Pyrrhic

Ah, I see that Republicans are trying hard to lose next year’s midterms with their ludicrous attempts to repeal Roe. All of the suburban moms who just gave them Virginia and were moving away from the Dems because of school masking and vaccine mandates were too good to be acceptable. It’s now extremely necessary to scare them away and destroy the only legal foothold that those who oppose forced Pfizerization had.

Who cares about real victories when you can have symbolic ones? Let’s give the demoralized, flailing Dems a powerful issue to organize on and get out a tsunami of highly energized, passionate voters. Not a single abortion will be prevented by the repeal of Roe but who cares? As long as we can whelp “let’s go, Brandon” under our breaths, it’s victory enough.

40 thoughts on “Pyrrhic

  1. Republicans: “We’re on our way to a possibly historic victory in 2022…. OMG We cna’t let that happen!!!!”

    Mississippi Attorney General: “Relax, I got this….”

    Like

    1. Dumbasses. Stupid, useless dumbasses. Schools, inflation, gas prices – these are the winning issues. You care about kids? Then remove the stupid mask mandates in schools, and the moms will be yours forever. You can’t win without the moms.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “To be fair hasn’t this legal battle been long in the making?”

        Yes, because this is first and foremost a moral issue that transcends who’s winning or losing in the hardscrabble of partisan politics.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. This moral issue has been rendered obsolete by the advances in medicine and technology. Have you noticed that abortion was one medical procedure that was not disrupted by lockdowns? That’s because abortions are administered by telemedicine and mail. You can’t ban them unless you ban the internet. We can discuss whether that’s good or bad but the fact remains that it’s easier to get an abortion pill from the comfort of your home than it is an antibiotic.

          Like

          1. Yes, I’m aware of your view.

            Technology does not trump morality or at least it should not – maybe think nuclear weapons here.

            Partisan politics is of little significance in comparison to the moral questions that it sometimes tries to organize itself around as wedge issues.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. A real blow against abortion would be a ban on telemedicine. But nobody wants morality if it will lose them campaign donors. Why isn’t anybody suggesting a ban on abortion pills? Because that would be a serious action, not empty, meaningless posturing. But no, pharmaceutical companies can’t be denied their profits.

              Like

              1. “But nobody wants morality if it will lose them campaign donors”

                I think we actually agree at a fundamental level. Partisan politics is necessary in a liberal democracy but shallow and distasteful.

                (Warning: I’m about to have an Orthodox moment here because, as I understand it, it so perfectly reflects my own position.)

                The Church has always taught that abortion is murder. But it also teaches believers to reflect God’s mercy – that we must not condemn those who have had abortions or those that are considering abortion. The primary field of struggle is not the collective power of the state but must be the morality of individuals in our society. This is part of a larger struggle faithful believers face in modelling Christian morality in a fundamentally secular society.

                Liked by 3 people

              2. I’m with you 100%. I never aborted and never would but if a woman experienced the health issues I had during my pregnancies and realized she couldn’t continue, I wouldn’t judge. It would still be tragic but I couldn’t judge.

                Like

              3. “I wouldn’t judge.”

                100% agree. And, I’m sure you are aware that where there are very severe health issues, the Church can exercise leniency for women who terminate pregnancies.

                Like

  2. OT: A probably explanation on the inability of the left to properly meme.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I absolutely think it would prevent some abortions (exactly how many is a matter of debate, of course.) Marijuana is incredibly easy to get even in states where it is illegal, yet when it is legalized the market grows. I don’t see why the same principle wouldn’t apply to abortion.

    Like

  4. I usually align with you, Clarissa. But on this I diverge vociferously.

    Abortion is a central and fundamental issue. It is the lynchpin of the sexual revolution. All the cultural collapse and insanity we’re being buffeted with flows from the nihilistic misanthropic logic underpinning Casey and Roe.

    Roe and Casey are the archetypical examples of judicial activism, of legislation from the bench. This is where the “elite” began to turn violently – with scalpels, syringes, acid and suction – upon the people, seeking to exterminate us.

    The “logic” that Harry Blackmun applied – that the right to abortion is derived from the right to privacy (which we definitely have under the 9th amendment, and which should be specifically articulated but to much of our current misery is not) is sheer and utter demonic nonsense. By his logic, you should also be able to suffocate your new born, or euthanize your doddering parents, so long as you do it privately at home or in some officially constituted “clinic” somewhere. By Blackmun’s logic, Aktion T-4 would probably be made constitutional, too, so long as the state invokes the right to privacy, and classifies everything. What happens in private is of no matter or interest to anyone else, you see.

    If we are to have abortion, it must be the people who decide. It belongs to referenda and legislatures, not judges, lawyers and courts to make law. The courts cannot fabricate “rights” to things like euthanasia, gay “marriage,” adolescent transgender transition, or abortion. When they do, they are imposing their gnostic utilitarian antinomian (which is to say Nietzschean antichrist) religion on us. They violate our sacred rights in multiple multivalent ways.

    Whose values will prevail? Those of the law faculties at Harvard and Yale. All we little moronic untermenschen peons must simper and cower before their august intellects and transcendent amoral superiority. These are demigods archons of the Approaching Golden Dawn. All we mere mortal slaves must worship and obey.

    When does human life and legal personhood begin? No one can say these days, except our black robed high clerisy, our sacred secular priesthood. They say two months from conception. Then three months. Then six months. Then nine months. It’s passing the cervix that makes you a person, see. A person is never a truly person when they are very small. Little weak ones are always the rightful victims of the strong. The compassionate logic of second and every other infinitely successive wave of feminism decrees it. They tell us what real, what is true, what to worship, what to do. If Gloria Steinem and her high priest Harry Blackmun decree it, it is so.

    They also now say that men who disfigure and emasculate themselves and paint their faces can be women. They also know all about biochemistry, microbiology and virology, and say we have no right to any sort of medical freedom. How many shots must we take? How many masks must we wear? Which concentration camp must we quarantine at? Only they and the Tribune Antonius Stepanus Fausti can decide. Our bodies, their choice.Their quantum moral and medical logic is subtle and paradoxical in ways we poor earthlings will never understand.

    Oh, yes. See how they are wise? It is good we have such high priests to care for us and our unborn children. They know that it is truly palliative care to execute them, rather than allow them to be born into the brave new world they fashion for us.. (cf. Revelation 9 : “Come and See.”)

    The very logic of the Annunciation makes this a fundamental issue of religious freedom. Human life is sacred, always, everywhere, and the innocent cannot be deprived of life – especially in the most sacred of places – without damning the one who does it, without defiling the community that condones it. If the upper middle class soccer moms despise us and turn on us because this, they can literally go to hell.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My friend, I agree with all you say completely. Roe was a terrible judicial decision that led exactly to the things you describe. I highly recommend Christopher Caldwell’s book The Age of Entitlement where he describes how judicial activism negates the US Constitution and creates a parallel constitution and what a disaster it is.

      I’m all for putting an end to the oversize role of the judiciary and going back to legislating. It’s crucial that this should happen.

      But the only way this will happen is if the Democrats lose power. They need to lose 5-6 elections in a row. They need to be wiped out (not physically, of course, but electorally). Then we can move away from judicial activism or at least hope to do it.

      Why I like this blog is that nobody comes here with idiotic, run-of-the-mill, sloganeering comments. People look deeply into issues, so the discussion are interesting. I’m grateful to everybody who participates in the discussions.

      Like

  5. A question to the three folks who downvoted my “Orthodox moment” post above.

    What precisely was it that provoked your displeasure?

    1) The idea that the Church calls on its faithful to affirm life and protect the weak and vulnerable? (“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”

    2) The idea that the Church calls on its faithful to be compassionate and refrain from harsh judgments of the sins of others? (“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?”)

    3) The idea that the Church calls on its faithful to place primacy on challenging/changing the morals of individuals rather than struggles around the collective power of the state? (“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)

    Just curious.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “The Church has always taught that abortion is murder”

      I didn’t downvote your comment but this sentiment has always seemed fake and disingenuous unless the person wants women who get abortions to be literally charged with murder and put in prison.
      There are a few people who think that way and I despise them (there’s a public figure in Poland who’s trying to get all abortions for any reason criminalized) but I can respect the consistency.
      If it’s murder then it needs to be punished like murder.
      If a person, or institution doesn’t want to do that they should retire the M word in discussions of abortion…. forever.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes. Or the idea that a fetus at 5 weeks is a child. Many women do perceive it as a child. I know I did. But pretending that it can possibly ever become an actual child without an enormous physical and emotional effort from an actual woman only makes women angry. Both my children were children since conception. But it is also true that I underwent extraordinary physical pain and emotional effort into the pregnancies. Klara is alive because I shot myself with insulin 6 times a day for 24 weeks. And went to the hospital 3-4 times a week for 36 weeks. Any suggestion that this was insignificant makes me angry.

        Also, if it’s ok to force a person to experience something like a severe form of PUPPPS to save a life, it’s definitely ok to make people take a COVID shot. Yes, PUPPPS is rare. But so are serious adverse effects of the vaccine. You either believe it’s ok to make people undergo physical suffering to save others or you don’t. But you can’t have both.

        Like

        1. And since I’m on the topic, one thing that drives me nuts about the left is their denial of physiology. “Men can give birth!” No, they can’t, you stupid bastard.

          But on the right, it’s the same thing with pregnancy and birth. It’s a denial of human physiology to suggest that at 5 weeks of pregnancy it’s the same child as at 35. That’s a denial of human physiology, and I have no patience for that. This rhetoric scares away mothers who never aborted or considered doing it because our most important achievement – which isn’t getting pregnant but actually giving birth – is being devalued. It’s the conservative equivalent of women with penises.

          Like

            1. Reality is truly oppressive. Nature oppresses me every second. It is unbearable. It must end.

              Why should I accept any definitions or boundaries? Words mean only what I want them to mean, and any word can mean anything I decide it means.

              Nature is clearly evil, because it defines and limits and will ultimately kill me. Why should I die? Why cannot I be god, and define reality for myself? Why should I not define the universe according to my will? Why should my will and desire not be universal and eternal law?

              If I feel a thing should be so, it must be so. Anything that limits me is evil. Only what I want is good. Anything that oppresses or limits me must be eliminated.

              Anyone who opposes or disagrees with me must submit, suffer then die.

              My feeling and desires – my freedom to be and do what I want – are all that matters, and everything must and will conform to me.

              I feel it must be so, it is so. If I feel that I am a woman, I am. If I feel my fetus is not a baby, it is just a clump of cells.

              Nothing is meaningful or real unless I say it is meaningful and real.

              I am no longer Charlie. I am woman.. No, sorry, I’ve decided I am God. Hear me roar.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. “this sentiment has always seemed fake and disingenuous unless the person wants women who get abortions to be literally charged with murder and put in prison”

        Interesting.

        Murder – this is what the Church teaches and has taught since its beginning.

        It’s a simple teaching and is rooted in point 1 of my comment.

        But points 2 and 3 point the faithful in a different direction than putting women who abort “in prison.” From that perspective, the faithful are encouraged to see abortion as a spiritual problem for individuals in society rather than a collective policy issue that the state can resolve through fiat.

        Like

        1. “point the faithful in a different direction than putting women who abort “in prison.””

          Because….? What is the church’s position on other forms of murder are the faithful pointed in different directions than putting murderers in prison?

          I’m essentially incapable of religious faith (though societies with some degree of religious practice are clearly better off than societies without – it’s not something I can join….).

          I certainly have my fair share of cognitive dissonance (like any human being) but it runs in different directions.

          Like

          1. “What is the church’s position on other forms of murder are the faithful pointed in different directions than putting murderers in prison…”

            The Church has always taught that abortion is sinful – murder if you will.

            It also teaches that individuals – female and male – who facilitate an abortion are unable to be in communion with the Church without true penitence and confession. A bedrock belief of the Church is that since God can forgive the worst of sins, we can and should always rely on His mercy.

            But Church law is different than state law – remember, the operative rule here is “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

            And so, how Church teachings and traditions concerning social issues like abortion should be reflected in state policy is often a matter of legitimate debate among the faithful. It is to be expected that not all Orthodox would agree with my personal interpretation of the matter we are discussing. I can totally live with that.

            In theory, Orthodox are opposed to the death penalty for the exact same reason that they are opposed to abortion. But interpretations differ among the Orthodox and some would be more reconciled to it in some circumstances than others might (like me!).

            https://stjohndc.org/en/orthodoxy-foundation/thou-shalt-not-kill-death-penalty

            Like

      3. The question of the distinction between murder and homicide is crucial here. All murder is homicide, but not all homicide is murder. In its essence, murder is unjust homicide. In one critical sense “murder” is a legal category. Motive is of critical importance here, as are the social effect and significance of the killing.

        Every society and community defines it legally in different ways. Most modern societies make critical distinctions between murder and manslaughter, for example.

        The justice of each society’s definition defines that society in relation to divine law. Any society that departs radically from the absolute will suffer profoundly and in absence of repentance ultimately collapse.

        That’s a philosophical, theological shorthand summary of the issue. Entire libraries have been written wrangling with this issue, as I bet you are aware.

        Many things that are immoral may not justify proscription by law. There are hierarchies of principles and values here that apply, that must be respected. Attempting to ban all drug use, porn or prostitution is not only impossible, it has many manifold negative social effects. This same logic applies to issues like abortion.

        All abortion is immoral and sinful. It is always an atrocity. Classifying it under our human law as criminal – that is to say categorically as legal murder – would be under our current cultural and societal circumstances very unwise..

        As Clarissa says here, under our present meta modern decadence and dissolution it would also be politically unwise, if not impossible. The haut bourgeoisie love themselves their abortions. They are willing to kill to fornicate, and if we tried to outright and universally ban it, they would try to kill us.

        I personally support jailing abortionists. If I were Solomon, I would execute them. But I am not Solomon, and this is not ancient Israel. The women – often very desperate and impoverished women – who resort to it – should be treated much more mercifully.

        Because Justice is Mercy, and Mercy is Justice. Word to the wise. Selah.

        Thomas Aquinas treats all of this in the Summa Theologica, Treatise on Law, Part I of Second Part, QQ. 90-108, and it is well worth reading and thinking about:

        Human law is laid down for a multitude, the majority of whom consists of men not perfect in virtue. And therefore not all the vices from which the virtuous abstain are prohibited by human law, but only those graver excesses from which it is possible for the majority of the multitude to abstain, and especially those excesses which are to the hurt of other men, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained, as murder, theft, and the like.

        Also,

        Law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be “possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.” Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

        Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

        […]

        The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Ps. 30:33): “He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood”; and (Mt. 9:17) that if “new wine,” i.e. precepts of a perfect life, “is put into old bottles,” i.e. into imperfect men, “the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,” i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still.

        Reply Obj. 3: The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law: while human law falls short of the eternal law. Now Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): “The law which is framed for the government of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things that are punished by Divine providence. Nor, if this law does not attempt to do everything, is this a reason why it should be blamed for what it does.” Wherefore, too, human law does not prohibit everything that is forbidden by the natural law.

        https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Treatise_on_Law#QUESTION_96:_OF_THE_POWER_OF_HUMAN_LAW

        Like

        1. “All abortion is immoral and sinful. It is always an atrocity.”

          All? So you approve of the way the way the Savita Halappanavar* case was handled?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

          There was also a similar case recently in Poland (a few actually but only one became famous).

          I agree that abortion is always.. unfortunate but sometimes, it’s the least awful option.

          *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

          Like

          1. “So you approve of the way the way the Savita Halappanavar case was handled?”

            So… is it to be guilt by association? Or simply dismissal via the straw man.

            Like

            1. “guilt by association?”

              No. It’s about consistency. If abortion is always an atrocity or murder then what about those cases where preserving the life of the fetus means the mother dies?

              Saying and repeating that abortion is murder or always an atrocity does not help in any number of real human contexts.
              There are contexts where, as unfortunate as it may be, abortion is the least awful option and rhetoric about murder doesn’t help anyone.

              ” the straw man”

              I don’t regard women dying because doctors won’t perform an abortion as a straw man argument. The choice between the fetus and mother sometimes has to be made (not frequently but it happens) and I’m far more interested in workable solutions that do as little harm as possible here on earth rather than immaterial arguments belonging to a faith that I don’t share.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. “No. It’s about consistency.”

                How is that different in any practical sense from guilt from association? My faith does not celebrate death and would not approve of a law which condemns the mother to death to preserve the life of the fetus.

                ” a faith that I don’t share”

                And here’s the straw man. Which faith told doctors to kill women rather than perform an abortion?

                Like

          2. Cliff. Come on, man. I’m disappointed in you. You are a smart guy. Hard cases make for bad law. You know this. If you legislate in reaction to extremity you quickly violate justice it will create chaos, and the law will fail.

            See how fewer than a few dozen annual unarmed victims of police shootings in a country of 330 million have been used as justification to defund police. Everywhere that is being done, more people are suffering. Mostly the very poor and politically disenfranchised people the pious hypocrites pushing that policy claim to advocate for.

            In the Savita Halappanavar case, the neo “liberal” fascist cognoscenti in charge of Ireland are lying manipulative hypocrites. Just as with COVID, all they ever do is spew psyops propaganda and distortion to manipulate and deceive.

            Any competent Catholic moral theologian will teach you the applicable principle of double effect that applies to that case, and provides an air tight ethical defense the doctors that treated Halappanavar, assuming of course that they were acting in competent good faith. Any action truly necessary to save the life of the mother that happens to accidentally result in the death of her child is not an abortion. It’s a necessary and unfortunate justified accidental homicide.

            https://www.hli.org/resources/principle-double-effect/

            Just because we have difficult situations – rape pregnancies, etc. does change the fact that millions of children are annually aborted worldwide for what amount to contraceptive reasons. Check out our national abortion according to racial demographic at the Guttamacher Institute, the statistics are very interesting. The Clinton Obama DNC truly cares about people of color, those stats clearly prove it.

            Personally, I am philosophical about all of this. The Canaanites and Carthaginians baked their firstborn infant sons in ovens as offerings to Moloch. They burnt their older children in cages. So did the druids. The Aztecs slaughtered their captives by the hundreds of thousands. We all know what happened to them. There’s a cathartic satisfaction in reading about Hitler and all those other nazi fanatics offing themselves in the final month of the Reich.

            Why should I apply a different ethical standard to my own people and culture? We whole heartedly deserve what we have coming, and I will prayerfully rejoice in our judgement. Deus vult.

            There’s an interesting thematic motif across many cultures of burning wicker and blood soaked altars, babies left abandoned on hillsides. Babies are often inconvenient.. Like old people. Who needs them, when you have other more important things to pay attention to?

            I thought it amusing how Ari Aster referenced the pre-Christian pagan rites of immolating virgins and executing the elderly in propitiation of their deities in his last film, Midsommar. Making the icky old people throw themselves off sacred cliffs is cool. It’s also very good for the environment. It’ll stop climate change dead in its tracks, and bring meaning and sacred harmony to the universe. I dig it.

            And King Paimon in Hereditary (https://gods-and-demons.fandom.com/wiki/Paimon) is pretty damn cool, too.. Just like Anya Taylor-Joy levitating around that bonfire with her coven at the end of the Witch was awesome.. Letting them butcher and eat her little brother to summon the demons was a very small price to pay for the power of levitation, amiright?

            Original sin, and the principle that sin redounds to the forth, even seventh generation may not seem fair to post modern NPC’s.. I mean, it’s not your fault that you’re part of a culture that has given itself over to the worship of Baphomet, right? What are you supposed to do, when your elite are burning sacrificial offerings to a giant idol of Moloch in the California Redwoods outside San Francisco every summer? Is that your fault?

            I get it, I even profoundly sympathize: Having latch key childhoods in broken hypergamous homes, followed by serial drug and alcohol abuse and promiscuity in adolescence into college, then landing in a corporate cubical with a loveless marriage and 1.5 snotty vapid kids and shitty Netflix to go home to every night may not seem just recompense for the sins of your great grandparents..

            I mean, who are Descartes Malthus, Ricardo, Rousseau, Bentham, DeSade, Comte, Marx, Nietzche, Sartre, Derrida, Marcuse, and all those other boring asshats their innumerable disciples made you read in stupid seminars to you? All that jazz about the transvaluation of all values.. You have good values. What the hell, you’re a nice guy. You should have good karma.

            It’s only a matter of time before Eric Schmidt, Grover Norquist and company demand some poor plebe – preferably a decent Christian cop like Sergeant Neil Howie – be encased in the Great Wicker Man at Burning Man and immolated to techno atonal DMT heightened cacophony. The poor bastard’s screams will add just that frisson of erotic excitement to garnish their endless inner dissonance. That cop’ll enjoy their performance art. He’ll truly appreciate there are no spectators at Burning Man.

            Just pray that they don’t happen to pick you for their oblation, Cliff. That would kinda suck. And if they happen to release a bio weaponized strain of small pox or anthrax into your subdivision, or immolate you while fire bombing your town like they did Tokyo and Dresden, just know it will all be for a very good cause. You may be judged a useless eater, an unnecessary appurtenance to their streamlined global economy in the Great Reset..

            Be recollected and serene; The Science® made miraculously incarnate in Malthus and Ehrlich’s faithful empirical acolyte Dr.Tony Fausti MD Phd (etc., etc.) may demand it.

            Be at peace, Cliff. Enjoy your soma. Someone needs to make Soylent Green.

            Like

    2. Ah, GSW, you know that even if you could trace back who clicked the thumbs-down button, they’d claim it was the fault of the cat, or the touchscreen. Anonymous dislikes are the retreat of cowards.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I always wonders about who downvotes my cutesy posts about Klara. Do they hate children on principle? Or have no sense of humor? Or want me to be a one-topic blogger? What?

        It’s a mystery.

        Like

          1. Just downvote from a different device where you are not logged in (if you are really motivated to do that). Or ask a cat to do it for you like methylethyl suggests, they are really good at downvoting, apparently. 😉

            Like

      2. “Anonymous dislikes…”

        Honestly, I didn’t mind at all their downvotes but it got me thinking that some further explanation of the position that I was expressing would be helpful, even educational, for readers.

        So thank you downvoters – if you think about it you may even find yourself (horror of horrors) in agreement with some of the positions of the Church!

        Liked by 2 people

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 )

Connecting to %s

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