“Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 4/20/18: Bad Ideas, False Narratives, Fake News, And Hillary’s Delusion

Happy Friday!

(You too, Reuben..)

1 The persistence and peril of bad ideas. Civilizations and societies fail in part because terrible ideas take root in the public square, become  exploited by cynical and unscrupulous elites and power-seekers, and lead to policy and cultural disasters. The nation’s gradual acceptance of illegal immigration is such an idea: when the pluses and minuses of the Trump Presidency are finally totaled and compared, no one will be able to deny that taking a direct stand against illegal immigration without compromise or weasel words will be one of Donald Trump’s positive legacies.

Nonetheless, the news media continues to indoctrinate the public with the toxic concept that illegal immigration is acceptable, against all logic and experience. In yet another “good illegal immigrant” story—frankly, I’m sick of writing about them—the New York Times gives us this:

Like many of the immigrants detained this way, Mr. de Oliveira, a house painter, had no criminal history. To the Trump administration, the other thing they had in common was more germane: a legal but, until now, unenforced obligation to leave the country that had stuck to them for years, even as they pieced together lives and families in the United States.

In the later years of the Obama administration, the government mostly left people without criminal records alone, focusing instead on immigrants who had only recently arrived or had been convicted of serious crimes.

But the Trump administration emphasizes that everyone living here illegally is fair game for deportation, a policy that has bumped up immigration arrests by more than 40 percent since the beginning of 2017. Those who were ordered out of the country years ago are especially easy marks for an agency with limited resources for enforcement — especially if they walk straight into an immigration office.

Boy, that mean, mean Trump administration, insisting that aliens who steal a place in this country along with its benefits should have to return it even if they don’t break any more laws.  There is literally no logical or legally coherent argument or rationale to support any other position. I have never heard one, read one, or been able to imagine one. Would people support a policy that allowed citizens to keep the loot they stole in a single felony as long as they never broke another law? Perhaps they would, if politicians, big business advocates for cheap labor and unethical journalists kept promoting the idea over years and decades.

2. And then there are media-fed false narratives. On Headline News this morning, Lovely Robin and her cohorts were reviewing Time’s “100 Most Influential People” and picking their favorites. Who cares, at this pathetic stage of Time’s existence, what that rag decides? One of Robin’s colleagues designated Chloe Kim, the 17-year-old medal-winning Olympic snowboarder, as his favorite among the hundred. Does anyone really believe a teenage snowboarder is one of the 10,000 most influential people in the US, much less in the top 100? Is Time’s 100 really a list of  “people most likely to be on “Dancing with the Stars”? Has any medal-winner in a Winter Olympics ever been particularly influential, except maybe in the Ice Capades?

Robin Meade, for her part, designated the anti-gun Parkland kids, who Time embarrassed by representing with this awful, pompous, menacing photograph:

They look like potential home invaders: if I see kids with those expressions hanging around my property, I’m getting a gun. The HLN crew gushed about how amazing it was that these mere kids could all by themselves use social media and spark a movement virtually overnight! This is quite literally fake news. Take away the millions of dollars they received from celebrities, the organization by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other Democratic Party operatives, and the complicity of the news media that gave them weeks of high-profile interviews and TV appearance without subjecting them to such inconveniences as fact-checks and critical rebuttals, and these five would be appropriately unknown, and getting on with their lives. It is dishonest and misleading to tell TV audiences that the young Parkland anti-gun bullies were more than mouthpieces cleverly exploited by anti-gun activists who don’t care if the high-intensity glare of publicity warps these children’s lives, as I strongly suspect it will.

3. A Pew survey, for what its worth: A new Pew Research Center survey found that the majority of Americans—about 60%— oppose action by the U.S. government that might also limit freedom of expression online, but are more open to action from technology companies protecting us from internet-delivered “fake news.” I find it horrifying that the 60% number is so low, and that so many —56%—would trust the tech companies to filter our information and communications. Not surprisingly, Democrats, members of that party once known for championing liberal values, are more in favor of both kinds of censorship than Republicans; indeed without the 60% majority of Democrats who want Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and Google to decide what we should read online, the over-all figure would be anti-tech Big Brotherism.

In the surprising good news category, younger Americans are less supportive of tech company oversight than older Americans, perhaps because older Americans don’t know what the tech companies do. Not so surprising is Pew’s conclusion that the less educated an American is, the less likely he or she is to see the dangers of letting the government or tech companies control the flow of information. Those with a high school degree or less support such oversight 50% to 44% (the missing 6%, I guess, doesn’t understand the question), while grad school-educated Americans, those more likely to know what the Bill of Rights says, oppose government and tech company oversight by more than a 2 to 1 margin. This kind of divide is why both parties pitch their misleading rhetoric at the least intelligent and most ignorant among us.

The whole survey is here.

4. Too stupid to ignore, too absurd not to be funny:  According to a new book about Hillary’s Clinton’s campaign, when she was told that she had lost the election, she said, ‘They were never going to let me be President.’” Wow. And they say Trump is deranged. Ethical values implicated: Honesty, accountability, respect, fairness, competence, and citizenship.

5. More on Prof. Jarrar…Ann Althouse, whose iconoclastic, non-ideological analysis frequently meshes nicely with mine, has seldom been more misguided than in her defense of the Fresno CSU prof who tweeted out gratuitous hate toward Barbara Bush on the day the former First Lady died. As a former prof herself, Ann’s orientation is understandable, but still dead wrong.

Dismissing calls to fire Jarrar, she writes in part,

I was taught as a child not to react to attention-seekers because you’ll only encourage them, and Jarrar’s tweeted remarks on the death of Barbara Bush were, to me, the perfect example of the sort of thing you really ought to ignore…People got mad and actually incited the university to “review” Jarrar, who is a tenured professor. ..It’s really a wonder we’ve kept the idea of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this episode. I don’t call for Jarrar to be fired: I couldn’t care less if the school wants it known that they hire vicious, illogical, hyper-partisan jerks who embrace guilt by association. Be my guest: let’s see how many parents want to shell out $20,361 (out of state tuition is $32,241) per year to have their child indoctrinated by such an irresponsible institution.  I did write that I would fire her, because her tweets are signature significance: she can’t be trusted as an employee or a teacher. She is free to tweet what she wants, and the rest of the world is free to make fair judgments about her accordingly.

70 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Character, Childhood and children, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Quotes, Research and Scholarship, Rights, Social Media, Sports, U.S. Society

70 responses to ““Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 4/20/18: Bad Ideas, False Narratives, Fake News, And Hillary’s Delusion

  1. Michael R.

    I would wonder if Prof. Jarrar is realistically capable of doing her job at this point. Can all students reasonably be expected to believe that they will be fairly graded for their work? This is something that I think needs to be addressed. That doesn’t mean she needs to be fired (necessarily), but I think something needs to change

  2. 2. The media pushed these kids, using them as (I wanted to write relateable… but they really aren’t. Hogg in particular is about as abrasive as 10 grit sandpaper) heart-string-pully props in THEIR narrative… And sold it as the kid’s narrative. Now, they’re saying that not only was it the kid’s narrative, but how amazing it was how much traction they received… From them. It’s like… You know…. You could have… y’know… not. You could have not set up kids to stand on the backs of their dead classmates to pander to a demographic that barely knows the shootey end of a gun from the grippey end to ostensibly push gun control policy, but in reality, never mentioning policy so much as calling people names and chanting bumper stickers. You could have not done that, and if you had not done that, you wouldn’t have created the story you’re congratulating someone else for. It’s a fake news story about fake news… It’s like…. fakenewsception.

    5. That mimics my take too… It’s not a free speech issue. She was allowed her speech. It might be a first amendment issue because the person punishing her for that speech is the government, but in this specific case it’s the government acting as an employer. I’m not going to get all enraged and call for her to be fired because frankly, in this particular case… I don’t have skin in the game, Barbara Bush left the spotlight when I was 8. I’m also not going to get all hot and bothered when an employer shitcans someone who mentions her tenure as a shield while saying things she knows negatively effects her employer.

  3. “When the pluses and minuses of the Trump Presidency are finally totaled and compared, no one will be able to deny that taking a direct stand against illegal immigration without compromise or weasel words will be one of Donald Trump’s positive legacies.”

    Of course we’ll be able to deny that. You may not agree, of course, but you know that we will.

    • I assumed it was understood that “not able to deny” means “not able to deny plausibly, reasonably, justly, fairly, factually, honestly, rationally, sanely, credibly or persuasively.”

      • I know, but that’s hardly a matter of universal agreement. Also, after what must be a dozen posts saying that “history is on our side” is a bad argument, are you actually saying that history will be on your side?

    • Funny how the left seems to think that just saying something makes it objectively true, even when it is batchit crazy.

      See, there IS objective truth, regardless of all of the rainbows and unicorn farts you throw at it. And enough self indoctrination can get you to the point where ignoring certain truths can hurt, even kill you.

      Trump has negatives, we have all agreed (Is there any regular poster who has maintained otherwise?) But saying ALL the things he accomplishes are negative is just… batchit crazy.

      He stopped Hillary. Even leftists are agreeing this was positive, in an ‘the lesser of two evils’ way.

      • “Funny how the left seems to think that just saying something makes it objectively true, even when it is batchit crazy.”

        That is exactly what Jack did in the sentence I quoted. Of course, it was a throw-away one-liner that was never intended to be an entire argument, so I responded in kind, just to keep him on his toes.

        By the way, I too believe there is objective truth, and I believe it’s mostly knowable. But just saying something is “objectively true” doesn’t make it so.

        • By the way, I too believe there is objective truth, and I believe it’s mostly knowable. But just saying something is “objectively true” doesn’t make it so.

          I am… flabbergasted? amazed? pleasantly surprised? to find we agree on this. 😉

          Are you a closet conservative? Getting senile (or smarter, there is that subjective point of view thing again) as you age? Objective truth is anathema to most social justice warriors.

          Having a bit of fun with you, and I respect your position.

        • It is objectively true that laws exist to be enforced, and laws that aren’t enforced might as well not exist. It is objectively true that all nations must enforce their borders,m because unenforced borders are not borders at all, and a nation without birders is not a nation. That “don’t disobey the law or else” is the only way a law qualifies as a law, while “it’s okay to disobey the law if you mean well and don’t disobey ANOTHER law” is logically incomprehensible and legally incompetent.

          To say that the non-law law and non-border-border concepts are both in the same category of indefensible idiocy as Holocaust denial, flat earth theory, and the fake moon landing is fair and accurate.

          • Chris

            It’s also objectively true that one can over-enforce a law. I don’t think the president should make stopping jaywalking a national priority, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe that laws shouldn’t be enforced.

            • AC

              You are saying you don’t think illegal immigration is a national priority?

              • Chris

                As of now, during a time of record low illegal immigration, fairly low crime and high employment? No, I don’t think it is a national priority.

            • Would you like a jaywalking law that punished only felons for jaywalking, but officially held that there would be no punishment of enforcement for anyone else? There’s a reason for jaywalking laws too: its dangerous, both to the jaywalkers and to drivers. Also, once a jaywalking act is done, there are no further consequences to it. It’s not a great analogy.

          • “To say that the non-law law and non-border-border concepts are both in the same category of indefensible idiocy as Holocaust denial, flat earth theory, and the fake moon landing is fair and accurate.”

            Those aren’t remotely the same thing. The Holocaust is a historical thing that happened, and to deny that it did is to deny reality. The idea that all laws must be obeyed is a conjecture about the best way to organize society, and not a particularly compelling one.

            And speaking of that Holocaust you mentioned, the all-laws-must-be-obeyed side of that disaster is generally considered to be among the worst people in all recorded history. Or how about the Berlin wall? The people who enforced that border are generally consider the bad guys.

            • It is a perfect analogy, because denying the need for borders and border enforcement is as unsupportable as any of these. And you haven’t supported it. You just deny what is apparent and undeniable as a lesson of logic, geography and history…indeed this nation’s history.

              • If I want to hire Joe, and Joe wants to work for me, it’s nobody else’s business, no matter where Joe was born. Joe and I shouldn’t have to justify ourselves to anyone. A basic respect for human freedom demands that if you think the government should send armed men to haul Joe away (and maybe me too, for hiring him) you at least offer some kind of sensible justification, but all I ever get from you and your anti-immigrant friends here is “history says,” arrogant whining about stolen jobs, invocations of “sovereignty,” as if that was a concrete thing that somehow justified causing a great deal of human suffering, and endless circular reasoning about how it should be illegal because it’s illegal.

                • Completely illogical. It’s my business if you exploit Joe by paying him illegally low wages. It’s my business if a citizen remains unemployed who could do Joe’s job. It’s my business if a million Joes depress wages in an industry, and and when their artificially low wages cause them to pay less taxes to support the benefits they illegally derive from the country they have invaded.

                  • So you’re kicking Joe out of the country to protect him from being exploited? But also so I have to give his job to someone else? I’m the bad guy for paying Joe low wages, but you’re the good guy for paying him nothing, stopping me from paying him, and kicking him out of the country, all so I have to pay someone else that you like better. I can’t see any way that makes sense.

                    • Good Lord. What part of “he has no right or license to be here” is so hard to grasp for you, Windy? If someone wants to pay him to do a job in his own country, hooray for him.

                    • The acid test of all progressive illegal immigration arguments: name another country that allows that.

                      There are now a few. They are in Europe, and those decisions are not going well for their populations.

                    • Apparently, in Germany, an uptick in crimes targetting Jews seemingly linked to the massive unhindered flood of Muslims, has lead Germany, to instead of reducing the influx of anti-Semites to, rather, advise Jews to try to look less Jewish.

                    • dragin_dragon

                      Merkle (Sp?) should not be allowed to run a government.

                  • Chris

                    Completely illogical. It’s my business if you exploit Joe by paying him illegally low wages. It’s my business if a citizen remains unemployed who could do Joe’s job. It’s my business if a million Joes depress wages in an industry, and and when their artificially low wages cause them to pay less taxes to support the benefits they illegally derive from the country they have invaded.

                    This flies in the face of your oft-stated position that the economic aspect of illegal immigration is and should be irrelevant to the issue.

                    And it hurts your case because those “ifs” can easily be answered in the negative.

    • Chris

      “When the pluses and minuses of the Trump Presidency are finally totaled and compared, no one will be able to deny that taking a direct stand against illegal immigration without compromise or weasel words will be one of Donald Trump’s positive legacies.”

      Is using intentionally inflammatory, hyperbolic and fearmongering rhetoric while encouraging overpolicing of a relatively minor and dwindling crime really that much better than using weasel words and ignoring the crime? I’d say they’re both pretty bad.

      • It takes quite a weird view of reality to call stealing across a border “a relatively minor crime.”

        • Right back at you. It takes a weird view of reality to think illegal entry is a serious threat to our nation.

          Most of the people coming here illegally could probably get a tourist visa quite easily to come here legally. I don’t see you railing against the 75 million people who come here as tourists every year, so I assume you’re okay with that. If I understand correctly, the people you’re concerned about are those who don’t bother to get a visa. So it’s not really about the border, but the paperwork… Nah, I can’t get worked up over that.

          A lot of people who support strict immigration policies say that illegal immigrants should “wait in line.” I think that’s a fair description: Many illegal immigrants would have been able to enter legally if they’d been willing to wait a decade or two. Instead, they cut past the line… Cutting in line…Nah, I can’t get worked up over that either.

          • This is such poor logic and reasoning, shot through with rationalizations, that it doesn’t qualify as “back at anything.” Coming here as a tourist or other legal visitor an staying illegally is just as wrong as swimming the Rio Grande. “Eh whatever” is a mind-numbing reaction to any illegal act, but especially one as serious as stealing a nation’s space, jobs and resources on a large scale. I just don’t understand how anyone gets to the point you have reached. “Line jumping” is a trivializing comparison. Try line-jumping when food or water is being rationed—that’s closer, at least. The ethical issue is “cheating.”

            • “stealing a nation’s space, jobs and resources”

              I could see how maybe you might think they are stealing space just by, I don’t know, walking around on the public streets or something. I’m not sure what you mean by stealing resources…unless you mean literally stealing stuff, which I’m opposed to. But the idea that immigrants are “stealing” jobs is ludicrous on its face, unless you think that workers somehow own jobs that they could have been hired for…which isn’t how that works. Saying immigrants are “stealing” jobs is a rhetorical trick to try to blame immigrants when your fellow Americans don’t hire who you think they should hire.

              • adimagejim

                Let’s try it this way. Adding labor supply in unknown amounts to an economy decreases the wages in that economy. Further, this unknown amount in labor supply also carries a risk to employers of no work history documents, like a resume or other work history. Finally, the unknown workers, in the process of lowering the wage rate displace those who had been working for the market wage rate prior to the influx of unknown labor.

                Now, add all the other resources this unknown labor are producing and subtract it from those they are consuming and the prior value of the labor before they entered the country.

                This is undeniably a negative number.

                No anti-immigrant rhetoric. No racism. Just economics.

                By the way, how many people are you willing to invite into your home to stay without vetting any of them?

                • The last sentence is the crux. Windy’s Delusion is a product of romaantic Marxism, in which private ownership of property is What’s Wrong With The World. Trespass is a common law concept that existed shortly after we exited the caves: if strangers can just walk onto our property and move in, then there is no property, no security, no safety. We are allowed to defend ourselves against trespassers in the fractal of our nation, our home, but the WD views foriegners trespassing on our nation’s soil “minor.”

                  As I said: it it makes no sense, and is as indefensible as Holocaust denial.. a bad and dangerous idea, in complete defiance of reality and history.

                  • Private ownership of property? But if I want to employ people from other countries to work in my my privately owned restaurant, you’re telling me I can’t do that without your permission. That’s not respect for private property.

                    adimagejim asks, “How many people are you willing to invite into your home to stay without vetting any of them?” I think this is a disingenuous question. If I said “three,” would you and he accept my answer? Or would you both tell me I can’t let them stay if they came here illegally? I’m guessing the latter, and that’s not respect for private property.

                    Regarding vetting, the standards I set to decide who gets to stay in my home are necessarily pretty narrow, because it is my home. But the standards of my home should not be the standards of your home, or the nearby shopping malls and grocery stores, or the public sidewalks and parks, or the roads and highways. That’s just common sense.

                    You’re right though, that it is our nation. We live here together and we’re arguing over what the rules should be for letting people in. I think your rules are disrespectful of my private property and my freedom.

                    • Makes no sense, Windy. You have no more right to enable others to break laws, or encourage them to do so, than anyone else.

                    • adimagejim

                      The honest answer is zero Windy. And you know it. Case closed.

                      No answer for the indisputable econ. Not surprising.

                    • Until we start the OTHER side of the immigration laws, those that put employers in jail, and make it too expensive to hire illegals (you know, like a tariff) this will not be solved.

                      The supply side of people willing to be here illegally is supported by the Establishment class (both sides of the aisle) as good for their bottom line, and the middle class be damned.

                  • philk57

                    Let’s not forget the very real security issue here either. If we are not defending our borders, how do we keep out those who wish us ill and would attack our people and infrastructure. The answer is that we can’t. Not to mention all of the still illegal drugs that come across the border pretty much at will.

                    • adimagejim

                      Oh yes. Jeff Bezos’ people are so unbiased. Please. It is as close to an exact analogy as possible.

                    • Chris

                      I’m sorry, I’m gonna need a rebuttal that is more substantial than a Trump tweet.

                    • Ilya doesn’t seem to understand how analogies work.

                      The House analogy isn’t about general exercise of property rights as a property owner, but specifically about *security* on one’s property and *security* of one’s property.

                      That single aspect is what the analogy clearly focuses on.

                      All analogies are imperfect, and analogies can be abused to appear wrong, when characteristics not even meant to be analogized are then applied to the analog in question. Which is why appropriate use of analogies is essential.

                      Ilya is forcing into the analogy, topics not even addressed by the analogy for the purpose of claiming the analogy doesn’t work for the actual topic being discussed.

                      The House-Nation analogy is actually really good when discussing it as Jack does here…

              • You know, I really should spam any comment that intentionally conflates “immigrants” with illegal immigrants. Illegals get social assistance, schools and medical care, among other benefits, that citizens have to pay for because illegal broke our immigration laws. The fact that we choose to be stolen from in this manner doesn’t change what t is.

                You do acknowledge the concept of trespass, I assume. It is not considered a trivial breach….anywhere.

            • Chris

              Try line-jumping when food or water is being rationed—that’s closer, at least.

              It really isn’t, as our society is nowhere near rationing.

        • (or “dwindling” for that matter…didn’t we just stop a state sponsored convoy of attempted illegal immigrants…at a scale which can only be described as “invasion”?)

  4. Alex

    >Has any medal-winner in a Winter Olympics ever been particularly influential, except maybe in the Ice Capades?
    There was this hockey game in 1980, you know. I think they called it “The Miracle on Ice” 🙂

  5. “Has any medal-winner in a Winter Olympics ever been particularly influential, except maybe in the Ice Capades?”

    Ummm…Muhammad Ali, maybe…?

  6. Scott GF

    Influential Olympic medal winners. Hummm…..

    Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner.
    She was and is influential to a segment of people.

    Jesse Owens was too.
    Cassius Clay (later Muhammad Ali)
    Michael Jordan

    Of the above group I would put Jesse Owens at the top.

  7. On number 4, I knew you could not ignore Hillary forever. In fairness, you have cut down quite a bit.

  8. On Number 5, shelling out 20k to have one’s child indoctrinated sounds pretty good if the alternative is shelling out 65k for more competent indoctrination.

  9. Errol

    1. Here in New Zealand, it being an island nation, it is difficult to get here other than by plane so illegal immigrants are usually called overstayers. That is they had originally come here legally on visitors visas, work visas or student visas.
    The number of overstayers is officially estimated at 10,894, down from around 20,000 a decade ago. If the United States had the same ratio of illegal immigrants then your total number would be 740,000, so it is idiotic letting the number get to over 10 million.

    • …it is idiotic letting the number get to over 10 million.

      THANK YOU!

    • I mean…. No. Look, you said it yourself… NZ doesn’t have a land border with anyone… More than that, it doesn’t have a communist paradise within swimming distance, it is approximately 1.2% of the American population and has an average income that is about 80% of Americas. You aren’t comparing apples to apples, or even apples to oranges… you’re comparing an apple to a zamboni.

      • Errol

        Okay there are quite a few differences between the USA and NZ, population in 2017 325,700,000 to 4,793,000 (1.47%); origin of illegals in USA – Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras compared to NZ – Tonga, Samoa, China, India, United Kingdom; percentage overstaying their Visa, 33% to 50% (according to that great font of all knowledge, Wikipedia) in USA compared to most of those in NZ; but it seems to me that the biggest difference is that a lot higher proportion of Americans than New Zealanders are not against illegal immigration.

        • According to the same great fount of knowledge, Canada has approximately 12,000 illegal immigrants. That’s actually a massive uptick because something like 1500 people crossed the border FROM America because they thought we were less likely to send them home than America was (They’re still going home, Canada, for all its touchy-feelyness don’t like people fucking with our bureaucracies.). But that’s an aside… 12,000.

          12,000… In a population of 36 million. Which means that NZ has…. get this… 900% more illegal immigration than Canada, even as Canada suffers from a 10% increase of idiots fleeing Trump.

          So uh…. by your logic…. Ya’ll must fucking love your illegals over there, right?

  10. Sue Dunim

    (Picture of school shooting survivors)
    They look like potential home invaders: if I see kids with those expressions hanging around my property, I’m getting a gun

    Presumably to be prepared to shoot (at) them again.

    Jack, please step back and read what you’ve written. Consider the impression that would leave on those considering engaging you as a speaker.

    Consider what you’ve written about others who have said such things in the heat of the moment, without thinking.

    Even Jove nods. While I don’t think I’ve ever screwed up this badly so far, give me time.

    • Baloney. Home invaders=mortal threats. Gun=self-defense of family and property against said mortal threats. These kids are posed to look angry and menacing. I didn’t say I would shoot THEM, I said I would buy a gun to protect myself against a group that looked like this one…because they radiate animus and agression.

      The Parkland kids are walking Gotchas, entitled media-made assholes who encourage negative reactions and then use them to attack. Screw them, screw their enablers, and screw their creators. They are monsters at this point. I have sympathy for them like I have sympathy for criminals who had abusive childhoods. But they are responsible for their words and actions at this point, and the images they project.

      • And their lives are likely screwed at this point as well.

        Well, more than their classmates, who have lived in a progressive utopia to this point, with all the handicaps that provides.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s