Paul's Here

Dr. Peikoff on McCaskey

99 posts in this topic

I can't tell what you are implying. There never was a Board decision.

What I meant in response to Bill is that in the context of his analogy it is McCaskey as a member of the board who has the authority. Peikoff isn't the boss.

Then we agree. That was one of the three reasons I gave:

The shut up and do as you're told military analogy is entirely inapplicable due to 1) who gave the "order", 2) the decidedly non-militaristic nature of a professional intellectual organization, and 3) no one tells an Objectivist, especially, or any other independent intellectual, to shut up and do as he's told on any intellectual matter. Not Leonard Peikoff, not anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See also Adam Spong's excellent comments at https://sites.google.com/site/onsingingball...s-amazon-review

For instance:

I would repeat that the task of analyzing and presenting the history, in this context, means isolating the essential amidst the errors. This is an instance of thinking in principles. Our goal should not be to stare blankly at the whole stream of events involved in a scientific discovery, marvel at their complexity, and throw up our hands. It may well be the case that specific scientists often traced a tortuous path to clarity on some issue, or that their explicit accounts contained confusions. But clearly it was the element of validity in their thinking and method which led to their eventual success. The goal is to isolate that validity. It is somewhat bizarre to insist that a theory of valid induction is false or incomplete because it fails to make enough room for invalid error as an essential positive element of its method.

The pattern here is very familiar. Anyone trying to defend a *principle* will inevitably be met with smug skeptics declaring that principles are naive and simplistic. The real world (or, real scientific generalization) is more complex, more sophisticated, more "non-linear" than any simple principle can encompass. The truth of course is that the person thinking in principles is capable of vastly more sophistication than one who is stuck on the level of staring helplessly at complexity. This is precisely the reason that the "conventional narratives" lend themselves to a subjectivist conclusion, as Dr. McCaskey describes in his review.

My aim here is to emphasize the fallacy involved in thinking that, to invalidate a theory of induction, it's sufficient merely to point at the complexity of science and its frequency of error. If you want to analyze some complex case of induction in the history of science, you first have to establish the basic principles of induction (with reference to clear, essentialized historical concretizations). You get nowhere by demanding at the outset that the first presentation of a theory of induction encompass every complexity and historical nuance involved in advanced applications.

This is irrelevant and an incorrect description of what McCaskey actually did. He pointed out factual errors in the historical accounts of scientific discovery as described in LL. This does make him "concrete-bound", or a "skeptic", or a pragmatist.

Why do you take second-hand accounts (Facebook discussions of uninvolved parties, this garbage post above) as primary pieces of evidence, and form conclusions about McCaskey that contradict the series of events as is factually detailed in all of the released emails and correspondence between McCaskey/Harriman/Peikoff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you take second-hand accounts (Facebook discussions of uninvolved parties, this garbage post above) as primary pieces of evidence, and form conclusions about McCaskey that contradict the series of events as is factually detailed in all of the released emails and correspondence between McCaskey/Harriman/Peikoff?

As a general statement, if you are using Facebook to try and divine the truth behind this scandal, what the hell really are you doing? What value is there to gain from second-hand speculation without any base in the facts?

The only things that should be considered are what is factually known. Read the released emails between Harriman and McCaskey, and Peikoff's email containing the ultimatum. Read McCaskey's review of the book on Amazon.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on Facebook discussions (e.g Bob Gifford, James Valiant) that appear to be knowledgeable:

What do they claim to know that we don't?

yes, McCaskey did publicly criticize Harriman's book, prior to his Amazon review, at the Objectivist conference;

That was a PRIVATE discussion among a few Objectivist intellectuals who believed that they were free to speak among themselves because everyone there was pledged to keep what was said confidential. Peikoff was not there. Someone broke that pledge. That person is the one who made it public. That person could not be trusted to keep a confidence. Do you think such a person could be trusted to accurately and honestly convey what happened in the meeting to Peikoff? Or is it more likely that it was someone with an agenda who was so motivated by a desire to give Peikoff a certain impression that he would break a pledge he made to other Objectivists?

part of McCaskey's criticism was based on his objection to Harriman's essentializing the discussion

How do we know this is true? The testimony of the person who violated the confidentiality of the meeting?

McCaskey does not understand the Objectivist theory of concepts; and

How do we know this is true? The testimony of the person who violated the confidentiality of the meeting?

ARI did not expect McCaskey to actually publish the e-mail.

That's not what Yaron Brook said.

What Dr. McCaskey published has caused a clamor—one continually reinvigorated by statements of “fact” and commentaries from a small group of people who lack the full context. Unfortunately, ARI’s Board of Directors did not foresee the extent to which this would happen. Our willingness to let Dr. McCaskey release Dr. Peikoff’s e-mail and our silence since the resignation have caused much confusion among our supporters and for that we apologize.

They did expect -- and allowed -- McCaskey to publish the letter. What they didn't expect was that it would cause the uproar it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See also Adam Spong's excellent comments at https://sites.google.com/site/onsingingball...s-amazon-review

For instance:

My aim here is to emphasize the fallacy involved in thinking that, to invalidate a theory of induction, it's sufficient merely to point at the complexity of science and its frequency of error. If you want to analyze some complex case of induction in the history of science, you first have to establish the basic principles of induction (with reference to clear, essentialized historical concretizations). You get nowhere by demanding at the outset that the first presentation of a theory of induction encompass every complexity and historical nuance involved in advanced applications.

Where is there any evidence that McCaskey is trying to "invalidate a theory of induction?" In his Amazon review, McCaskey's headline is "Potentially seminal theory, but some unconventional history" and nothing in his review or anywhere else questions the validity of the Peikoff-Harriman theory of induction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on Facebook discussions (e.g Bob Gifford, James Valiant) that appear to be knowledgeable:

What do they claim to know that we don't?

yes, McCaskey did publicly criticize Harriman's book, prior to his Amazon review, at the Objectivist conference;

That was a PRIVATE discussion among a few Objectivist intellectuals who believed that they were free to speak among themselves because everyone there was pledged to keep what was said confidential. Peikoff was not there. Someone broke that pledge. That person is the one who made it public. That person could not be trusted to keep a confidence. Do you think such a person could be trusted to accurately and honestly convey what happened in the meeting to Peikoff? Or is it more likely that it was someone with an agenda who was so motivated by a desire to give Peikoff a certain impression that he would break a pledge he made to other Objectivists?

If that is the "public criticism" at the "Objectivist conference" that was referred to then the accusation is even more misleading than it appeared from Bill Bucko's post relying on it. In my previous post on this I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt and asked for objective description of the "criticism" and its actual nature.

Who was the source of the claim that this was a "public criticism" that we have been told to take at face value as an anti-McCaskey testimonial in the name of "facts"? And what was said in its presentation to mislead people into believing the "reinterpretation" was authentic?

In addition to not being public, that private scholarly discussion was not to "undermine the project", as has been accused. The "criticisms" were part of a questioning process trying to objectively understand the issues, and have been described as often "tentative" and then withdrawn as part of an honest, probing discussion.

Second hand interpretations of this unethically provided to Leonard Peikoff were subsequently selectively used out of context as a basis for Leonard Peikoff's ultimatum. Reinterpretations of these events are now evidently being reformulated and re-presented as "facts" in a circular argument on behalf of Leonard Peikoff's scurrilous attack on John McCaskey which ARI fell in line with.

If some "Objectivists" think that scholarly constructive criticism and honest discussion in the form of tentative criticism in questioning are intolerable as "undermining" and "attacking" proper belief, then they are in the wrong philosophy and should sign up with the Pope instead. If that is not what they believe then they should go back and check their premises about how objective they have been in assessing and arguing about this debacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a PRIVATE discussion among a few Objectivist intellectuals who believed that they were free to speak among themselves because everyone there was pledged to keep what was said confidential. Peikoff was not there. Someone broke that pledge. That person is the one who made it public. That person could not be trusted to keep a confidence. Do you think such a person could be trusted to accurately and honestly convey what happened in the meeting to Peikoff? Or is it more likely that it was someone with an agenda who was so motivated by a desire to give Peikoff a certain impression that he would break a pledge he made to other Objectivists?

In a private e-mail, I learned that the person I suspected of breaching the confidentiality of the meeting may not have even been there at all. If that is the case, I don't want to cast suspicion any any of the distinguished Objectivist intellectuals who participated in the discussion nor accuse them of breaching their confidentiality agreement.

If the person who communicated the events of the meeting to Dr. Peikoff was not at the meeting and didn't get it from someone who was, then there is the possibility that he made up all the allegedly damning evidence that he claimed McCaskey said at the private forum. That is the worst possibility of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the person who communicated the events of the meeting to Dr. Peikoff was not at the meeting and didn't get it from someone who was, then there is the possibility that he made up all the allegedly damning evidence that he claimed McCaskey said at the private forum. That is the worst possibility of all.

Perhaps they read a rumor on Facebook and passed it along. What more do you need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John McCaskey writes on his website in relation to that scholarly discussion:

"I now believe none of the participants spoke with Dr. Peikoff directly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See also Adam Spong's excellent comments at https://sites.google.com/site/onsingingball...s-amazon-review

For instance:

I would repeat that the task of analyzing and presenting the history, in this context, means isolating the essential amidst the errors. This is an instance of thinking in principles. Our goal should not be to stare blankly at the whole stream of events involved in a scientific discovery, marvel at their complexity, and throw up our hands. It may well be the case that specific scientists often traced a tortuous path to clarity on some issue, or that their explicit accounts contained confusions. But clearly it was the element of validity in their thinking and method which led to their eventual success. The goal is to isolate that validity. It is somewhat bizarre to insist that a theory of valid induction is false or incomplete because it fails to make enough room for invalid error as an essential positive element of its method.

The pattern here is very familiar. Anyone trying to defend a *principle* will inevitably be met with smug skeptics declaring that principles are naive and simplistic. The real world (or, real scientific generalization) is more complex, more sophisticated, more "non-linear" than any simple principle can encompass. The truth of course is that the person thinking in principles is capable of vastly more sophistication than one who is stuck on the level of staring helplessly at complexity. This is precisely the reason that the "conventional narratives" lend themselves to a subjectivist conclusion, as Dr. McCaskey describes in his review.

My aim here is to emphasize the fallacy involved in thinking that, to invalidate a theory of induction, it's sufficient merely to point at the complexity of science and its frequency of error. If you want to analyze some complex case of induction in the history of science, you first have to establish the basic principles of induction (with reference to clear, essentialized historical concretizations). You get nowhere by demanding at the outset that the first presentation of a theory of induction encompass every complexity and historical nuance involved in advanced applications.

The above quote is not the context of Harriman's presentation. Harriman stated the following in his book. What evidence do you have that McCaskey disagrees with or challenged this?

I have deliberately chosen uncontroversial, proven theories. A philosopher of science who is attempting to identify principles of method must do this for the same reason that the physicist must eliminate confounding factors in his experiments. Just as the physicist cannot identify a cause when an experiment involves several relevant but uncontrolled variables, the philosopher cannot identify the principles of proper method by examining the development of a theory that has an unknown relationship to reality.

In essence, Harriman admits that his theory is limited to and formulated from theories that stand in a particular relationship to reality. How does anything McCaskey state challenge Harriman's context? How does calling into question the historical accuracy of some experiments challenge the theory of induction? It would be nice, Bill, if you could cite some facts here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a PRIVATE discussion among a few Objectivist intellectuals who believed that they were free to speak among themselves because everyone there was pledged to keep what was said confidential. Peikoff was not there. Someone broke that pledge. That person is the one who made it public. That person could not be trusted to keep a confidence. Do you think such a person could be trusted to accurately and honestly convey what happened in the meeting to Peikoff? Or is it more likely that it was someone with an agenda who was so motivated by a desire to give Peikoff a certain impression that he would break a pledge he made to other Objectivists?

In a private e-mail, I learned that the person I suspected of breaching the confidentiality of the meeting may not have even been there at all. If that is the case, I don't want to cast suspicion any any of the distinguished Objectivist intellectuals who participated in the discussion nor accuse them of breaching their confidentiality agreement.

If the person who communicated the events of the meeting to Dr. Peikoff was not at the meeting and didn't get it from someone who was, then there is the possibility that he made up all the allegedly damning evidence that he claimed McCaskey said at the private forum. That is the worst possibility of all.

What about the possibility that McCaskey actually did voice the objections to someone not at the meeting, who then relayed them to Peikoff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that is the "public criticism" at the "Objectivist conference" that was referred to then the accusation is even more misleading than it appeared from Bill Bucko's post relying on it. In my previous post on this I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt and asked for objective description of the "criticism" and its actual nature.

Who was the source of the claim that this was a "public criticism" that we have been told to take at face value as an anti-McCaskey testimonial in the name of "facts"? And what was said in its presentation to mislead people into believing the "reinterpretation" was authentic?

In addition to not being public, that private scholarly discussion was not to "undermine the project", as has been accused. The "criticisms" were part of a questioning process trying to objectively understand the issues, and have been described as often "tentative" and then withdrawn as part of an honest, probing discussion.

Second hand interpretations of this unethically provided to Leonard Peikoff were subsequently selectively used out of context as a basis for Leonard Peikoff's ultimatum. Reinterpretations of these events are now evidently being reformulated and re-presented as "facts" in a circular argument on behalf of Leonard Peikoff's scurrilous attack on John McCaskey which ARI fell in line with.

If some "Objectivists" think that scholarly constructive criticism and honest discussion in the form of tentative criticism in questioning are intolerable as "undermining" and "attacking" proper belief, then they are in the wrong philosophy and should sign up with the Pope instead. If that is not what they believe then they should go back and check their premises about how objective they have been in assessing and arguing about this debacle.

A lack of consistency has been the theme to all of this.

Peikoff's original email to McCaskey was unmistakably damning and condemnatory in its tone and specific words, yet Peikoff later claimed that it wasn't meant to be morally damning ("1. Dante’s phrase does not necessarily imply moral criticism....") and that somehow we aren't supposed to take its explicit meaning to seriously anyways ("2. Since I was writing an extemporaneous, private email to two people with the same context of knowledge as mine, not a statement for the general public, I did not aim for objectivity by means of a..."). In both his email and his public website, Peikoff explicitly stated this his primary motivation was that McCaskey either did not understand Objectivism sufficiently, or was attacking it.

Enter the ARI Public Statement, and we are told that Peikoff's motivation for wanting McCaskey to be removed was not because of personal views of Peikoff about McCaskey, but simply because Peikoff thought that someone who did not support a major ARI project should not be on the board ( "At all times, Dr. McCaskey’s unfavorable attitude toward this major ARI project and Dr. Peikoff’s view on the matter were the only issues, not any personal views Dr. Peikoff had about Dr. McCaskey’s moral character. The substantive issue that Dr. Peikoff raised—whether a person who does not support a central ARI project should sit on the Board—was itself a very serious one.")

So really, none of this is supposed to make sense, as none of it is even self-consistent. It's just an embarrassing public relations train-wreck in slow motion, and ARI is scrambling to prevent disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the possibility that McCaskey actually did voice the objections to someone not at the meeting, who then relayed them to Peikoff?
have heard its overall tenor and content from others who attended a forum on the subject.

What about the also arbitrary "possibility" that the janitor overheard the forum discussion, repeated it while talking in his sleep, which was heard by his dog, who taught it to the parrot, who happened to say it when the mailman came to the door, who posted it on facebook, where it was seen by someone under military orders to whisper it to Leonard Peikoff's dog, which recognized it as something the janitor's dog had said, which was confirmed by the cat he was chasing, who scratched the message into his catnip, which was read by an Objecitivist Gatekeeper of The Truth, who relayed it to Leonard Peikoff encrypted as a question for his podcast?

Someone breached the confidentiality who ought to come forward and admit it, but the speculations about this are a sideshow. The essence of this one aspect is that Leonard Peikoff used 2nd or 3rd hand interpretations and rumors to try to destroy John McCaskey's reputation without understanding what John McCaskey was doing or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harriman stated the following in his book. What evidence do you have that McCaskey disagrees with or challenged this?
I have deliberately chosen uncontroversial, proven theories. A philosopher of science who is attempting to identify principles of method must do this for the same reason that the physicist must eliminate confounding factors in his experiments. Just as the physicist cannot identify a cause when an experiment involves several relevant but uncontrolled variables, the philosopher cannot identify the principles of proper method by examining the development of a theory that has an unknown relationship to reality.

In essence, Harriman admits that his theory is limited to and formulated from theories that stand in a particular relationship to reality. How does anything McCaskey state challenge Harriman's context? How does calling into question the historical accuracy of some experiments challenge the theory of induction? It would be nice, Bill, if you could cite some facts here.

The controversy is not over whether the physical theories are true but how they were understood and validated by those discovered them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the person who communicated the events of the meeting to Dr. Peikoff was not at the meeting and didn't get it from someone who was, then there is the possibility that he made up all the allegedly damning evidence that he claimed McCaskey said at the private forum. That is the worst possibility of all.

Perhaps they read a rumor on Facebook and passed it along. What more do you need?

Read a rumor on Facebook and pass it along under orders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See also Adam Spong's excellent comments at https://sites.google.com/site/onsingingball...s-amazon-review

For instance:

My aim here is to emphasize the fallacy involved in thinking that, to invalidate a theory of induction, it's sufficient merely to point at the complexity of science and its frequency of error. If you want to analyze some complex case of induction in the history of science, you first have to establish the basic principles of induction (with reference to clear, essentialized historical concretizations). You get nowhere by demanding at the outset that the first presentation of a theory of induction encompass every complexity and historical nuance involved in advanced applications.

Where is there any evidence that McCaskey is trying to "invalidate a theory of induction?" In his Amazon review, McCaskey's headline is "Potentially seminal theory, but some unconventional history" and nothing in his review or anywhere else questions the validity of the Peikoff-Harriman theory of induction.

Not only is John McCaskey not "trying to invalidate it", Spong -- for all his dramatic rhetoric and very little content -- does not address what John McCaskey said and why. The Spong post (one of his many) is all vague rationalism, generalities and polemics dramatically flowing forth with no understanding of the serious intellectual issues being debated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted on Oct. 4, 2010 1:02 PM PDT

John P. McCaskey says:...

Wow, that is being professional. Even now, as Peikoff and many others are spitting on him, we see nothing from him but kind words.

And supposedly all this began because of McCaskey's unprofessional duties as a board member of ARI? Yeah, right. ;)

He is clearly interested in the more fundamentally serious matter of the theory and how to expand on Objectivist epistemology in relation to the facts of what successful scientists actually thought, and is trying to stay out of the sniping and smears against him. The nature of that is so obvious that his participation is unnecessary and would be counterproductive, unless he has some more facts to objectively publicize.

John McCaskey did not get to where he is by throwing temper tantrums at imagined heretics in the name of philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harriman stated the following in his book. What evidence do you have that McCaskey disagrees with or challenged this?
I have deliberately chosen uncontroversial, proven theories. A philosopher of science who is attempting to identify principles of method must do this for the same reason that the physicist must eliminate confounding factors in his experiments. Just as the physicist cannot identify a cause when an experiment involves several relevant but uncontrolled variables, the philosopher cannot identify the principles of proper method by examining the development of a theory that has an unknown relationship to reality.

In essence, Harriman admits that his theory is limited to and formulated from theories that stand in a particular relationship to reality. How does anything McCaskey state challenge Harriman's context? How does calling into question the historical accuracy of some experiments challenge the theory of induction? It would be nice, Bill, if you could cite some facts here.

The controversy is not over whether the physical theories are true but how they were understood and validated by those discovered them.

But it does address the post I was responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the possibility that McCaskey actually did voice the objections to someone not at the meeting, who then relayed them to Peikoff?

If he did so -- and I have seen absolutely no evidence that he did -- that would have been a private communication just as the forum at OCON was supposed to be. I have seen no claim by anyone who would know -- not even by Peikoff or Harriman -- that McCaskey ever publicly criticized anything about Harriman's book before he resigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone breached the confidentiality who ought to come forward and admit it, but the speculations about this are a sideshow. The essence of this one aspect is that Leonard Peikoff used 2nd or 3rd hand interpretations and rumors to try to destroy John McCaskey's reputation without understanding what John McCaskey was doing or why.

I have information from several sources that the confidentiality of the private discussion may not have been breached by anyone who was actually at there.

John McCaskey wrote:

I have rarely spoken with Dr. Peikoff and never about this book. He did not seek me out for a first-hand discussion; he indicates here he is not interested in having one. I presume he formed his judgments based on whichever emails Mr. Harriman forwarded to him and conversations with participants of the July study group second- or third-hand reports of what I said at the July meeting. (I now believe none of the participants spoke with Dr. Peikoff directly.)

(link)

It may be the case that whoever did communicate with Dr. Peikoff directly, because he was not present at the study group, heard it second-hand from someone who did breach the confidence but, according to my sources, none of the people there are likely to have done this. What may have happened is that a participant may have said something non-confidential like "We discussed Newton" and Peikoff's contact added all the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that everyone who has read the works of Ayn Rand should ask themselves five simple questions.

Would Ayn Rand ever have dealt with *anyone* with words like - "Do you know who I am?"

Would John Galt ever have dealt with *anyone* with words like - "Do you know who I am?"

Would Howard Roark ever have dealt with *anyone* with words like - "Do you know who I am?"

Did not Ayn Rand insist that whenever you pronounce a moral judgment, you have to be prepared to name the facts which justify that judgment?

Has Dr. Peikoff come even remotely close to naming the specific facts which justify his negative moral judgment of McCaskey? (And if Dr. Peikoff denies that he even has in fact pronounced a negative moral judgment of McCaskey, that will just be disingenuous. Dr. Peikoff has made it perfectly obvious that he has a low opinion of McCaskey´s moral character, even though he has not said *explicitly* - "John McCaskey is immoral.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would John Galt ever have dealt with *anyone* with words like - "Do you know who I am?"

I'm quite convinced John Galt would have nothing to do with the official Objectivist movements. With some (many?) specific individuals certainly, but not the ARI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has Dr. Peikoff come even remotely close to naming the specific facts which justify his negative moral judgment of McCaskey? (And if Dr. Peikoff denies that he even has in fact pronounced a negative moral judgment of McCaskey, that will just be disingenuous. Dr. Peikoff has made it perfectly obvious that he has a low opinion of McCaskey´s moral character, even though he has not said *explicitly* - "John McCaskey is immoral.")

Peikoff elaborated in a subsequent statement earlier this month:

http://www.peikoff.com/peikoff-vs-an-ari-board-member/

I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual.

Three prominent Objectivists who know McCaskey have stated completely opposite opinions here and here (jointly). Also, one would presume that the ARI board (or at minimum, whatever constitutes a deciding vote on the matter) would not have appointed somebody they believed to be immoral, at least at the time. Peikoff has not publicly stated any further information about McCaskey's moral character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would John Galt ever have dealt with *anyone* with words like - "Do you know who I am?"

I'm quite convinced John Galt would have nothing to do with the official Objectivist movements. With some (many?) specific individuals certainly, but not the ARI.

While ARI and its activities are not the ONLY way to spread Objectivism, it is definitely a major and necessary institution. It represents a gathering of money and talent that can accomplish worthy goals on a scale that individuals and small groups cannot possibly do. Could anything less than ARI spread Objectivism as effectively as ARI's essay contests, free books to teachers, OAC, media department, and its support of campus clubs and scholars?

ARI, despite occasional support for people or projects I may not approve of, offers too much of genuine value to me and to Objectivists like me, to abandon it now. I expect that enough Objectivists will agree and continue to support the good work of ARI -- as well as the work of independent Objectivists, like Robert Tracinski, John McCaskey, and others, who may challenge or disagree with some of ARI's positions and actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites