Proposition: Nike Should Fire Colin Kaepernick And Be Severely Punished by Consumers For Promoting This Hateful Idiot As A Hero And Role Model

Colin Kaepernick was metaphorically taking a knee on Twitter yesterday. He wrote, referring to the killing of Qassem Soleimani,

…and later…

Kaepernick’s words and conduct mark him as a narcissistic, ignorant, America-hating, race-baiting idiot. That’s what he is, other than a washed-up pro athlete whose erudition began and ended with a fake college degree (his major, amusingly, was business management) while he prepared to play pro football. His irresponsible kneeling stunt cost the NFL millions, launched multiple divisive offspring, denigrated the nation and its police, and accomplished nothing positive, in large part because it was incoherent.

Never mind: Nike, exhibiting the amoral and ethics-free motivations that have long characterized most corporations, pandered to the woke, hateful and dumb by making Kaepenick the face of its latest “Just do it!” campaign, a 30 year old slogan that was always stupid, even by corporate slogan standards. Admittedly, a stupid slogan is a good bet to appeal to the people who will pay ridiculous amounts of money for sneakers, but even so: Just do what? Just jump out a window? Just set your face on fire? Just sexually assault that attractive woman at work? Just shoot off your mouth about matters you are painfully ill-informed about?

The old maxim that if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail meets its apotheosis in this guy. What ever motivations one can detect in the killing of Qassem Soleimani, racism is not on the list. To be fair, Kaepernick’s definition of racism is the one that has crippled American blacks by giving them and their activists an excuse to avoid personal and cultural responsibility for, literally anything: Fail a course? Racist teacher. Go to jail? Racist legal system. Have kids out of wedlock that you can’t afford? It’s Whitey’s fault. Get fired? Racist boss.  Didn’t get nominated for an Oscar? It’s because of color. Getting criticized for being a divisive, feckless, inept President? The critics are racists. People don’t think you’re an impressive candidate? Racism.

And so on.

Having been marinated in this mindset for his whole life, one can advance a little bit of sympathy to Colin: bias has not only made him stupid (and hateful, and anti-American, and useless to society),it has enabled him to make others stupid (and hateful, and anti-American, and useless to society) as well.

Nike has no such mitigating factors. Consider: Curt Schilling, a white ex-baseball star who is, roughly speaking, about 8.5 times smarter than Kaepernick even after hitting himself over the head with a cast iron pan (and Curt’s no Tesla), was promptly fired from his ESPN job for tweeting,  “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.” The ‘Bloody sock” Boston hero’s tweet was reckless, to be sure, and he had been warned about making things difficult for his employer by tweeting politically controversial opinions. Yet Schilling’s opinion is a valid and defensible point of view; it’s just one that the Left is trying to ban from public discourse. Megyn Kelly was fired from NBC because she suggested that using dark make-up on Halloween is not the racist act progressives insist that it is. She said, “Truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface for Halloween or a black person who put on whiteface for Halloween. When I was a kid, that was okay as long as you were dressing up as like a character… I don’t know how that got racist on Halloween.”  I’ve made a similar point on Ethics Alarms (I’m pretty sure that’s the issue that caused Facebook to ban the blog), and it is a valid and defensible opinion. Kelly was foolish to think the remark wouldn’t blow up in her face, especially since she was already on metaphorical thin ice at the Peacock network, but still: her comment, like Schilling’s, at least had substance underlying it. They were undiplomatic, and could marginally justify firing for cause, but they were not lies or hateful.

Kaepernick’s tweets, however, are, and he is currently much more Nike’s public face than Schilling was ESPN’s or Kelly was NBC’s. If Nike does not fire Kaepernick, then it has endorsed his vile and indefensible words. This is the shoe company that banned the Betsey Ross flag on its sneakers, yet it appears that the company approves of its hand-picked symbol elevating a murderous terrorist over the United States based on his own bigotry.

Thus Nike is intentionally (or negligently: I don’t care which) setting out to undermine the nation, divide it, and promote anti-American sentiments among the young. It must not profit from this unethical conduct, and the conduct must not go unpunished.

Nike’s Kaepernick shoe line sold out in December. Disgusting. Not only should Kaepernick be isolated and shunned; so should Nike, and so should anyone who wears Nike’s products, like, say, Janet Jackson, seen above further enhancing her family name.

My son rents an apartment from us, and I love him dearly, but if I saw him in Nike shoes, he would be given the choice of surrendering them, or moving out.


Since Facebook has banned Ethics Alarms, you should use this link to share this post there:

28 thoughts on “Proposition: Nike Should Fire Colin Kaepernick And Be Severely Punished by Consumers For Promoting This Hateful Idiot As A Hero And Role Model

  1. Dear Nike:

    Please continue your relationship with Kaepernick. Please do continue selling his merchandise. They provide a clear and valuable insignia of allegiances.

  2. The most interesting aspect to this is the evidence it provides of ideological confusion and chaos of interpretation. What most stands out to me is how *people* have lost a clear sense about how to interpret their world and what is going on around them.

    A concerned, balanced, politically-engaged citizen can and should be concerned about America’s ‘Always Wars’. Or, is what I just said a suspect statement? Is having concern a sign of insidious disobedience? You see: this is what I mean. We *see* events and we have no choice but to *interpret* them. But to interpret them we have to refer to some sort of knowledge-base. Where do we access that? Or to put it another way, Who provides it to us? It seems to me that everything hinges on the question of mediation of information. Therefore Media Systems are interpretive agencies and their purpose is to provide an interpretation.

    Putting Kaepernick aside, there are many many people who have questions not so much about the killing of one fighter (this general who was killed) but the entire project of involvement in the Middle East. Those who have some *skin in the game* on this blog — some of those who have military experience and commitment — seem always to defend America’s *adventures* (as I call them). But they do so on the basis of reference to a knowledge-base: that what America is doing is (somehow) a ‘good’. Just recently adimagejim or Other Bill explained to me — with admirable restraint & patience! — that America’s 1000 military bases spread all over the world were, in essence, ‘good and necessary’, and if *we* were not there broadcasting military force (the function of which is to protect business interests or to extend markets — that is if my understanding of the way things work is correct) some other player — an evil, untrustworthy player — would rush in to the void. What is the meaning of this sort of statement? Well, it is profoundly ideological. It is profoundly *patriotic*. But it is not necessarily either true, correct or accurate.

    So, the way that these issues are framed is highly relevant. The way that the narrative-battle is set up you are forced to barricade yourself either within one or the other of the *established narratives*. An ‘either/or is established: a limiting binary. To be a *patriot* I must go along with the groupthink and *support* this action. Or, on the other side of the barricade, I must *see* it in some other way (the US is attacking ‘brown people’ is just one variant of a whole range of interpretive views) and defend my view against all comers.

    Obviously, the *real questions* about US military involvement in the ME and the NE cannot ever be framed. Because if they were framed accurately and realistically and fairly it is quite likely that *the people* would question the entire project! The vast amount of money that is expended in these projects could just as easily have been spent in other projects, domestic projects say, that actually have *tangible benefit* for average people. But Good Heavens! is it not obvious that even to have said what I just said can only mean (to those in one of the *binary camps*) that I am proposing socialism.

    Trump was elected by people with specific concerns about the functioning of their country. He rallied them as most demagogues do through rhetorical and narrative seduction. But if you listen to the people who *championed* him (Ann Coulter comes to mind) Trump has not *fulfilled* his promises. In fact he has *betrayed* those who elected him. But isn’t that just more evidence of the same? The meaning — of course! — is that those who run the show (The Swamp) have their own plans & designs. Those plans & designs are distinct and different — often radically so — from the wants & needs of ‘average people’. It should be obvious that *democracy* in the real and important sense requires a *hack* and a *workaround*.

    What surprises me is that on this Blog there are not more people who show a will to examine the *real questions* in more depth. They are content with — and indeed they even enjoy! — taking up a position behind one of the established barricades and showering ‘the opposition’ with projectiles. If that is the only intellectual product of ‘American Conservatism’ then we are truly lost.

    The lovely shifting shadows on the wall of the cave are mesmerizing though! 🙂

      • Yeah, this drives me nuts. Essentially anyone is “of color” when it’s convenient to a race-baiting political rant. I have what is often called “olive skin”, being half Greek. I’m at least as “colored” as the typical Iranian.

      • The general argument against America’s ’embroilment’ in the region, directed by the ideological leadership of those labeled Neo-Cons, is that none of this, or little of this, is of benefit to ‘average Americans’.

        The arguments in opposition to this embroilment — for example Ron Paul might be cited — tend to emphasize that these wars benefit private players. As you may remember Ron Paul famously said “We went over there so they came over here”.

        Again, what I wish to point out is the degree that people — you, me, others, perhaps all people who are observers (and not actors) — are forced to apply an interpretive narrative. Yours seems to be that our (so-called) ‘imperialism’ is justified because Iran (and Islam) does the same thing or a similar thing.

        I suspect that your *argument*, to the degree that it is one, will eventuate in a stance that is completely uncritical of present policy. That seems to me to be its *function*. You, Steve, OB, adimagejim, Michael West, even Jack: when one examines your analysis — your telling the tale of what is going on and why — it always results in the same: support of exactly what goes one (the policies of the US).

        This is one of the reasons why — in my exceedingly humble opinion offered with excruciating patience and deference — the present brand of American Conservatism should be seen as corrupt. It does not seem to do much critical thinking. It seems overall to serve the structure of things.

        My question is whether that is really a proper role or decision for an *engaged citizen*. To get involved in (genuinely) critical postures means that one has to define who one is interested in serving. But if I do that (and if *we* do that) we will inevitably have to get involved with those questions the political Left traditionally did. Then, a dissident or questioning posture becomes not necessarily of the established Right, nor the established Left: but something spanning the two (and the various) poles. That is my impression of what the Dissident Right is doing.

        Some alternative has to be found. Or perhaps not?

        • Ron Paul absurdly has held that the US should have stayed outof WW II. As a result, his credibility on anything related to foreign policy is nil. He lives in a fantasy, as does anyone who objects to the US getting involved overseas. The choices are black and white, really. Get involved in a chaotic environment and be prepared to react, or isolation. The first involves outrageous risks and uncertainty, second guessing and getting dirt, or blood, on our hands. The other is irresponsible for the world’s greatest power, and thus most promising power for good.

          • Here you offer *mere opinion* and — in your mind, and with not one doubt! (I call that ‘metaphysical certainty’) — you put it forth as incontrovertible truth against which no argument is possible. If one thinks or sees differently one is ‘absurd’ and one lives in a ‘fantasy’. According to you anyone who proposes alternatives has no credibility. All of this simply reduces to you declaring that your opinion is the right one!

            What I am trying to do is not so much to counter-propose to your *certainties* but to highlight them and talk about how they function.

            Additionally, and I might say *whether you like it or not*, people are beginning to do their own thinking, and they are coming to different conclusions. Here, they might begin to feel that the media-systems that give them information are, as you often say, ‘enemies of the people’. But that is because they define people’s interests.

            One of Ron Paul’s arguments has to do with the unreal and unjustifiable cost of these wars. When ‘average people’ calculate what they must pay (in so many different senses) they begin to investigate alternatives.

            One of the things I notice (here) is that no matter what critique is offered, no matter what alternatives are proposed for examination, you-plural (I regret that I am forced to refer to some, or many, with such a generalization) do nothing more than support the precise status-quo as it pertains to policy.

            But things are changing. People are thinking differently. And there are new idea-movements all over Europe and in America.

            • And when America with all its flaws retreats from the world stage and the ethics and morality of China, Iran or some other ideologies overrun the world, we will be alone waiting for them to arrive at our shores with a quivering thumb on the one button we still possess. Global annihilation. How very moral of us it will be.

              If you wish to make the argument the world would be better served by other ideologies rather than the rights of man make your case instead of sneering at us from your arrogant, condescending, excruciatingly over read, hyperdeconstructionist perch.

              In the terms of average people, put up or shut up.

              • And when America with all its flaws retreats from the world stage and the ethics and morality of China, Iran or some other ideologies overrun the world, we will be alone waiting for them to arrive at our shores with a quivering thumb on the one button we still possess. Global annihilation. How very moral of us it will be.

                What I suggest is looking at the structure you present here. I know that I cannot influence you to change your mind — How could I? It is an important element of your position that it is fixed & thoroughly rigid — but at the least I can (as you say) deconstruct (though I prefer dismantle) what you are saying and examine it. You do not have to do this, nor participate in what I feel I must do, and in the end, as far as these discussions go it is *fun* and interesting.

                I do know, I do recognize, that getting into a ‘conversation’ with you is futile. You simply cannot be moved or influenced. But at the least I can alert you, and perhaps some who read these exchanges, that *the world* of idea & opinion is far larger than your narrow, reduced world. And that is why I recommend — at least — becoming more familiar with how other people, and some people who have profound issues with American adventures and policies, see things.

                To do that though will involve you choosing, willing, to step out of narrow and provincial attitudes.

                In respect to people who think like Ron Paul (I only used him as a reference point) they tend to see the present crisis as one that has a long history. What this means is that long ago there should have been brakes applied to irresponsible interventionist policies. That this did not happen has led to contributing to if not having created situations of chaos. If this means anything — if it is a ‘lesson of history’ — it means that for the sake of the health and well-being of the Nation, and for respect for Republican values, and as well for economic health and national mental health: this national policy of interventionism must be examined. That is how I take it.

                It is a thoroughly coherent position and argument.

                If you wish to make the argument the world would be better served by other ideologies rather than the rights of man make your case instead of sneering at us from your arrogant, condescending, excruciatingly over read, hyperdeconstructionist perch.

                Wait, is this directed at me? 🙂

                You are actually projecting, adimagejim. Your position is steeped in a unique, national arrogance. I do not regard it as ‘true patriotism’ and if it is patriotism it is a flawed variety. (And that is what I tend to think of a great deal of the Conservative position). I have no choice but to confront it. Since that is intolerable to you, you vilify me for that. (Me! Hardworking me!) Be that as it may: If we take *ethics* seriously we have to ask the harder questions … of ourselves and of others.

                the rights of man

                Your *argument* is flawed of course (the ‘argument’ that you presented here) but I don’t have time to dismantle it. But I do want to point out that I can think of little of more validity than defining, and defending, the ‘rights of man’. Those rights are now being infringed upon, or undermined, as a result of actions & policies that *we* have chosen. And that is why I recommend an examination of those policies. (And I mean specifically these endless interventions).

                I doubt you will make much progress nor change much your fixed views. But I guarantee you that I will. Because I take ideas seriously.

            • Some people learn the lessons of history, and some resist them. Pacifism and isolationism are examples of wilful ignorance and denial. So is the persistent support for socialism and communism despite ample data to show that such systems don’t work. I’m open to rebuttals of anything, but where the history, data and experience point only one way, the burden of proof is high. “But things are changing. People are thinking differently. And there are new idea-movements all over Europe and in America” doesn’t come close to scaling that burden, or even crawling under it.

              • Sue, but you are now arguing, I guess, against Ron Paul. I referred to him only, and I did not cite him as my guide. You say ‘pacifism’ and ‘isolationism’. But what I refer to is avoiding intervention. I have described quite plainly how this ‘interventionism’ began in American history. Elements of it developed in the North-South conflict. But it became a national policy with the Philippine invasion/occupation and the Cuban invasion/occupation. It was at this point — at this juncture — that the deviation began. To whom was the harm done? Well, certainly to those who were invaded. But there is another level of harm, and that is a national harm that ricochets back. Those fine and exalted Constitutional phrases & values are rendered hypocritical. And at the time of these incidents thoughtful people tried to make others aware that these choices would have consequences.

                My thing, if you will, is to examine consequences. And to examine consequences means to examine causal chains. So, I do have an interest in ‘the lessons of history’. But it seems that my interpretations differ from yours (by jingo!).

                I am inclined to understand that America has a strange form of what has been called ‘corporate socialism’. What that means is that there has been constructed a system whereby the State intervenes through a perverse ‘corporate socialism’ whereby national funds and wealth are directed to private interests. If you were really & truly opposed to socialism (this corporate socialism) then being opposed to the use of public funds to benefit the public would make more sense. I suggest that we therefore live in a perverse form of socialism as it is. It is already there. And that is another aspect of what The Swamp means.

                I’m open to rebuttals of anything…

                Well, in my case this will take months & years. So far, I see the hypocrisy and the destructiveness of aspects of what I understand of your view: your platform. I definitely have enough background to begin to criticize so-called American Conservatives (who ‘conserve nothing’ as we like to say). One aspect of my ‘rebuttal’ is that America is now, right now, well into a crisis. Internally, and then I have read opinions about America’s financial health that are alarming. But that fits into my view that these interventions are far far too costly. And the debt piles up. I notice ‘social sickness’ and general unwellness. And I suspect the causes are in the ‘causal chain’ I refer to.

                But as to having a ‘rebuttal’ that I could present here, to demolish your certainties, well, you’ll have to wait.

                (I am considering putting a down payment on a MQ-9 Reaper drone but I really am not sure if this is a good family investment right now, plus we don’t have any place to park it). 🙂

                • I’ll deal with the rest of this, I hope, later, but a salient point: the nation’s financial problems, contrary to common belief (and Democratic propaganda), are primarily the result of runaway entitlement costs, not the military.

                  • Very well. I did look up ‘entitlement costs’ and found this from The Hill:

                    “Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are three of the largest and fastest growing parts of the budget. As recently as the year 2000, those three programs cost only $700 billion, or about 7 percent of the economy. Today they cost nearly $2 trillion, about 10 percent of the economy. By 2050, as a result of an aging population, rising health costs and growing benefit levels, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will spend 15 percent of the economy.

                    “This trajectory is unsustainable. No program can indefinitely grow faster than the economy, just like no household or business expenses can indefinitely grow faster than household income or business revenue.”

                    • When FDR instituted social security the average life span of an American was about 63 wirh axretirement age of 65m. Do the actuarial math.

                      Beyond that entitlement programs are defined as any allocation to an individual based on the person meeting a given set of social conditions as opposed to a trade of value. Obama phones, Pell grants, Medicaid, housing vouchers food stamps, WIC, CHP, energy subsidies, and the list goes on. Technically, Social Security is not an entitlement because eligbility requires the recipient to pay into to system whereas entitlement have no requirements other than meeting some criteria. The correct term for Soc. Sec is transfer payment. All entitlements are transfer payments but not all transfer payments are entitlements.

  3. I find myself wondering if we are witnessing the end of The Republic…..

    This cancer of post-modernism, deconstructionist, social justice, intersectionalism, Marxism, etc….While all causes that I am sure were advanced with the best of intentions (yes Jack I know, I know about ‘good intentions’ and the ethics pitfalls associated with them), they and their adherents (at least its most vocal), have strayed so far to the extremes, that they resemble a religious cult of sorts.

    Logic and reason are deemed ‘hateful’ and ‘racist’, and condemned with a fervor that is almost indistinguishable from how blasphemy was/is punished in the religious sphere. Topics and narratives such as the ’the wage gap’, ‘biological sex as a social construct’, and ‘micro aggressions’, just name a few, which have been so thoroughly debunked, are taken as ‘truth’ based on nothing more than what can at best be described as a secular sort of faith.

    What makes these ideologies so dangerous and toxic, is that, unlike the extreme right-wing of the political and ideological spectrum, they have infiltrated and have deep roots in many mainstream and public institutions-education and journalism being two of the most worrisome.

    While many normal and sane people recognize the unhinged and ‘authentic frontier gibberish’ being spewed from these institutions on an hourly basis, few are either unwilling, powerless, or indifferent to do anything about it-and honestly how would one go about purging these institutions of this rot, when most of the media that the majority of Americans see and hear is firmly under the control of these ideological groups, or at the very least at the mercy of said groups?

    It seems that there are many actors on the political and ideological stages who want to see our nation fall, given this toxic belief that America (or the West in general) is the root of all that is wrong and evil in this world.

    I wonder who among them would not leave the gates to the city unlocked and unguarded, so as to allow the enemy to march right in, the first chance they were given-I mean hell, how many times have actors within the current administration ‘leaked’ personal information of members of the opposing political tribe, or down right conspired to bring down a lawfully elected president?

    • According to lefties, if you want to “fundamentally reform” a country, or stage a revolution, you have to destroy that country first. By any means necessary. societal divisiveness, crippling environmental programs, propaganda, street violence. Whatever it takes.

  4. Simple, black people put a great deal of significance on apparel as a means of expressing their identity. I can’t think of any other ethnicity that has formed an apparel company called FUBU (for us by us). They also consider apparel a way of showing status, hence the Reeboks pump-up basketball shoes, et al.

    For whatever reason, any other group that uses apparel the same way just doesn’t get the same deference. I can wear a squadron sweatshirt or t-shirt, but (depending on the squadron) people will just think I’m geeking out over history or technology. You can wear “Italians do it better” or “Irish pride” shirts, and no one’s going to be that impressed, they’re just going to think you bought an overpriced shirt. They MIGHT be impressed if you wore one of the Italian designers, but that’s more for professionals, not just ordinary folks.

    For whatever reason, blacks want to push their identity forward by wearing it on their sleeves (or their sneakers, as the case may be). It’s very likely the guy wearing these sneakers is going to be also wearing FUBU pants and a t-shirt that says “If you see the pig coming, W.A.B. (warn a brother)!” It’s become the default identity to be the rebel standing up against the racist, and pretty much all authority, from the president to the school board, is racist. This is just another visible symbol of rebellion to wear while rallying against the police or demanding that the local art museum “decolonize.” In the meantime it’s putting a ton of money in the white exec’s pockets at Nike, but they don’t care.

    Krappernick is frankly the most undeserving hero to come out of history in I don’t know how long, white, black, or any other color. He wasn’t a first at anything. He didn’t do anything particularly brave or gallant. His achievements are modest at best. Playing pro football is certainly not nothing, very few players ever get that far. However, most play their time, then fade away. Very few ever reach the immortal level of a Joe Montana, a Dan Marino, an Emmitt Smith, or the late, great Walter Payton (yes, I know only the first two are direct comparisons). Krappernick was a flash in the pan. He led the 49ers to a Super Bowl victory once, had a decent year after that, and then his performance declined sharply. Most other players would have either gotten it together or accepted their decline with grace.

    Not him, though. He found there was protection and profit in appealing to those same rebel sentiments, and it may have bought him one more year on the field. Then he found there was still more to be had in spouting them for a shoe company that catered to folks with those sentiments. All he has to do is issue an anti-American tweet or anti-white sound bite every so often, and he’s set for life. He just has to keep alert and be ready to issue every time there’s an American military action, or a police shooting, or something doesn’t go a black guy’s way. Nice gig if you can get it.

    Nike is absolutely not ethical for playing to this sentiment for profit’s sake, but, the business of business is business, and they seem to have found their niche. I won’t wear their stuff, but I’m not the target demographic.

    • Wow…

      So…Kaepernick – a player with one really good season who was then paid millions to be worse than mediocre before spending the last several years as a left-wing agitator – instead of…

      Mike Trout – likely the greatest baseball player of our generation, at his current progression one of the greatest of all time.
      Mariano Rivera – the first unanimous selection to the Baseball Hall of Fame and the game’s greatest closer.
      Drew Brees – 75,000 yards of passing, nearly 550 touchdown passes.
      LeBron James – basketball’s best of this generation.

      Yeah, wow…we see where USA Today’s priorities are…

  5. I’m confused. Qassem Soleimani will likely be played by George Clooney his own self in the fawning Qassem Soleimani bio-pic George will produce. Qassem Soleimani looks like Sean Connery in his later, post Bond movies. Qassem Soleimani is a person of color? Iranians are down with being called people of color? Aren’t they more Aryan than your average Austrian watercolorist?

  6. Wasn’t President Trump criticized by the Democrats and Republicans for being too isolationist? My understanding is he desires to be in the Middle East less, not more.

    Where was the anti-war left for the last 11 years regarding war in the ME? Where were the admonishments regarding Obama’s continuation and escalation of our involvement in the ME? Why was it okay for him to drone bomb innocent “brown bodies” and why was it okay for Soleimani to kill other brown people?

    Kaepernick proves he knows nothing about war, our current reasons for being in the ME, or what being anti-war means in both its positive and negative constructions. Sadly too many will clutch their pearls along with him and help to foster potentially more violence here and abroad, based on virtue signals and ignorance.

  7. Anybody but me find this a parrot of Ta-Nahesi Coates without the elegant erudition?

    Because it’s almost word-for-word out of one of his missives.

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 )

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.