- Colorado Moves West in a Hostile Takeover of Nevada: It’s an incomprehensible geography tattoo fail. What else can I say?
- Brain in a Dish Flies Plane: “A University of Florida scientist has created a living “brain” of cultured rat cells that now controls an F-22 fighter jet flight simulator.” Soon, you really might be a brain in a vat!
- Pastor Jack Schaap demonstrates how to polish a shaft It’s major WTFery. But, as one commenter said, “the lord moves, his hand up & down very fast, in mysterious ways.”:
- No Age Limit on Picky Eating: It’s one thing to have 10 or so foods that you hate, but it’s another to have only 10 foods that you can eat!
- Leader Of Anti-Semitic Party In Hungary Discovers He’s Jewish: On the one hand, I wish that all such anti-Semitic trash could discover Jewish roots in their own family trees. On the other hand, it shouldn’t take discovering your own Jewish roots to stop being so utterly despicable.
Aug 312012
Colorado Personhood Measure Falls Short Of Ballot:
Backers of a controversial fetal personhood measure in Colorado have failed to gather enough signatures to get the proposal on the November ballot, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced on Wednesday.
The measure, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, fell nearly 4,000 short of the 86,105 signatures it needed to qualify for the ballot. The proposal has appeared on statewide ballots in Colorado twice before, in 2008 and 2010, and was soundly rejected by the voters both times.
A spokeswoman for Personhood USA, the anti-abortion group behind the nationwide push for fetal personhood laws, contended that the Secretary of State’s office had made a mistake in counting the ballots. “We have more than enough valid signatures that were discounted by the Secretary of State’s office,” Jennifer Mason told The Huffington Post.
It sounds like Personhood USA will appeal Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s ruling, so for now, we just have to wait and see.
Colorado’s Republicans must be (secretly) cheering and hoping, because personhood did them a lot of harm in the 2008 and 2010 elections.
Aug 302012
On Wednesday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I discussed “Anything Under the Sun” with listeners. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.
Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Podcast: Anything Under the Sun
Questions on any and all topics were welcome!
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 55:05
- Download: Standard MP3 File (12.6 MB)
- Tags: Activism, Anthem, Conservatism, Corporations, Elections, Epistemology, Ethics, Existentialism, Foreign Policy, Law, Parenting, Pets, Politics, Responsibility, Skepticism, Sports, Young Adults
Topics:
- What is the difference between “skeptics” like James Randi who provide a valuable service in debunking supernatural claims and the “skeptics” condemned throughout Ayn Rand’s and other Objectivists’ writings?
- What is your advice on coping with existential anxiety?
- Should doping for greater athletic performance be considered morally or legally wrong? Should the US Anti-Doping Agency exist?
- Why are the Republicans considered fiscally responsible? Just a little research on the internet and you can see Reagan and Bush 43 both ran up huge deficits.
- What tips do you have for someone planning to study horrible philosophy, like Marx and Foucault. Will contemporary critics be of use?
- Talk of politics and rights is prevalent in my household, and we are burdened by the news and active violations of our rights. I feel like I have to choose between either being in the gladiator pit, plagued with anxiety and disgust with society and government or take a much less active role in order to maintain my personal goals, happiness, and sanity. Is it immoral to choose my battles? Because if I battled each one I see every single day, I wouldn’t have time to do much more. Where then would be my happiness?
- Do you find that at the end of “Anthem,” Liberty 5-3000 surrendered her sense of independence/personal identity?
- Is the limited liability enjoyed by corporations justified?
- Do you think it was wrong for Chris Brown to be awarded a Grammy, given his admitted abuse of Rihanna?
- Should the U.S. government forbid private businesses from trading with Iran?
- When should it be ok for a teenage (or pre-teen) girl to get her ears pierced?
- Is it wrong to give your pet to a shelter if you’re moving to a new apartment that doesn’t permit pets?
Remember the Tip Jar!
The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.
About Philosophy in Action Radio
Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Aug 292012
As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.
Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.
Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:
How can I make my boss more communicative?
My boss hardly ever communicates with me. As a result, I’ve wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I’ve gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I’m always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to encourage my boss to be more communicative with me?
How can I politely tell my co-workers that I’m not interested in socializing?
I have always struggled with the pressure to form friendships at work. Personally, I don’t want to hang out with my coworkers after work. I don’t want to chit chat during work. I won’t want to celebrate birthdays or other personal events. This is always interpreted as me being snobbish, aloof, and worst of all “not a team player.” It’s so annoying. I just want to do a good job and then leave, not join a social club. How can I communicate that without being offensive?
What is the value of understanding personality differences?
You’ve become increasingly interested in personality theory lately. What are the major practical benefits of better understanding personality? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various personality theories? Is understanding personality differences as important – or perhaps more important – than knowing philosophy?
Does a doctor violate a woman’s rights by refusing to perform an abortion?
Many people on the left claim that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion – or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B – is thereby violating the rights of the woman. Those doctors and pharmacists, however, claim that they’re exercising their own freedom of religion. Who is right?
How can I make up for my being accidentally rude for years to a friend?
I recently discovered that my friend hates the nickname that I’ve used for him for years. I feel really bad about that, but I also wish he’d spoken up sooner. What should I do now? Should I apologize – or just stop using the nickname?
Does government welfare protect people against theft and violence by the poor?
If government welfare were abolished, the poor would have to fend for themselves. Granted, some would finally start working, but others would likely resort to theft and violence. So isn’t welfare in the interests of the middle and upper classes, despite the cost in tax dollars? Isn’t welfare a way to buy safety and security?
Does everything happen for a reason?
When confronted with some unwelcome turn of events, many people tell themselves that “everything happens for a reason.” What does that mean – and is it true? Is it harmless – or does believing that have negative effects on a person’s life?
Should it be considered child abuse to feed a child a vegan diet?
Most experts agree that children need some of the nutrients found in meat and dairy products to develop properly. I’ve read lots of stories about children whose development is impaired or stunted due to being fed a vegan diet. Should it be considered child abuse to feed a child a strict vegan diet? If so, at which point should the state intervene and take legal recourse against the parents?
Is is second-handed to work hard to clean and repair your house before company arrives?
I’m constantly fighting a battle to get my house looking reasonable. Then, right before company arrives from out-of-town, I make an extra big push to get it as clean and tidy as possible. I’d like it to always be that way, but I’ll work a lot harder when I know that someone else will be in the space. So is it second-handed to want to present a better home then I normally maintain? Or is putting in that effort that a matter of respecting and providing for people that I value?
When should nuclear weapons be used, if ever?
Under what circumstances would a free society use nuclear weapons? Are they so destructive that their use would never be acceptable? Or might they be used in self-defense to win a war or win a war more quickly?
Should I keep contact with my morally questionable and mystical father?
Recently, I initiated contact with my father. I’ve not seen or spoken to for most of my life. He left behind him a lot of damage, and I was very hurt by that. I made amends with him, thinking that he was in recovery. However, I recently discovered his eastern mystic philosophy. Also, although he is fully recovered, he still has moral problems. Now I’m second guessing my decision. Would it be immoral for me to break off the contact with him after I’ve made peace with him? Should I preserve the relationship to keep my character intact? Or should I cut ties with him, on the principle that I should only maintain relationships of value to me?
Does evolutionary theory contradict the principles of Objectivism?
I am new to atheism and Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, and I embrace both wholeheartedly. However, I take issue with the theory of evolution. Atheism seems to imply evolution, but evolution seems to clash with Objectivism. Evolution holds that man is an insignificant piece of the larger, grander picture of the randomness that is life, that man is just one small insignificant step in the collective evolution of the earth, and that man is one with Mother Earth, not superior to it. In contrast, Objectivism holds that man has a purpose and that man is the most significant being, supreme over all other life. Also, Objectivism holds that “A is A” and that “Existence exists.” Evolution, in contrast, claims that life came from non-life, fish came from non-fish, and man came from non-man – meaning that A came from non-A. Am I correct in my criticisms? Might some theory other than evolution be more compatible with Objectivism?
It is wrong to judge others when I’m still flawed?
Given that I have various inconsistencies and unresolved contradictions, for me to morally judge others seems like self-righteousness. Does a person need to be morally good (or even perfect) to justly judge others?
Is mysticism distinct from religion, faith, and belief in the supernatural? Can a person be non-religious but mystical?
How important are a person’s particular sexual values in a romantic relationship?
The problems in many relationships seem to be due to conflicting sexual values, such as one partner wanting variety while the other opposes an open relationship. So why aren’t such sexual values considered at least on par with other important values in a relationship? When faced with sexual problems, why is the assumption that a couple needs to “work on them” – as opposed to thinking that such problems should be sought out before any commitment? In other words, before accepting and establishing a relationship, shouldn’t people seek sexual compatibility in the same way they seek emotional compatibility?
To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)
Aug 292012
As I’ve mentioned on my Wednesday Radio Shows, I can offer my readers and listeners a special offer from Audible.com for a free 30-day trial subscription. (The standard offer is half that.) I’m unwilling to advertise products that I don’t use or don’t like, but happily, I love Audible! I’ve been a subscriber since 2005. With my super-fancy “Platinum Annual Membership,” I receive 24 books per year for just under $10 per book.
I listen to audiobooks in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, riding, and gardening. I much prefer to listen to fiction than to read it, because a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text. Here are the audiobooks that I’ve read lately:
- The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger (3 stars)
- Dangerous Liaisons by Pierre Choderlos De Laclos (5 stars)
- The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy (4 stars)
- Anthem by Ayn Rand (4 stars)
- The Sea Wolf by Jack London (5 stars)
- The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett (5 stars)
Since I’m an affiliate of Audible, by using any of these links (except the direct links to the audiobooks in the list above) to purchase a subscription, you support my work without costing yourself an extra cent. It’s a win-win… and I love those!
Aug 282012
Buttermilk the Goat doesn’t play with her litter mates. She uses them as mere apparatuses in her gymnastics exercises:
I’ve watched this video about six times already, and I laugh every time!
Update: I’m so sorry that I linked to the wrong video! Both are excellent, just in very different ways!
Aug 282012
Wow, this essay — It Is Infuriating That I Can’t Vote For A Fiscal Conservative Without Also Supporting Religious Aggressives — was a huge breath of fresh air for me. Here’s a few quotes:
At some point, I actually would like to vote for a Presidential candidate who has the balls to really tackle our budget problem. Because, as a country, we really do have hard choices to make. And now is the time to have leaders who are actually willing to lead (read: make unpopular decisions), instead of spineless yes-men who quake at the thought of saying or doing things that most people don’t want to hear.
And given that the folks who say they will take a hard line on those sorts of fiscal decisions tend to be Republicans, I assume that to vote for such a fiscal conservative, I would probably be voting for a Republican.
And I would would be fine with that.
Except for one thing…
Thanks to the radicalization of today’s Republican party, voting for a Republican fiscal conservative would also mean supporting Republican Religious Aggressives who want to expand the scope of government to such an extent that the government will be telling me what I can and can’t think and do on certain subjective moral and cultural issues–and enforcing this legally.
And that’s a non-starter.
And:
In short, I support freedom.
The Republicans do not.
The Republicans support increasing the size and scope of government to such an extent that it strips away freedom and limits the choices Americans can make because some people believe these choices are “just wrong.”
And that’s a bummer.
Because I would like to support a true fiscal conservative at some point–our budget mess is a real problem.
But unless the Republican party returns to what it used to be, or a Democrat who is also a true fiscal conservative comes along, I fear that I am not going to be able to vote for one.
Because I just can’t support what today’s Republican Party supports:
Stripping away freedom and increasing the scope of government to the point where America won’t be America anymore.
Hear, hear! (Please read the whole thing.)
In my view, the only way that the GOP will ever listen to the many, many Americans who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal is if those people stop reflexively voting for the GOP simply because the Democrats are marginally worse on some (but not all) key issues.
The GOP knows that evangelicals will sit home rather than vote for a candidate not to their liking; they know that they have to earn the vote of the religious right. As a result, the GOP has become increasingly unprincipled and compromising on every issue — except its (utterly wrong) opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
In contrast, GOP politicians know that fiscally conservative and socially liberal voters will hold their nose and vote GOP just this once… and then again… and again… and again. Hence, GOP politicians don’t even need to pander to those voters while campaigning, let alone actually satisfy them once in office.
The only way to crush the GOP’s love affair with the religious right, in my view, is to punish the GOP at the polls by refusing to vote for their big-spending theocratic candidates. We must say, loud and clear, that we’ll only vote for candidates who are genuinely committed to cutting spending, welfare programs, regulations, and more — while not push any social conservative agenda either. Yes, that will entail some more pain from the Democrats — perhaps very serious pain — in the short term. Alas, I think that’s the only way to turn around the GOP’s ever-growing commitment to spending like mad while imposing biblical law.
I discussed these ideas about voting strategy in greater depth in Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio Show. (In fact, I wrote this post before Sunday’s broadcast.) You can listen to that segment here:
- Duration: 38:30
- Download: MP3 Segment
Links and other details can be found on the web page for the question.
My basic points were:
(1) The Founders did not create a two-party system by design.
(2) Voting is the least significant political act you can do, albeit still worthwhile.
(3) Fiscal conservatives need to be willing to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils if they want better candidates.
(4) A good candidate from a third party is often a worthwhile protest vote.
(5) I don’t yet know how I’ll vote, although I’m most likely to vote for Gary Johnson.
(6) Acrimony over voting is wrong, pointless, and destructive.
I’m not too concerned with how anyone votes in this presidential election. I’m definitely not demanding that people vote in some particular way. The process of demanding better candidates from the GOP needed to start long before now… and it can only really begin after R&R either win or lose.
Aug 272012
Our dogs once stole a whole bag of avocados off the counter. They took a bite out of every one, apparently in the repeated hope that the next one would be delicious. Even more strange, this dog seems to really enjoy his stolen raw cabbage!
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on voting for third-party candidates, self-interest in parenting, bigotry against religion, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.
You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Whole Podcast: 26 August 2012
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 1:11:54
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (17.4 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (16.5 MB)
Remember the Tip Jar!
The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.
Podcast Segments: 26 August 2012
You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.
Introduction
My News of the Week: I’ve been moving content from DianaHsieh.com to PhilosophyInAction.com, preparing docs for campaign finance litigation, and radically revising OmniFocus after my interview with Andrew Miner.
Question 1: Voting for Third-Party Candidates
Question: Is it moral or practical to vote for third-party candidates? The Founders created a two-party political system. With features like geographic representation, first-past-the-post voting for Congress, and the Electoral College for voting for President, the Founders clearly wanted parties consisting of large umbrella groups of wide geographic and ideological interests. As a result, the United States has always had two and only two dominant political parties. Corrupt election laws, passed by these parties, now guarantee that except in rare instances (such as Jesse Ventura, of all people) only members of these two parties can be elected to office. Given these facts, what is the purpose of voting for third party candidates? Unlike the two major umbrella parties, all third parties are composed of ideological kooks of many persuasions. Isn’t a vote for a third party candidate thus immoral (for supporting kookdom) and impractical (since they can’t win)? Wouldn’t it be better to try to improve the two existing parties, or not vote at all?My Answer, In Brief: (1) The Founders did not create a two-party system by design. (2) Voting is the least significant political act you can do, albeit still worthwhile. (3) Fiscal conservatives need to be willing to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils if they want better candidates. (4) A good candidate from a third party is often a worthwhile protest vote. (5) I don’t yet know how I’ll vote, although I’m most likely to vote for Gary Johnson. (6) Acrimony over voting is wrong, pointless, and destructive.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 5:42
- Duration: 38:30
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Elections, Politics, Rights, Voting
Links:
- The Objective Standard’s blog: Romney-Ryan 2012–Ayn Rand Forever, Further Thoughts on Why Objectivists Should Actively Campaign for Romney-Ryan, and Principle vs. Pragmatism in Supporting Romney-Ryan by Craig Biddle
- Federalist #10 by James Madison
- “How the GOP Lost My Vote” by Paul Hsieh
- Philosophy in Action: Gary Johnson for US President
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 2: Self-Interest in Parenting
Question: Are my interests as a parent always aligned with the interests of my child? I have a two-month-old daughter. She is of great value to me, so to protect and provide for her is in my self-interest. However, might our interests sometimes diverge? If so, should I give priority to her interests or mine?My Answer, In Brief: The objective interests of parents and children do not clash in the long run: neither parent nor child benefits from sacrifices. However, the difficulty lies in giving up unrealistic ideals to find reasonable win-win solutions.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 44:12
- Duration: 9:58
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Children, Egoism, Ethics, Parenting, Self-Interest
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 3: Bigotry Against Religion
Question: Is criticism of and opposition to religion a form of bigotry? In its entry on bigotry, Wikipedia claims that a “bigot” is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group,” and that “bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing sex or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or medical disability.” I hear the charge of bigotry bandied about, often reflexively, particularly by theists when atheists criticize their faith-based beliefs as irrational. Is open criticism of and disrespect for religion a form of bigotry? Or is “bigotry” a loaded concept to be used by anyone whose belief system is critically challenged?My Answer, In Brief: Bigotry is not holding fast to an unpopular opinion, but rather unjustly attacking people solely due to being members of some group. Criticisms of religion – and of religious advocates and adherents – so long as they stick to the facts (including about people as individuals) are not bigotry.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 54:11
- Duration: 11:20
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Atheism, Racism, Religion
Links:
- Wikipedia: Bigotry
- Philosophy in Action: Speaking Out Against Bigotry
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Rapid Fire Questions
Questions:
- What is the best way to ask someone to re-friend you after they’ve de-friended you?
- Is it immoral to attend a Christian University as an atheist if it has exceptional academic excellence in my field of interest?
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 1:05:31
- Duration: 4:02
- Download: MP3 Segment
To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.
Conclusion
Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!
- Start Time: 1:09:34
About Philosophy in Action Radio
Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Aug 262012
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):
- 24 August 2012: Doctor’s Handwriting Font by Paul Hsieh
- 24 August 2012: Canadian Rationing Strikes Again by Paul Hsieh
- 23 August 2012: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Human Progress and Earned Wealth by Paul Hsieh
- 23 August 2012: Quick Links: Fascism, Tragedy, Medicaid by Paul Hsieh
- 22 August 2012: More Massachusetts Danger by Paul Hsieh
- 21 August 2012: Quick Links: Gray Market Drugs, FDA Magic, Dope and Chains by Paul Hsieh
- 20 August 2012: Quick Links: Free Care, Gaming, Medicare Exodus by Paul Hsieh
This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:
- 25 August 2012: Two Questions on Philosophy in Action Sunday Radio by Diana Hsieh
- 23 August 2012: Personhood USA Gets the Facts Wrong about Georgia Ballot Measure by Diana Hsieh
- 21 August 2012: The Morality of Cloning: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh
This week on Mother of Exiles:
- 22 August 2012: California Farm Labor Shortage – Worst Ever by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:
- 26 August 2012: Life Lessons of Poker by Ari Armstrong
- 25 August 2012: Atheism Rises in U.S.—But What About Reason? by Ari Armstrong
- 24 August 2012: Open Letter to Paul Krugman re Intellectual Impotence, Inflation, and Ayn Rand by Craig Biddle
- 24 August 2012: Rand Supported Legal Abortion and Other Rights, Burns Notes by Ari Armstrong
- 23 August 2012: Eugene Robinson’s Disdain for the Working Class, and Distortion of Ayn Rand by Michael A. LaFerrara
- 22 August 2012: Is Dan Ariely’s Latest Book Predictably Dishonest? by Daniel Wahl
- 21 August 2012: Todd Akin and the GOP’s Abortion Problem by Ari Armstrong
- 20 August 2012: Principle vs. Pragmatism in Supporting Romney-Ryan by Craig Biddle
This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:
- 26 August 2012: Advertising to Children: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh
- 25 August 2012: Philosophy Weekend: Philosophy in Action Radio Preview by Diana Hsieh
- 24 August 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #124 by Diana Hsieh
- 22 August 2012: roasted poblano pork burgers with pipián by Julie
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 … 5 6 Older Entries
