Open Forum!

I’m stuck in seminars until this afternoon, and I’m hoping the commentariat here can get a jump on some of the ethics-involved news of the day, like this,

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us

contrasted with this…

Former top FBI lawyer: I want Trump ‘to apologize to me’

contrasted with this… IG Report Confirms Schiff FISA Memo Media Praised Was Riddled With Lies

…or anything else that moves you, related to ethics, of course.

56 thoughts on “Open Forum!


    What I would propose is civil restrictions on persons who fit Elliot Rodger’s psychological and emotional profile. if they fit the propfile, they wikll be considered psychologically and emotionally deviant. The key word is civil because only a preponderance of evidence will be required.

    Persons found to be deviant will be required to register with the state. Refusal or failure to register will be a felony. There is no fundamental right to refuse to register with the state.

    Deviants will be required to wear distinctive insignia. Failure or refusal to do so will be a felony. Again, there is no fundamental right to be free from wearing distinctive insignia when required to do so by the state.

    Deviants will be banned from certain professions, such as law or medicine. There is no fundamental right to practice law or medicine or any profession.

    Finally, there will be a massive state-funded propaganda campaign to educate the public about deviants. This campaign will be directed towards the man in the street and the man in the beer hall. Catchphrases include “Deviants are Among Us” “Deviants Have No Place in America” “Do Your Patriotic Duty: Report Suspected Deviants” “Remember Isla Vista” “1 in 4 Women in College Are Raped. 4 in 4 of These Rapes are Committed By Deviants” The goal of this propaganda campaign is to make deviants pariahs and outcasts in American society, to get Americans terrified of deviants, terrified that they might go killing at any moment. There is no fundamental right to be free from a propaganda campaign to turn America against you.

    Note what I do not propose.

    I do not propose infringing on First Amendment rights, even the right tio disagree with my proposed policy, or to run a counter-campaign to attempt to get Americans to accept deviants.

    I do not propose taking away their Second Amendment rights. Deviancy will not be deemed sufficient cause to prohibit a person from keeping and bearing arms

    I do not propose taking away Third Amendment rights.

    I do not propose taking away Fourth Amendment rights.

    I do not propose taking away Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, or Eight Amendment rights. Deviants accused of crimes will still be entitled to due process of law.

    This leaves equal protection. Deviants are not a suspect class, so rational basis scrutiny applies. all the policies I mentioned are rationally related to the compelling interest of public safety. The policies I propose will survive a federal equal protection challenge.

    Here was a response by Scott Jacobs.

    The first politician who actually suggests what you just discribed should be hung from a tall pole as a warning to others.

    A government that enacts such measures would find itself on the business end of the first rebal army I could put together, which would have the sole purpose in life of purging from creation every shitpile that voted for it.

    You and your “label the deviants” bullshit are anti-liberty. That you could sit there and not see any fucking problem with using a “51% of the evidence” standard to label someone – anyone – enrages me to the point that I now understand why Almighty God has seen fit to refuse to grant me the power to kill with my mind. You are nothing but a totalitarian, eagerly seeking a way to punish what you consider to be wrong thought.

    Fuck you. The day I would sit idle while shit like that happened is the day they put a fucking tag on my toe.

    You just try to push for this shit. You just try.

    The Red Flag laws are much, much worse. A man was even killed in the enforcement of these laws.

    Where is Scott Jacobs’s rebel army? It seems he could not put his money where his mouth is.

      • I am very pro-gun… I mean like all law abiding citizens should have the right to posses, carry and practice with weapons commensurate with what a typical infantry soldier might have. So that is fully automatic assault rifles, machine guns (M249 / M60 / BAR etc…), grenade launchers, Anti-Aircraft missiles, Anti-Tank rifles. (some of this would be rather expensive to own.. but if you are law abiding, more power to you).

        All that said. With proper due-process I do not especially have an issue with the idea of a Red-Flag law, but you would have to show substantial evidence of violent tendencies, or mental health issues that clearly indicate a break with reality.

            • Please explain these similarities..

              You’re kidding right?

              This is self-evident Michael if you’ve ever had even the briefest exposure to what the Nazi’s did, but here’s a brief list just in case you really are this blindly ignorant:

              1. Strip persons of their civil rights without due process.
              2. Proclaim persons “deviant” because of they differ from socially accepted norms.
              3. Force “deviants” to register with the state.
              4. Force “deviants” to wear identifying insignia so everyone knows they are.
              5. Ban “deviants” from specific jobs.
              6. Indoctrinate the public with propaganda demeaning “deviants”.
              7. Encourage the general public to openly discriminate against “deviants”.

              These kinds of things are all things totalitarian minded Nazi’s did to “purify” their society.

              Honest Question: Was your whole purpose in that thread to troll others with facetiousness and you had fun with your continuing prodding or were you offering your honest opinion?

              The Constitution only protects those rights explicitly enumerated.

              There is no place in the Constitution where it explicitly protects a woman’s right to order a doctor to kill a completely helpless human being with an abortion, so why didn’t the Supreme Court use that argument to permanently ban abortions nation wide. Your argument is not grounded in reality.

            • Please explain these similarities..

              It seems quite apparent you are mimicking the Star-of-David badges to be worn by Jewish persons, the restrictions of professions open to Jewish persons, the duty of non-Jews to report suspicious behavior of Jewish persons, etc.

        • “Deviants will be required to wear distinctive insignia. Failure or refusal to do so will be a felony. Again, there is no fundamental right to be free from wearing distinctive insignia when required to do so by the state.

          Deviants will be banned from certain professions, such as law or medicine. There is no fundamental right to practice law or medicine or any profession.”

          I mean, as long as you’re at it….

    • I don’t know who wrote the first quote, but I’m like 99% sure that it’s just a very well done satire. The parallels to Nazi Germany, 1984, or the USSR are plain as day and it’s covered under a paper thin veneer of respect for the laws of the Constitution while simultaneously violating them in practice and spirit.

  2. This season has produced a litany of strained analogies in the Nativity Scene world. All of course having to do with immigration. Given the level of contortion some of them have achieved, I don’t think the Left is even trying anymore.

    • Pretty Joseph and Mary were coming for a Roman legally required census. Kind of the opposite of open borders. Not sure how anyone with an IQ above room temperature would connect them.

  3. I do a lot of driving. Like a lot. I work remotely so I can pretty much work from wherever I want within my own timezone tolerance – I’m not going to work through the local night and sleep through the local day. I also have friends and family scattered around the country so I generally dont have to stay at hotels either.

    Sometimes I do 15k miles in three months and when youre on the road that often you notice some patterns. Firstly, American drivers have terrible left lane discipline. They’ll get into the left lane and coast. Even if there isn’t anyone in the slow lane to the right of them, it often creates traffic jams. All it takes is one or two lemmings following behind the slow person and a smattering of cars every now and again in the right lane and you’ve created a rolling road block. The window of opportunity to jump in the right lane is too small to safely get through that number of cars. Other times there is a car in the right lane and they’re just inadvertently speed matching and don’t care that they’re creating a cork. These traffic snarls often move below the speed limits and severely hamper the throughput that the highway was designed to produce.

    Another form of driver is what I’ve come to call a don’t-pass-me-bro. He’s the guy that speeds up to block you out of passing attempts or after you’ve passed him adds a couple of mph to the cruise control so that so he overtakes you and “gets back in the the lead”. More on him another time.

    When I see these slow left lane lemmings I feel driven to fix the problem. I work my way up the stack until I can floor it in one of the gaps and get ahead of them. I make it a point to roll my window down and flip them off as I pass. The idea is to create a negative social interaction that will discourage them from practicing discourteous driving behaviors like going slow in the passing lane and being oblivious to the car build up behind them. Most of the time I can see them check their rear view mirrors and get over after I pass. In those cases the negative social interaction did it’s job and the idiot uncorks the road. A minority of the time they don’t move but the act of jumping them breaks the other lemmings out of their spell and they start to climb around the slow poke and break the block that way.

    Sometimes they get pissed and floor it to pursue me and give me a piece of their mind. I’m not terribly bothered by it though – after the Marines, people yelling in anger at you doesn’t really have the same psychological impact. No ones tried to run me off the road but if they did my car is fast and nimble enough to get away (given the demographics of the pursuers) and I keep a pistol in the glove box so even if they run me off the road and try to drag me out of the car I’m covered there too. What bothers me the most, is that if they manage to catch up and vent out their window they’ll feel better and the effect of the negative emotion that I’m leveraging to discourage future anti-social behaviors is diminished.

    What’s interesting, is that sometimes the person blocking the left lane is a semi or box truck. Literally 100% of the time that it’s a semi or a box truck they pursue. I’ve had semis screaming along at 90 mph to catch up and yell at me out of their window. I’ve only been ‘caught’ twice but both times I could tell the driver was very self satisfied. It’s not often that semis block the left lane – I’ve noticed that your average big truck driver is much more aware of the road and how it’s supposed to function that your average Karen. But of the eleven times I’ve flipped off a careless truck driver, I’ve been chased eleven times. Even in those cases, at the end of the day the problem was solved, the slow poke wasn’t blocking the pass lane anymore.

    So why do I mention all this? Firstly to comment on the duty to provide negative social consequences for unreasonably discourteous behavior because the alternative is to let it to go unchallenged and in doing so, slowly but surely allow it spread farther and deeper. If we don’t want traffic (or people) to get worse, then we need to get better at discouraging behavior that makes for bad traffic (and shitty people). Also to reiterate the negative relationship between socially courteous behavior and the willingness to engage in conflict. People who are willing to act like ass holes will escalate conflicts at a higher rate. I feel like this is a big reason why so many people won’t stand up to assholes on the road, or people talking during a movie, or letting their kids act up in restaurants. Maybe theres a better way than flipping people off but given that you’re communicating at highway speeds with all the wind, limited attention that you can devote to signaling while navigating at speed, and the limited window where they can actually see that signal… it’s really tough to beat flipping people off. So, all in all, I guess I just want people to be more willing to flip off assholes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    • A very interesting perspective…and I think you’ve proven my wife right yet again.

      Funny story in a similar vein:

      A few months ago we were driving on I-235 in Des Moines, IA, and I passed a young lady who was dividing her time between the reality of pushing a four-thousand-pound box of steel down the road at 60mph and the virtual world of her text-message life. I told my wife I was going to get in front of her and gradually slow down. My wife was all, “No, don’t, she’ll run into you.”

      I pulled in front of her and backed down to 55, then 50. Pretty soon she pulled around me and gave me the dirtiest look and said something I couldn’t lip-read (though it didn’t appear obscene), to which I smiled and mouthed, “Get off your phone!”

      She wasn’t being discourteous as much as she was being downright dangerous. I didn’t flip her off, but now I feel better because of the positive “negative reinforcement” I was able to give.

    • I like your comment, but allow me to add a wrinkle to certain “other” troublesome patterns. I drive a car that’s 15 years old, but sometimes I get behind the wheel of a modern marvel and I learn something new. New cars these days have a fancy cruise control that matches speed and keeps a set distance from the car in front of you. Why is this important? Well, I noticed on a road trip recently that a car was behind me and I thought he wanted to pass. I moved over, he moved over, I sped up…but there wasn’t even a difference, he was right there without any reaction time.

      We might have human drivers figured out, but these newer cars are changing what we perceive to be intentional human actions.

      Another example, I’m currently in a 2019 loaner car and if you’ve got this thing in Eco mode, you can’t really do any jack rabbit acceleration. It’s made me realize that when I’m at an intersection and the car in front of me doesn’t do any nimble maneuvers to make a turn or to get going, it may not really be the driver’s full intention, but that of the car.

      We are now entering a new phase of traffic school and the lessons we learn about how cars change human behavior might just bring us a steep learning curve.

      I’m not sure I have much more of a point to this comment, but it’s an interesting observation of mine. Kind of like how I went skiing 2 years ago for the first time in 15 years and I was completely shocked that 99% of skiers were wearing helmets. Like, WTF? I felt out of place with my snow hat on a ski hill.

      • Automatic headlights precipitated another change in how I view driver behavior. The newer versions use a camera to decide when to change states, and this allows them to NOT blind someone who is is front of you.

        However, sometimes the computer makes a mistake, and flashes the drive coming at you. This is a common ‘you are using your brights’ signal which almost always prompts the other drives to respond with ‘those are not brights, let me show you my brights.’ This used to worry me until I got used to the situations that caused the interaction, and I learned to turn off my automatic headlights.

        Now days I understand that bright flashing could be the car making bad decisions, not the human drives.

        So now I turn off my automatic headlights to manage their errors… why did I need this innovation in the first place again?

    • I too drive a fair bit, not as much as you but still more than average. I also live out in the middle of nowhere so I’m driving curvey back roads. Having lived here for decades, I know every curve well and can take the road far faster than the unfamiliar.
      I’ve noted that some really are driven bat shit crazy by being passed. I don’t understand where they are coming from. If anyone wants to go faster than me, I help them pass and will even let them by. My only request is that I never see them again. I don’t get people who pass and then slow down, they are infuriating. I’ll often mess with them and stick them behind a truck.

      Most of the time, they are not prepared and I pass before they can react, so they take off to chase me. I take it as my personal challenge to leave them behind. The funniest are lifted trucks, they have no chance but that doesn’t stop them trying.
      We had a crash near here that killed a woman and her son. The family wanted to blame the other driver. But he had a dash cam and all he did was pass and keep going fast. She tried to keep up and failed, eventually plunging into a river after flying off the road. He didn’t make any gesture or anything, it was simply him passing that set her off.

  4. Part of the divide, I think, between what I see as the left and the right is a difference of philosophy regarding the rules of the game.

    I’ve said this before: The left doesn’t have principles outside the accumulation of power, this makes their job easier in that they don’t have any pesky moral baggage to concern themselves with giving them an unparalleled maneuverability in political discussions: They can turn 180 degrees on a dime, completely contradict what they said mere seconds before, sometimes pausing briefly to assert some tenuous distinction between the situations, and continue on as if nothing has happened.

    The drawback is that in a group that values a conformity of thought, having the guiding principles of a coke-addled squirrel covered in bouncy balls, fresh off a ten hour ride in a paint shaker means that often, some of the less-manic members might miss a memo and say something deserving of cancellation or a stay in a state-sponsored re-education camp. It also means that the people espousing these ideas, especially when in office long enough, will invariably fall short of their own (temporarily) stated ideals (See Nadler’s position on partisan impeachments as exhibit A), and that kind of hypocrisy doesn’t play well with moderates.

    That hasn’t been an issue for them until very recently, because unless that hypocrisy is particularly egregious, or their most recent position particularly vile, they had the media writ large working to actively cover for them, and it worked; there weren’t many personal collections of news video clips, there weren’t many outlets willing to dredge past records up, YouTube wasn’t a thing, and so it was basically up to the memory of the electorate, which I could metaphorically illustrate as a brain-damaged goldfish perpetually surprised by the cool new castle they swim by every five minutes, to hold Democrats responsible… Which probably worked as well as you think it did. Because 90% of news media are registered Democrats, 5% are lying when they take that survey, and the rest work at Fox, which has an audience almost entirely comprised of people who already knew or had an inkling that a lot of what they saw from the rest of the media writ large was a smokescreen for the Democrat party, moderates were almost certainly spoon fed the narrative of progressive choice, or at least a safe pablum of positions leaning that way.

    That’s changed. Progressive grip on the media narrative is in a freefall. They can call it “fake news” in one of the most epic examples of a lack of self-awareness to ever exist, and to be fair to them, some of the information out there is complete, grade-A bullshit, but for the most part, an apple is an apple, and when presented with enough examples of apples, I think that especially among the moderates, the truth wins out. It’s why you see progressives scramble every time some inconvenient truth drops, desperately pleading with their audience not to rip that curtain aside, going so far as to saying during the 2016 election cycle that it was illegal for anyone other than them to view the Wikileaks posts…. Which probably did more to drive people towards those posts than deter them… See above regarding an amazing lack of awareness.

    Which brings me to my real point: I have no idea what the hell Democrat leadership is thinking in regard to this impeachment. I really don’t.

    Look, despite most of the Democratic leadership putting on affectations that would lead most thinking adults to wonder if perhaps some of them might be happier in an old-folks home, Nancy Pelosi in particular, the fact of the matter is that you don’t get positions like that by collecting bottlecaps, and inertia only keeps you there so long. These aren’t stupid people. To this day, I’m not exactly sure how Nancy got the squad to fire their JD staff and shut the hell up, but it’s been *amazingly* effective. All that said though, I wonder if they are so used to the paradigm of media covering for them and the unwashed masses being swayed by that cover that they don’t understand what’s going on.

    Because, let’s face it, Democrats aren’t holding impeachment hearings… They know the senate is going to vote it down. No, this is an eight-figure, multi-year, single-use, continually running 2020 political ad. The problem for them is that we aren’t really learning anything new; Trump is a dishonest, corrupt, nepotistic boor with all the linguistic poise of a meat axe? Hold the presses! And I think this is backfiring on them, I really do. Between the very old, very white (as they love to remind us) field slowly walkering their way through the Democratic primary, and the increasingly shrill tone of the revolving door of impeachment efforts, Trump’s polling numbers are already on the rise. And that was before the latest jobs report came out. The Democratic spin on impeachment is generally falling flat outside the progressive bubble.

    So…. What’s the game? What’s the goal? What is the ideal narrative? What is the thought process in continuing the impeachment narrative if it’s doomed to fail, and their message isn’t even being well received? What the fresh hell is with the mad rush to get the house to vote by Christmas? As best I can figure, the Democrats know the end game is the senate votes their impeachment down, so they want to lose spectacularly so they can say the Republicans are all corrupt and in Trump’s pocket…. But they’re still going to lose spectacularly, and in politics, that’s an absolute poison pill. Do they think they can actually succeed? That they owe it to the electorate they lied to, promising impeachment before even knowing what they would impeach for? Maybe… But see above for my opinion on the memory of the electorate. Having a fresh defeat to wallow in, I think, might go over about as well as Trump’s victory did to begin with.

    And won’t that just be great?

    • What’s the game? What’s the goal? What is the ideal narrative? What is the thought process in continuing the impeachment narrative if it’s doomed to fail, and their message isn’t even being well received? What the fresh hell is with the mad rush to get the house to vote by Christmas?

      I’ve asked myself those questions often about what the Democrats have been doing. After discussions over the years with fully consumed progressives I’ve come to the conclusion from my ivory upper mid-west tower that in the minds of the extreme political left the Constitution as a barrier, a system, standing in their way to their Socialist utopia, so if “the system” won’t allow them to remove President Trump then it’s easy to paint “the system” as being what’s wrong. Progressives and a large swath of the political left have become totalitarians and most of them can’t see what they’ve become. I firmly believe now that the totalitarian Democrats, progressives in particular, are actively constructing their hill to die on, I honestly think they want to bring down the entire system to put in place their “utopia”. The only way they can bring down the whole system is to convince a majority of the population that the whole system as evil and what better way than to portray a divisive Trump as evil and if the system won’t allow them to remove evil, then the system allows evil, therefore the system is evil too. We’ve been heading here for quite a while.

      This is not an opinion I just pulled out of the blue, this is from many years of observation and personally knowing what the end goals of some progressives has been. The problem is that their Socialist utopia aspirations have turned totalitarian and the totalitarian infestation has spread.

    • This post is COTD worthy, in my opinion. Well stated, HT.

      I don’t have an answer, either. Is the bubble so complete (so round, so firmly packed) that they really don’t see how terrible the optics are? Are they looking for an excuse to burn it all down?

      Destined to fail.

      • Ruth Bader Ginsburgs age and health could be on reason the left is going bonkers to make Trump unelectable.

        Progressives never counted on someone like Trump , who does not feel obligated to please the media or other singular people , would be chosen by enough people to threaten their ability to control the electorate.

    • Actually they win either way. If Trump is impeached in the House and it fails in the Senate as it most likely will, Michael Moore or someone of his ill will make a very scary conspiracy movie along the lines of Oliver Stone’s paranoid fantasies. The charade will certainly go on with the hack journalists speculating how this horror could have happened.

  5. We sometimes note that those on the left often act, with the support of academia, like children, with their various antics of tantrums, triggers, and snowflakery. I recently read an old (Next, 2006) Michael Crichton novel that contained the following:
    “British Researcher Blames Formal Education – Professors, Scientists “Strikingly Immature”

    If you believe the adults around you are acting like children, you’re probably right. In technical terms, it is called “psychological neoteny,” the persistence of childhood behavior into adulthood. And it’s on the rise.

    According to Dr. Bruce Charlton, evolutionary psychiatrist at Newcastle upon Tyne, human beings now take longer to reach mental maturity — and many never do so at all.

    Charlton believes this is an accidental by-product of formal education that lasts well into the twenties. “Formal education requires a child-like stance of receptivity,” which “counteracts the attainment of psychological maturity” that would normally occur in the late teens or early twenties.

    He notes that “academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature.” He calls them “unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.”

    The rest of the text is, serendipitously, here (link below) in a 2019 post by Dr. Charlon, where he references the novel (which is about genetics, including the “maturity gene”) and expands on previous comments about his theory. He also links (has to be cut and pasted) to more explanation of why he calls it “not one of my best” He seems to mainly have changed his mind about whether delayed maturity is an overall good thing (facilitating receptivity to learning). His first post:

    In that first post, he writes in the comments section: “I used to consider PN socially adaptive. Now I am aware 1. that psychological neoteny it is related to the chosen extinction of The West – it is a part of our implicit self-hatred, our covert self-annihilation (subfertility and mass immigration/ strategic population replacement – we in the athestic West are actively working to destroy our selves, our lineage and our society); 2. that PN is not adaptive, rather it is a symptom of a disease.”

    Hello, Alizia! (To whom I preemptively apologize, if she has already referenced Dr. Charlton, and I’ve forgotten it or overlooked a post of hers)..

  6. According to the Democrats’ theories, if it is forbidden to investigate Joe Biden because he is running for office, doesn’t that mean he is obstructing justice by running?

    Just askin’

  7. Here is Ilya Somin’s take.

    What is missing from the analysis is the existence of a writ of mandamus, or other court order or judgment, requiring Trump to immediately issue the aid in question.

    I agree with Alan M. Dershowitz that a mere dispute between Congress and the President over the latter’s ministerial duties and discretion should be addressed by the courts. Only if the President defies a court order should impeachment be on the table.

    President Obama’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter was arguably an usurpation of Congress’s power of the purse, as it was a threat to withhold federal funds from universities unless they set up kangaroo courts to violate the due process rights of male students. But absent Obama defying a writ of mandamus to release the funds to the universities notwithstanding the Letter, impeachment would have been too harsh a remedy.

  8. It is important to note what President Trump is not accused of.

    He is not accused of fabricating or forging evidence against the Bidens.

    He is not accused of withholding evidence that could exculpate the Bidens.

    He is not accused of asking President Zelensky to withhold any evidence that might exculpate the Bidens.

    The whole basis for abuse of power is that the fact that Joe Biden is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. It would not have been considered an abuse of power if Trump threatened to withhold aid unless Zelensky opened or reopened an investigation against Random Joe Sixpack.

    For that matter, Random Joe Sixpack could have asked Zelensky to investigate Biden, promising to donate to a charity in Ukraine, and it would not have been illegal.

  9. Congressman Adam Schiff at the announcement of the impeachment charges said the following…

    “The argument ‘why don’t you just wait’ amounts to this, why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election, why not let him cheat just one more time, why not let him have foreign help just one more time, that is what that argument amounts to.”

    When I heard this statement it was 100% clear that the Democrats still think that Trump cheated his way into the White House, that he is cheating his way through his presidency, and that they firmly believe that Trump has and is getting foreign help.

    I don’t personally remember the Democrats using the word “cheat” in this manner in the past, but now it’s been introduced on the world stage in reference to the President of the United States, I think this is unethical. I think this is another signature significant statement from the Democrats. The Democrats are morally bankrupt.

    • When I heard this statement it was 100% clear that the Democrats still think that Trump cheated his way into the White House, that he is cheating his way through his presidency, and that they firmly believe that Trump has and is getting foreign help.

      They first have to establish that foreign help is cheating.

      They have yet to do so.

  10. Nice job there EA commentariat. Impressive. Maybe there should be one open forum per week? Might keep comments to Jack’s posts more focused on the issues presented? Would provide a forum for mini posts by our most erudite commenters.

    HT, I still think the Dems want Trump destroyed because he’s not a politician. He doesn’t pose an existential threat to democracy or the constitution or anything else OTHER THAN the continued health and well being of career politicians and all their various enablers and accessories and co-conspirators.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.