classroom debate, the cracks were starting to show.
That took us part of the way, but we were still limited by the impenetrable
cloak of almost masonic silence in their workings – if you can’t find the
facts, you can’t make your stand.
Then along came the internet – in a very short period, only a decade
really, this single change has now enabled hoi polloi like us, albeit educated
hoi polloi, to discover and uncover the real nature of all those sainted
institutions and, surprise surprise, we’re finding them all wanting. None of
them were ever really worthy of our trust at all: as with all gods, they have
feet of clay, some very smelly feet in some very fluid clay.
And that leaves the question of whom we can trust. I trust myself utterly,
I more or less trust Mrs Mudplugger – after that I’m struggling. But at least
now I’m aware of the situation and can act accordingly, which must beat blind
deference any day.
- June 28, 2012 at 19:53
-
Not content with ripping your moniker off of Cheeky Stoat, you have the
darned sheer nerve to then latch on to The Bloggers Arms for the other part of
your pathetic parody.
Who can we trust? Well, on originality – it’s not
you.
Please be warned that if you attempt to click on this site, your
computer will freeze for ten minutes or so – no idea who this guy is, but
since I always check out new sites to see if they are worth following, I
thought I’d give you the benefit of what I found. The ‘archive’ is apparently
one post in August 2009…….and he has the slowest loading site in
Christendom…
Cheers,
Anna
-
June 28, 2012 at 19:02
-
I think the BBC has much to answer for. Its constant sniping left wing bias
and sneering have undermined many things we used to value. For example the Mc
Pherson Report into Stephen Lawrence, they bring it up all the time , so many
times in just tedious. I dont agree with what happened to Stephen, but many
other black lads have been knifed to death by other black youths and this
attracts hardly any attention– its as if they dont matter, but most would have
had mums left heartbroken at thier demise.
They BBC undermines and promotes
many special interest groups— do some internet research.
I have to say, and
sorry to disagree Anna, but the judiciary has its fair degree of ” nut house”
jobs. Trouble is many are very academic and lack common sense– they cant see
the wood from the trees. Also very Academic people have too much self belief—
they are always right.
Good thing about this site is we can have a proper
controversial debate, without anyone just trading abusive insults as a way of
gettting their position across
-
June 28, 2012 at 17:06
-
Perhaps we should all stick to local credit unions and a barter economy?
Starve the Beast, as the inimitable OH would say (and so bloomin’ often
does!)
More on this coming soon…
- June 28, 2012 at 19:09
-
Barter maybe a tad cumbersome; this is where money arose from being
homogenous, divisible, enduring and rare. It became thus a store and a
measure of value, thus precious metals.
Early banks were nothing more than strong rooms for storage of your gold
and silver. Paper arose to stop people having to carry around large amounts
of gold. This is the origin of paper money, a gold promisory note. When
people became used to using paper, governments passed legal tender laws so
you could only use their money, hence various monopoly jokes. Then after
wars which busted various governments (WW1, WW2 and Vietnam), the gold link
was increasingly withdrawn until finally in 1971, world currency became
truly fiat. After that, governments could print as much of the stuff as they
wanted and it had the instrinsic value of toilet paper.
Guess what happend to the moeny supply post 1971? Yep, it exploded as
politicians behaved with all the restraint of monkeys at a salad bar and
hence 1970′s inflation and the ongoing upward march of prices.
Despite having coercive powers of taxation and the ability to print money
at will, most governments in the West are now bust (how can you fuck things
up that badly?) and can barely meet current liabilities much less future
promises in the giant Ponzi scheme.
For me the solution is obvious. Paper is worthless and becoming less and
less rare. Don’t keep much of it. Have actual tangible assets and fixed
interest rate liabilities because the end is coming, governments won’t be
able to borrow anymore. At that point they will reach for the printing press
and the death of their paper currency becomes inevitable. QE means we are
already on this road.
Thus have fixed tangible assets. I like precious metals.
(Not financial advice, think for yourself, yada-yada)
- June 28, 2012 at 16:45
-
For my more positive contribution to the debate on this post, I can
categorically state that I trust simian prima donna Wade Rune and the
Northumbrian Football Team. I know that I can rely on them to fail – and so
far, they haven’t let me down…
-
June 28, 2012 at 15:36
-
Yeah, yeah, but where do I put my money?
- June 28, 2012 at 15:43
-
Do you have a matress?
-
June 28, 2012 at 15:52
-
Unhappily, I think that’s probably a sensible suggestion.
- June 28, 2012 at
16:15
- June 28, 2012 at 16:42
-
If the value of money has been debased to the point of worthlessness
owing to inflation (engineered by the big money moguls), then no amount of
mattresses will suffice…
- June 28, 2012 at 14:58
-
Pre computerisation the MP’s expenses could not have been leaked. Post
internet, censorship, has become practically impossible. Pre Internet the
average person could not easily fact check the BBC (without spending a long
time at the local library). Today, using google, the BBC’s poor fact checking
and biases become obvious (although you do still have to care enough to go
looking in the first place). Blogs like this one, and many others, provide
insight into areas previously not accessible to the public.Today police are
caught breaking the law on camera and the videos uploaded to youtube, an
option not available to previous generations.
Now, in a large part due to the internet, we can see parts of the world
that where once hidden from view.
Welcome to the matrix….
- June 29, 2012 at 13:06
-
Unfortunately things tend to move in circles – this “openness” has put
corrupt governments and industry in the spotlight, and they don’t like it.
We are seeing an alarming rise in efforts to censor the internet (disguised
as “parental control”), and influence public behavior, which even the
supposedly “free” Western administrations are pushing ahead with. We’ve had
a good run for several years, but things are looking pretty bleak from now
on…
- June 28, 2012 at 13:58
-
Trust your family and keep your gun well oiled, there’s no-one &
nothing else to rely upon.
- June 28, 2012 at 13:24
-
Has it ever been any different, though? The Union movement grew painfully
in the nineteenth century because some (not all) employers exploited the
labourers. Then there was the emancipation of women. During WW2 at least we
all had a common cause to unite in, young and old, rich and poor, town and
country, services and civilians. Then in the ’50s, the austerity following the
war brought it’s own form of common bond. Then things started to go wrong in
the ’60s, with the rise of ‘I’m all right, Jack, f*** you’, and materialism.
Then some Union leaders kicked off in the ’70s, and had to be tamed in the
’80s. The political classes, with some honourable exceptions, lied to us about
European integration in the ’70s onwards, and it turned out that all sorts of
supposedly staid institutions had skellingtons in cupboards. Just the ongoing
situation of the Human Condition, really.
I suppose we should count our blessings, in a way. At least we don’t have
Hitler lobbing high explosives at us, or a Civil War ongoing. We don’t have to
apply to the Workhouse if we’re on our uppers, and it even stops raining
occasionally. We still have Test Match Special on’t radio, and even the hype
surrounding the olympics will soon be a fading memory.
Have a Pimms and a Melton Mowbray pork pie, and chill out, folks.
- June 28,
2012 at 12:58
-
As I recall the lamplighters really could be relied on. But there don’t
seem to be any around nowadays.
- June 28, 2012 at 12:03
-
“And who would that be, pray tell?”
Each other.
Bypass the big organisations. Trust your experience and that of those in
whom you have already established trust. Your community – however you define
it.
- June 28, 2012 at 11:46
-
Sic transit gloria mundi.
(our Gloria, that is.)
- June 28, 2012 at 13:02
-
For those of you without the Latin, that means, “Gloria was sick in the
van on Monday”.
- June 28, 2012 at 13:58
-
It should be `after a lousy weekend the weather is lovely, lets tell
them the van won`t start`
- June 28, 2012 at 14:31
-
Gadzooks and Zounds sir. Take the name of our Gloria in vain, at your
peril!
- June 28, 2012 at 11:27
-
You are right. We trusted people because we saw no reason not to trust
them. Our teachers may have been dull, but they knew the subject they were
teaching us. If the BBC said something was so, then that was fine because we
were told the truth while others only had propaganda. We queued willingly
because we knew that waiting our turn was fair, that we would ‘get there’ and
be served fairly.
We didn’t have a wave of ‘isms’ to daunt our ambition or blight out life or
impose values on us we didn’t share, because we were trusted, in turn, to
generally do the right thing. While we suspected that politicians were not
entirely worthy of that same trust (placing them, I think, just above used car
salesmen) we thought essentially they wanted the best for our islands and its
people. They trusted us to be good citizens, mostly. We trusted them to make
good laws.
And there it was: a two way process. We gave trust, and were trusted back
in turn. But the process began to disintegrate when we weren’t trusted. We
could not be trusted to make the right choices for ourselves (we kept eating
things that were bad for us, or drank or smoked) and we could not be trusted
to behave within the law, so we were increasingly observed and checked and
numbered. Our choices were limited because the great and good could not trust
us to continue being what we were.
In turn, our trust for them evaporated when we realised that they had lost
their faith in us. We were just useful idiots, to provide votes and money and
a quiet acceptance of anything untoward. Once they showed they were grasping
and rapacious and underhand, our trust fell away.
The two way process of trust broke down with them first.
- June 28, 2012 at 11:31
-
An excellent thought provoking response, thank you.
- June 28, 2012 at 11:47
-
In a nutshell actually!
- June 28, 2012 at 12:16
-
Excellent summary of the breakdown of trust. I think this began in the
80s when it was every man for himself, which begat the rise of the career
politician, connected and needy, the ones that would rarely fall on their
own swords and always knew better.
The bigger the state got and the more entwined with business, the more
removed it became from the people. Betting the house on the financial sector
has not turned out well.
Whilst the moral decline over the last 10-15 years has been nothing short
of shocking, particularly as incomes seem to have risen for those have risen
to the top; we do have some good people, endeavouring to speak out and
challenge the current mores. I think too that there is a feeling that
something isn’t right. Trust may be scant, hope remains.
- June 28, 2012 at 12:21
-
Actually it began in ’79, it was called Thatcherism.
- June 28, 2012 at 12:34
-
But now it’s called fascism.
- June
28, 2012 at 13:14
-
It probably began in the ‘swinging sixties’, when rising incomes and
‘pop’ culture led the young generation to reject the moral and social
standards of their parents.
This was partially as a result of the
Russians investing a great deal of time and effort in promoting
socialism among Uni Dons, allied to an expansion in the numbers of
students from outside the normal social group who had previously
attended university.
Then the Americans’ made a real horlics of
Vietnam and the rest is history !
-
June 28, 2012 at 13:28
-
Thatcherism was most definitely a Good Thing. It was the abuse of
Union power and the strangling of enterprise by excessive taxation in
the ’70s that was a Bad Thing.
-
June 28, 2012 at 13:46
-
The attitude of “Let Them Eat Coal” and “Unemployment Is A Price
Worth Paying For Low Inflation” and “Greed Is Good” in the 80s were
equally a Bad Thing. Thatcherism was good for some, but bad for a lot
more of the population.
-
June 28, 2012 at 14:44
-
Something not so well remembered is that in 1979, 45% of public
spending went on subsidising loss-making nationalised industries –
paying people to produce things that nobody would pay for, in other
words. If that policy had been continued, we would have been like
Greece is today by the middle of the 1980′s.
Thatcherism saved far more people from adversity than many are
prepared to acknowledge.
-
June 28, 2012 at 17:10
-
From one engaged in building and commissioning new factories in
various places in the 1970s, the anarchy in British industry at that
time was unbelievable. Blame who you like except MT; unions and
management between them destroyed any hope of competing with the rest
of the world, despite having access to modern technology. I know where
I lay the most blame, I had to deal with them.
This folk memory of
Thatcher destroying our industrial base is a myth. We were lucky to
have her.
-
June 29, 2012 at 03:09
-
Binao,
“Blame who you like except MT; unions and management between them
destroyed any hope of competing with the rest of the world.”
Today, the population of China is some 3billion+. Our politicians
want us to compete with this country.
Why do we need to compete
with anyone? Why can’t we simply make what we need, in our country,
paying our people a wage and not Johnny Foreigner? I believe they like
to call it protectionism, when in reality it’s common sense. Free
trade was brought in for the sole purpose of destroying nations and
their self sustainability. Thatcher thought it better we give Polish
coal miners our money and kick our own miners out of a job, resulting
in villages being destroyed not forgetting families and the
livelihoods of those who relied on the miner’s income.
Thatcher,
like all politicians was the banker’s bitch. She played her role and
has been rewarded financially. Thatcher destroyed the UK along with
Heath who took the UK into Europe. Thatcher will be remembered by the
working class as the angel of death. She was a heartless snob and a
puppet of the elites.
-
June 29, 2012 at 09:12
-
In reply to Harbinger;
I think I understand your argument, but
it’s been too late for your solution for a very long time, even if it
were ever practical. We are where we are, and can’t even feed
ourselves.
And yes, I’m glad I wasn’t a miner, but I stand by what
I learned in manufacturing and would suggest that the greater
conspiracy if there ever was one, was that to destabilise the economy
of this country. And while I empathise with gladiolys’ view, I think
Engineer has it- deathbed industry sustained by massive taxpayer
support and no reform because of political fear. There are parallels
today.
Anyway, it’s all a bit of a diversion from who do we trust with our
wealth.
My suggestion is that there’s nothing most of us can do
except keep a stash against the day when the banks close for a day or
three, a few hundred for immediate needs. Petrol and food.
- June 28, 2012 at 12:32
-
Excellent comment…
I heard a bloke on the radio earlier, referring to us (ordinary folk) as
mushrooms…
Kept in the dark and given regular doses of ordure.
-
June 28, 2012 at 11:25
-
The problem with ‘institutions we were brought up to respect’ is that we’ve
discovered they’ve been run by idiots who deserve only scorn and punishment.
I’m not sure why this is. I find it hard to believe that society is more
greedy than before. However, as much as I hate the say this, I wonder if
there’s a moral vacuum where one we once had the church: that once God was
proved to be dead, anything became permitted and this is the result… So few
people choose to do the right thing in the long term when faced with the
immediate riches at hand.
- June 28, 2012 at 12:14
-
Erm, back in the day religious folks were very fond of
killing/persecution in the name of their preferred god. Godly folk are still
at it today.
Perhaps the opposite is true. Preaching “blind” trust in the Church and
god for example. Or absolving personal responsibility for your sins with
prayer and the confessional……
The 3 tribes of Abraham have a difficult time playing nice with each
other, and that has being going on for 2000 years. Heck even within a
religion they can be dam nasty to their own believers in the name of
“god”.
- June 28, 2012 at 12:27
-
While I understand your point, I would suggest that the problem is not
religion per se, but rather human nature itself. It isn’t only the
adherents to the Abrahamic faiths who are guilty of such nastiness between
themselves: you’d be hard-pressed to get 2 socialists, communists,
liberals or free-market libertarians to agree without some degree of
acrimony.
What is widely overlooked by those with an axe to grind
against religion is that under the rule of the Moors in their ‘Siglo De
Oro’, Spain had a culture of tolerance and respect between Moslems, Jews
and Catholic Christians. This is by no means unique.
- June 28, 2012 at 13:24
-
Agreed. In my haste to correct religious historical revisionism, I
ended up engaging in my own form of religious historical
revisionism.
Hohum. To err is human and all that.
- June 28, 2012 at 11:16
-
So I have just one question for you today. When we have finished our
witch hunt against the banks and worked ourselves into a lather of show trials
of bankers, hung every last CEO, and made banking a criminal offence, what are
we going to do? Carry our Gold and a sharp Stanley knife around with us, or
lodge the gold with someone else that we trust?
And who would that be, pray tell?
Ourselves.
- June 28, 2012 at 11:29
-
What an interesting link Onus! I shall absent myself for some time to
read it all……
- June 28, 2012 at 20:14
-
I’m so pleased you found it interesting.
If I can be of any help clarifying how it all works in more detail; I’d
be delighted to answer emails. Or there is a series of stupidly overly
detailed articles I wrote explaining the technicals in (I hope) less
technical terms than reading the source code would tell you over at might
place.
Starting here.
http://onusprobandy.blogspot.com/2011/11/bitcoin-explained-i.html
or, from a better writer than I…
http://evoorhees.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/bitcoin-libertarian-introduction.html
- June 28, 2012 at 12:32
-
bitcoin is still a fiat currency backed by electrons, rather than gold.
The other (historically) form of currency are local “scrip”. They came in
many forms, but typically notes had expiry dates (so you cannot hoard
currency to the determent of others). Some were “backed” by labour and
goods. Example a note could be backed by 1 days manual work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
The Worgl Experiment is worth reading up about. http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/
More locally (if you live in the UK). Totnes has been implementing its
own form of “scrip”.http://www.transitionnetwork.org/projects/totnes-pound
-
June 28, 2012 at 14:31
-
Love the quote:
“What is money? A physical representation of the abstract concept of
effort.”
From “Final Empire” by Brandon Sanderson.
-
June 28, 2012 at 19:21
-
The modern version of which could be:-
“A physical representation of the abstract concept of someone else’s
effort.”
{ 53 comments }