A law has recently been put into place that restricts abortion to six weeks after pregnancy. I believe that this policy is unjust, as it interferes with The Greatest Happiness Principle as it does not promote the most general happiness of society as possible. This is a controversial ruling and thus sparks many different and strong emotions in those who are impacted by it. For this reason, this law should be rationally debated under the conditions of utilitarianism, as it does not require individuals to start off by sharing common ground. I will make the argument that further restructuring the time warranted for abortions ultimately causes more harm to society because of its negative effects, and as a result, it reduces utility.
My philosophy places importance on the potential effects of an occurrence to determine its utility, so I will highlight how this political and social decision will cause more harm than good. In order to make a just decision, it is important to examine the course of history to understand what types of behavior have led to the most utility in the past. I will use the example of Roe v. Wade to demonstrate how our longstanding rights that have persisted across history to aid in our mutual happiness. This landmark ruling was made in 1973 and, over time, has consistently served utility to Americans, to the point in which nearly 75% of the American public is against it being overturned. This supports how a six-week restriction would harm the majority of America’s happiness considering that oftentimes women are not even aware that they are pregnant by this six-week deadline, and would then be unable to obtain an abortion.
I want to make it clear that I understand the strong sentiment on each side of this issue, however, to address those that oppose my assertion. I am not saying that abortion should not be restricted to some extent, but that the restrictions should not be so tight as to harm the pleasure of the majority. With this in mind, I would like those individuals to instead examine the drive of their sentiment, rather than writing off what they believe is right as the end-all-be-all without any rational debate or contemplation.
Along with this, I want to stress the importance of utilitarianism’s emphasis on the pleasure of all, not just the individual. If a reader disagrees with me, they must take into account that the initial internal desire of one should not be considered more important than the pleasure of the rest of the public. This decision should be made rationally by the public, rather than by a small group of people with a limited demographic. Even if the decision does make one happy initially, expediency does not mean that that decision is just. Short term happiness of a few is not what should determine such impactful decisions.
Overall, I understand that some may not agree with my standing, however, my philosophy stands by the fact that that the utility of all should be what is most important. Even if you may still disagree with a ruling that has longer limits for the time in which abortions may take place, if it is enforced, the few who disagree will eventually rationally consent once they realize it is good.
Author Archives: johnsmill1859
Utilitarianism and Abortion Restrictions
Comments Off on Utilitarianism and Abortion Restrictions
Filed under Mill
Abortion: Does it Harm Society?
Abortion as a right is a two-sided coin: On one side, the mother’s livelihood is typically harmed if she has a child. On the other side, a potential child is prevented from living out a potentially successful future. Which option affects society in the worst way?
First, the circumstances in which an abortion would be performed must be limited. The women who require an abortion for emergency medical purposes should not be considered. If a mother chooses to abort her child in this situation she will live, and the baby will not. If she chooses not to abort the baby, she and the child may both die. Because the second option causes more long-term harm (i.e. death), That would almost never be a reasonable action to take.
If, instead of the procedure being medically necessary for the health of both parties, the mother simply did not want to have a child, there are a few other factors to consider: The main factor that is relevant to society are the income and marital status of the mother. Most women who have abortions are single and of low to average income. It is important to note that the necessity of an income is diminished if one’s spouse participates in raising the household income. This way, a woman can have a child and not have a job, but still maintain the least harm due to her spouse’s income.
In a typical scenario in which a mother has a low-income job and is single, she has the option to either abort or go through with her pregnancy. If she chooses to abort the child, she will not have to leave her job. This means she can continue moving up in said job, have more income later, and ultimately contribute more to society because of this. However, her child will be prevented from potentially adding greatly to society. This child could have been a president or a homeless person, regardless of how likely one thing or the other is, anything was possible until nothing was.
But say the mother chose not to abort her child. She is then left with two other options: give up the child or keep it. If she chooses to keep the child, she must then give up her job and live on welfare. Additionally, children born to low-income, single mothers are much less likely to succeed. This is the greatest harm. The mother, child, and society all suffer from this option.
Alternatively, the mother could give up the child to a relative or put them up for adoption. In this case, the mother can continue to work and contribute to society as she would if she had an abortion, and society would benefit from this. However, the child would still be less likely to succeed and contribute to society apart from both of their biological parents. Others in society must also give the child opportunity to succeed, which hurts society. This option seems to have the most utility though, because the mother, child, and society all benefit more than in an abortion.
Based solely on utility, Abortion is the best option unless all the typical, low-income, single mothers choose to give up their child. The likelihood of these options happening in a society should determine what laws are made in that region. If the proposed single, low-income women are less likely to give up their children after birth and instead live on welfare, abortion has more utility. Conversely, if they give up their child, abortion has less utility for that society.
Comments Off on Abortion: Does it Harm Society?
Filed under Mill, Uncategorized
The Rights of the Unborn
The arguments either for or against abortion generally stem from one singular point of contention: at what point does a fetus become classified as a human being. For if the unborn child is in fact a human, then killing it is no different than murder. Performing this harm upon the child brings into effect a clashing of utilitarian principles, which only heighten the issue. On one hand, causing physical harm to another must not be allowed to occur. On the other, based strictly on what is best for the greatest number of people, abortion may be the more utilitarian act.
The only time a government should have the power to restrict the actions of an individual is when they directly cause the harm of another or others. Though this could often be left up to interpretation as to what ‘harm’ entails, physical harm to another human meets the criteria without a doubt. There is no question as to whether or not the aggressor is merely offending or being ethically incorrect towards another individual; killing is objectively wrong and not up to interpretation. Therefore, for a government to mandate that abortion is legally wrong, contingent on the classification of a fetus as a human, would be morally and ethically permissible.
The most fundamental principle of utilitarianism is that whatever does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people is inherently right. This becomes an incredibly difficult concept when it comes to abortion because what is best for the greatest number of people may cause harm to another. In many instances in which abortion is an alternative, the parents or parents of the unborn child may benefit more from an abortion than the unborn child. These benefits may come in the form of a lack of a financial burden or in the simple lack of preparedness. Raising a child is an extremely difficult task and not everyone is suited for it at any given time. For this reason, an abortion may be better for more people than keeping the child, making it the most utilitarian decision.
The issue of abortion is an extremely difficult one as there is no clear-cut right or wrong. Though one cannot harm another, whatever is best for the greatest number of people must be followed. However, in this specific instance, the right of an individual not to be physically harmed trumps the benefits of what may be a majority. For this reason, abortion is wrong and the government has the right to regulate it in order to protect the rights of the unborn.
Comments Off on The Rights of the Unborn
Filed under Mill
Magicians and Heretics and Illegal Immigrants
There is a justified malaise growing within American citizenry over the willfully continued practice of its government to separate migrant children from their parents, incarcerate them in a manner suitable for criminals post conviction, and treat their health and wellbeing with an ambivalence that has resulted in the deaths of three children under 9 years of age, the youngest being not quite 2 years old. https://nbcnews.to/2AJyHn1
While it is fair and responsible for a nation of laws and citizenship to enforce both, the controlled scope of what constitutes enforcement of the law is a civil responsibility as well as a utilitarian obligation. Additionally, it is imperative to consider whether adherence to a policy which produces such results as the untimely death of children is in fact an efficient countermeasure to its intended exigency. To ignore the means and the ends, or to allow the ignoring of, is an irresponsible turn towards social and actual tyranny. This is a tyranny where the prejudices of a ruling group becomes the legally vindicated abhorrence of its supporters who in turn prop up the laws of the ruling group. This confirmation circle precludes rational policy decisions that best serve the civilization and instead distill a majority opinion into law. Majority in this case is meant to read as the opinions of the deciding group in the nation and not meant to imply that they hold a true numerical advantage. As this relates to the separation of children from parents at the border, as of yet, there are no discernible desired effects upon illegal migration to the United States as the result of these tactics. Instead, methods of this ilk resolve to be compulsory at best, to discourage would-be immigrants who would not be willing to lose their children perhaps forever. Where people cannot be reasoned with or instructed, compulsion may well serve the best course for their tutelage, as long as said compulsion is the best manner with which to best help them who cannot best help themselves. This is not the case in modern times concerning the peoples who, though often destitute, are not savage and incapable of reason.
Children, more than any adult, do not deserve the threat of incarceration, illness, or death for crimes they cannot understand and therefore could not have committed. Detaining families found breaking the law by illegally entering the United States, thus restricting their movement and ability to escape American recourse, is prudent execution of border control. In no manner is that endeavor assisted by the threat placed upon the young. In no manner are American ideals upheld and preserved by separating families. In fact, many of the dangers that the influencing parties would seek to avoid by employing these tactics like murder, erosion of values, crime, and general harm to the vulnerable are instead perpetrated in the attempt to prevent.
Regardless of the complicated arguments surrounding the state of the American border, the needs of South American immigrants, or the American need of them, one piece of the puzzle is clear. Three children have died while under the care of one the richest, “freest” nations in the world for no reason at all. The ultimate transgression against the liberty of the smallest of us has been not only employed, but sanctioned lawfully, politically, and perhaps most odious—socially. There may be reasons given for such an act, but currently they most closely resemble the attempted rationalizations of early colonists who, legally, persecuted “witches” or heretics or magicians.
Persecutory discrimination is a perfectly legal frame of mind to have, a perfectly acceptable set of opinions to keep to ones self. However, the transposition of these mental modes into compulsory laws of lethal consequence to the youth is an infringement upon the very tenants the American nation was founded upon, and cannot serve the true rational pursuit of any liberal government, especially one aimed at becoming the paragon from which the world should take notes. It is not enough to simply call one’s nation great, for true greatness is that which lasts past the individuals who would say it. For lasting effect, reflected in the histories of the world, make America think again…and greatness may follow.
Comments Off on Magicians and Heretics and Illegal Immigrants
Filed under Mill
Expediency and Higher Education
It is no surprise that those members of society that have accumulated wealth within the span of their lives would use their influence in order to benefit those that are closest to them by paving for them a direct path to financial success. Throughout the span of the last few decades there has grown an emphasis on higher education, specifically that of 4-year programs at university systems, as the sole path to building a lucrative career in life. I do not suppose to underestimate the value of an educated mind, as it often allows one to open oneself to possibilities perhaps not previously thought by that individual as being in the realm of possibility. However, it seems that the educational system has made a shift from an entity encouraging the process of learning disciplines through personal achievement in order to expand individual scope to an authority which can launch career paths for anyone who is willing to contribute more substantial amounts of their personal wealth.
With a system that values these contributions over merits earned from mental growth, we have created an environment in our workforce that creates exclusivity and very well breeds elitist suppositions that only further the personal gains of a few. Parents with the means to pay large sums of cash can be sure that their children’s futures are taken care of despite not having done the work that less fortunate others would have to put in. It may be an immediate guarantee for those few, but I will argue that it hurts society in the process. These privileged individuals are taking the spots from others individuals that, through learned dedication, could effectively cause positive change for the benefit of society. The indictments of the parents involved is a step in the right direction towards inclusivity, discouraging corruption that impedes progress. However, larger scrutiny towards the institution itself must be pursued in order to achieve a greater momentum to the advancement of human ability and understanding.
This is the purpose of higher education. Cultivating knowledge gained over many generations, across many regions, to further the expansion of the collective human mind towards innovation and enterprise that maximizes possible happiness. But it has become a cycle where the system assures only it’s own happiness while granting the happiness of those that have wealth and status for the highest dollar amount. This type of expediency is truly slowing down the process of progress for society because it creates a bubble in which many cannot enter and therefore cannot prosper.
Comments Off on Expediency and Higher Education
Filed under Mill
Mill on the Expedient Nature of Fossil Fuels
Fossil Fuels: Utility or Expedient
In the case of energy provided by burning fossil fuels, Mill urges the public to consider whether fossil fuels are in our short term or long-term interest. He asks the public to consider the topic of climate change and the fuels we use as a matter of public interest, and not a matter of immediate economic benefit. According to an article comparing the financial, social, and environmental impacts of the differing fuel sources by Walker and Reid, “Fossil fuels have been used for many years due to their inexpensive nature, but the use of them generates hydrocarbons that create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” They also emphasize that fossil fuels are exhaustible and set to run out in 50- 150 years.
What is important about the discussion of what fuels we should be using for the greatest overall long-term happiness; it is important to discuss how they affect the environment long- term as well. According to Mill, a decision or action rooted in utility rather than expedience is going to produce the greatest overall happiness long- term. He argues that expedient choices may have pleasurable short-term consequences but are ultimately hollow and interested only in instant gratification. Mill agrees that the use of exhaustible fossil fuels is an expedient decision rather than one of utility. While the inexpensive costs of fossil fuels are helpful to the economy right now, the use of fossil fuels neglects the happiness and well- being of future generations.
Mill argues that the consequences of the greenhouse gas affect directly violate the rights of future generations. The consequences of climate change would infringe on future generation’s rights to liberty, property, and happiness. This is due to the environmental repercussions of greenhouse gas emissions; the inevitable result would be damage to the environment that will cause serious health implications to the future generations, thus infringing on their right to happiness. However, while the justice for future generations is a big factor on what makes using fossil fuels an expedient choice, the economic consequences highlight this as well.
If the argument for the utility of the use of fossil fuels is rooted in the inexpensive cost, Mill would argue based on the economic evidence that the economic benefits are short-term and the long- term costs of continual use of fossil fuels will undo the short- term benefits. According to Environment America, “The United States cannot afford to wait to break our dependence on fossil fuels. The cost of fossil fuels to our economy and our environment will continue to mount in the years to come unless the nation takes bold steps now to embrace the benefits of a clean energy future.” Mill argues that long- term benefits are in the interest of the achieving the greatest total happiness for the most people. Mill agrees in the case of whether switching to renewable sources of energy is a “moral” decision is based entirely off the consequences of the decision. It is clear that the consequences of switching to renewable sources is not only in the best interest of public happiness, but also an economically smart decision.
Filed under Mill
Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny
Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny. To fix an issue, you have to identify and acknowledge what’s causing it. In this case, the issue is homelessness, and the proposed solution is an additional tax on the rich. You argue against an additional tax on the rich by saying my argument frames “issue as rich vs. poor, [rather than] industrious vs. the unproductive,” but doing so implies homelessness is synonymous with being unproductive, a narrative conservatives push often. It also implies that everyone who is extremely wealthy has made their money honestly, which is actually the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. In actuality, homelessness is often attributed to rising housing costs and the socio-political norms and attitudes strongly rooted in our governing policies that enable poverty. For example, many district zoning and county lines were written during times of segregation, ultimately putting those communities at a disadvantage due to lack of income and poor school systems. Another major cause of homelessness for women is domestic violence, a cause that has absolutely nothing to do with being unproductive.
As for your argument stating man should live for himself and his well-being rather than the collective good, you must have forgotten our society is too complicated to live so selfishly, as we rely on one another too deeply in terms of commerce already. And how can you argue there’s no “we” or “society” in the UNITED States, a country built on an extreme sense of nationalism and patriotism? You also mention that “a slave can be categorized as anyone who doesn’t benefit from their labor and that’s what this tax will do,” as if these millionaires aren’t going to pocket millions regardless, so I’m pretty sure that counts as ‘benefiting from their labor’.
I agree, every man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because I believe that, I also believe the people in power should try their best to level out the playing field for everyone under their care by dispensing necessary resources to those who are unable to do so themselves. The theory is that by providing equal resources to everyone, you’re giving people the equal opportunity to become productive citizens in society. By supplying these resources, you’re allowing people opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise, and in doing so, you have a better chance of harvesting knowledge and creativity from poorer cities and towns that are typically at a disadvantage, which could most definitely benefit society as a collective. Say the cure for cancer is planted in the mind of someone born into poverty, but our governing policies are written to disadvantage lower-class families so the or she never receives a proper education, ultimately falling victim to our crooked judicial system only to end up in jail for a small misdemeanor. Meanwhile, politicians among the top 1% commit crimes far greater and remain in power, continuing to enforce to policies that benefit them.
Again, most of your argument is built on the claim that the wealthy make their money honestly, and purely through hard work, so they shouldn’t have to give it to give it those who are “unproductive”, discrediting all of the hard working people that live in poverty. Though it may seem so, there isn’t a direct correlation between hard work and the amount of money you earn, as you could work very little and make 6 figures or work 50-60+ hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck. Additionally, I’m positive that, in a society built on commerce, there wouldn’t be a loss in productivity if an additional tax on millionaires was put into place because people will ALWAYS want to make money, period. The upper-class threatening to withhold goods and services birth from their “productivity” because they’re being asked to share their resources with those they’ve robbed is an empty threat I refuse to believe.
P.s. I, one of your fellow liberal peers, forgive you for writing that article.
Filed under Mill
Mill Says, Greater Happiness Over Assisted Suicide
According to Mill’s Utilitarianism, his most remembered argument is the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill presents utility, or the existence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is moral for people simply to pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle; moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing one’s own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework.
The greatest happiness principle says that, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” Mill states that society aims towards the greatest happiness. “[E]very action we make, we decide based on this principle.” Whatever brings about the greatest happiness is the greatest good. Thus, the best life to live is one that is the most filled with happiness, and has the least unhappiness in it.
Assisted Suicide is a debate that’s been going on in the United States and whether or not it should be legal in more states than the six that have already legalized it. Assisted suicide is available for the six states if a patient is terminally ill with fewer than six months to live. The doctor prescribes the fatal dose of drugs to their patient. Rand argues that every person has a choice to make when it comes to their life and the choice is based on desire. Rand would argue for assisted suicide by stating:
“Nobody should infringe upon an individual’s selfishness…even if that interest is their own death. Since right to life is a person’s only true fundamental right, they have the right…to act on one’s own judgment, without pressure, to achieve one’s own personal goals. [Their] decision is based upon their own process of reason in determining what is right…They do not act on a desire without either being aware of the potential results or making themselves aware of the potential results.”
For Mill, however, a greater happiness for society is reached by not legalizing assisted suicide. If assisted suicide is allowed and more people decide that they want to commit suicide, then the population can decrease. The people who have a short amount of time to live might regret after taking the prescribed pills to end their life after they’ve taken them or they may even get better. Thus, from a greater happiness point of view from Mill, it’s better just to wait and that way, the population won’t affect society, the person, although might be miserable for the time being, might get better or won’t regret it if the person just waits out death.
Thus, because the greatest happiness principle considers the total amount of happiness, a noble character, even if it is less desirable for the individual, is still desirable by a utilitarian standard.
Filed under Mill
Mill vs. Whitefish
There has been a submission under the name Ayn Rand that I would like to refute. In her argument Rand states that it is in the right for Whitefish energy to raise the prices of their services to Puerto Rico and its relief efforts. I, John Mill, claim that the actions taken by Whitefish were unethical and are both a public issue and stand against the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism.
To set the scene, a devastating hurricane hit the shores of Puerto Rico, leaving the entire country without electricity and without the proper infrastructure to get their power up and running again. I would agree with Rand’s assessment of the situation as an emergency, something she defines as “an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger, and restore normal conditions.” Because this is an emergency it is the exact time that people need to unite together and promote utility, not the opposite. It was during this emergency Whitefish agreed to help Puerto Rico with their electricity issues, they even boasted about the speed and efficiency of their service, particularly in rough conditions. The only problem was that Whitefish price gauged Puerto Rico, charging them three times the amount they would normally charge. They did this because they saw Puerto Rico as vulnerable and in severe need of their services. Ayn Rand thinks that this sort of behavior is acceptable from a company, and I disagree.
Under my belief of utilitarianism, collective happiness should be held as the most important factor when making a decision, not personal gain or selfishness. I understand that this may require some self-sacrifice monetarily, but I believe that the “standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether…Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character.” In order to achieve the goals that we wish to achieve as a society we must occasionally put others first, and in doing so we can become the best nation and society possible. I believe that the goal of happiness should be the primary goal for any society “Happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct.” In order to achieve this happiness, we must put each other and our society first. This is something that Whitefish refuses to do as they jack up the prices of their services for Puerto Rico, knowing that the country has no choice but to pay the premium, surely this is wrong.
Rand would argue that it is wrong to force companies to lower their prices, or prevent them from raising prices when they know they can. However, this is not an issue of right and wrong “One of the strongest obstacles to the reception of the doctrine that Utility or Happiness is the criterion of right and wrong, has been drawn from the idea of Justice.” There is right or wrong. This issue, as are all issues, is simply a matter of deciding which side of the equation promotes the greatest happiness. Puerto Rico is a devastated country that has just dealt with a terrible natural disaster and is in need to help from outside of their country, surely coming to their aide would promote the greatest happiness. Once we have determined aiding Puerto Rico promotes the greatest happiness, we have no choice but to side with them on this issue and claim that Whitefish should offer their services under the standard rate.
Filed under Uncategorized
Whitefish Does Not Care About the Greater Good
In Ayn Rand’s article “Natural Disaster Relief Efforts” it is mentioned that Hurricane Maria made landfall on the island of Puerto Rico and created a humanitarian crisis for its population. The Puerto Rico Electric Power authority originally entered into a $300 million dollar contract with Whitefish to repair their island’s energy grid, where they charged 2-3 times their normal rate due to the risk Whitefish was taking with Puerto Rico. Since Puerto Rico is in a state of emergency and Whitefish had the resources to help quickly and efficiently Ayn Rand found this increase in cost to be moral and rational. Ayn Rand states that it would even be immoral for Puerto Rico to enter into a contract that was less costly because it would provide fewer resources and Whitefish is known for mobilizing quickly and working effectively in challenging situations. Rand also mentioned that Whitefish was just compensating for the great risk they were taking on with helping Puerto Rico.
I have to strongly disagree with Rand’s viewpoint on this topic, since Puerto Rico is in an emergency situation they originally agreed to this contact because of the desperate need to restore their territory, but PREPA’s CEO changed his mind after being convinced by the public that what Whitefish is doing is selfish and unreasonable. The greater good in this situation is threatened, and I do not agree with Whitefish’s decision to increase their costs to aid to Puerto Rico. As mentioned in Utilitarianism “The Utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice itself is a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted”. Puerto Rico is in a very desperate and vulnerable position and on top of this already heart-breaking and devastating tragedy Whitefish is only making the situation more uneasy by increasing the costs of their services to benefit themselves, which results in a Whitefish failing to make the sacrifice to benefit the greater good. Whitefish could have provided their services for 2-3 times less, or possibly lessen their original cost to aid to the already suffering Puerto Rico. The greater good, which is the overall island of Puerto Rico would be under great jeopardy if they continued to accepted these costly services with the belief that this is the safest option when it comes to restoring Puerto Rico, therefore leaving Puerto Rico very conflicted and put under even more stress. It is understandable that Whitefish is taking a risk by aiding to Puerto Rico, but the devastation that Puerto Rico is experiencing and amount of people affected greatly overpowers the inconvenience of Whitefish.
The public and political outrage in Puerto Rico due to Whitefish’s cost increase is completely understandable when acknowledging the fact that Whitefish believed they needed to raise their prices to aid to Puerto Rico when Puerto Rico is in an already devastating position, and PREPA’s CEO’s decision to break the contract in the best interest of the people in Puerto Rico is completely valid. After Puerto Rico withdrew from the contract with Whitefish, Whitefish ceased construction on Puerto Rico’s main transition line, which was in desperate need of repair. This shows that Whitefish could not sacrifice themselves to greatly benefit the island of Puerto Rico. Whitefish is going completely against Utilitarianism by their blatant disregard for “the greater good for the greatest number”. Judging from these events it seems that Whitefish is prioritizing their own unfair contract over aiding to an island in desperate need of repair.
Filed under Uncategorized