On the topic of freedom of speech…and ‘scapegoating’

Many people think that it is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of free speech to prohibit someone from yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre – provided, that is, that there is no fire.

That little caveat – provided that there is no fire – is often forgotten by those who wold consider this to be a reasonable limitation of free speech.  This, indeed, is not surprising – failure to recognize real warnings of danger and simply treating unpopular statements equally, whether they are true or not, is symptomatic of the individuals who most loudly profess that this limitation on the freedom of speech is somehow ‘reasonable’.

According to these people, giving a warning of a real ad present peril (like, say, a fire in a crowded theatre) is worse than letting everyone sit complacently until they burn to death.

I must admit, there was a time when I was persuaded that if there indeed were no fire, then shouting a warning of it ought not happen.  OK, I still think that it ought not happen – but not because there are laws against it.

To explain my change of mind, I have to digress a little bit to some examples on utilitarian morality from philosophy.  Not that I am particularly versed in philosophy – my ideas are mostly self-reasoned, but a little education has made me widen the scope of my reasoning.

There is that classical moral dilema question:  if you see an uncontrollable train going down some tracks where it will hit six people, but there is a lever you can pull that will divert that train onto another set of tracks, where it will only kill one person, should you pull the lever?

Most ‘utilitarians’ will say that yes, you should, because one death is less tragic than 6 deaths.

I don’t think this is anywhere near as clear cut.

If the train stays on its original track, you (presuming the uncontrollable-ness of the train is not your fault to start off with) are not responsible for the deaths of those 6 people.

If, however, you do pull the lever, you will be the direct cause of the death of that 1 person.

People are not cogs, interchangeable for each other.  We are individuals.  And, if you pull that lever, you will indeed be guilty of causing the death of that individual.  What is more, since you have had time to consider it, that constitutes premeditation.  You would therefore be commiting murder.

This means that the question itself is improperly formulated.

Rather, it ought to ask if you could pull that lever and save the 6 people – but in the process murder 1 person, with all the legal consequences this carries, should you still pull that lever?

Because that is the real question:  is saving the lives of 6 people worth murdering someone – and, perhaps, spending the rest of your life in prison as a result!  After all, real actions have real consequences…

Similarly, the person who shouts ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theatre has not actually killed anyone.

It is the people who act before checking whether their actions are based on fact or not, and those who put their lives above others by trampling them to death to save themselves, who are guilty of, well, the trampling.  Not the person who – rightly or wrongly – shouts ‘Fire!’

It is always the tramplers who are the ones guilty of the trampling.

But, because there are many of them, and  our moral compass has for too long been corrupted by the profoundly immoral Judeo-Christian doctrine of ‘scapegoating’,  of ‘vicarious redemption’, that we are willing to put the blame of the many ‘tramplers’ onto the one who may not, indeed,  have done any ‘trampling’ at all!

It is precisely this predisposition we have of shifting the blame for the actions of the individuals who actually carry them out  onto a scapegoat who is said to have ’caused’ their bad or immoral behaviour that is going to be the downfall of our society!

It is precisely this scapegoating which is at the heart of political correctness and the erosion of the freedoms which we ought to be able to exercise unfettered.

How have we improved our lot if we have liberated ourselves from Christian religious dogmas, if we permit its worst shackles to still imprison our morality, albeit under the new name of ‘political correctnes’?

So, now, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point:

 

21 Responses to “On the topic of freedom of speech…and ‘scapegoating’”

  1. derek Says:

    I have some agreements and some disagreements with your post.

    As for yelling FIRE in the movie theatre, I think it should be entirely up to the owners of the property. If they feel arresting someone for faking a fire is draconian and do not want it, then there shouldn’t be an arrest. If the make it explicitly clear that they don’t want that behavior on their private property, and that person is acting against the will of the property owner (on the property), then I would not object to legal consequences.

    As for the train level dilemma (directly kill one person or allow a greater number of people to die). I did cite an example like this when I was arguing on why the filmmakers have have no burden of responsibility for the actions of infuriated terrorists, but I believe there are subtle (though significant) differences in these examples.

    But, I disagree with BOTH the utilitarian and the deontological arguments.

    I disagree with deontology because universal morals don’t exist; only individual moral perspectives. Universal morality is a manmade construct to alleviate the guilt of the difficult dilemmas we have to make in life everyday. Avoiding directly killing the one person doesn’t make you any better than the person who directly killed the other person in the grand scheme of things.

    On the utilitarian side, you are right that not every individual is the same. And people are not necessarily equal in value. People are valueless. By that I mean, it is subjective. I may feel that the one person that I could save is more valuable than the six people in the other cart combined, and I wouldn’t be wrong since there is no right answer, sad to say.

    Myself, assuming I cared about that one person, I would let the six other people die and be labeled as someone who indirectly killed 6 people. If I cared about the six people more, I would be a murderer directly responsible. I’m aware of the logical consequences, that can be a justification for anarchy and violent crimes. Thankfully, it’s in our self interests most of the time, for whatever reason, to not completely disregard other people.

    I think both sides have merit. Not because either are right, but because neither are acceptable moral systems, so it’s a tie. Also because the values are both dynamic and subjective.

    By the way, we haven’t talked in a while. Want to skype this week?

    Xanthippa says:

    Yes, let’s!

    As for the argument – I know I was not clear in the formulation. What I was trying to say is that you have to consider not just the 6 lives vs the 1 life, but also premeditation and also the consequences to yourself of both, weather action or non-action.

    For example, if the train were going to hit 1 person I had a vested interest in (child, grandchild, etc.) and I could pull the lever to kill 6 others, I just might – even if I knew perfectly well it would be a capital crime to do so. Because I might consider the price worth it – I truly and honestly cannot know how I would actually behave in such a situation unless truly placed into it.

    It just really bothers me that most of the philosophy examples do not take into account the price that would have to be paid by the actor in the aftermath – as if there were no real-life consequences to the actions.

    The legal system under which you operate might also be a significant influence….

    It just seems to me that these days, so many people are saying the utilitarian choice is the only correct one without thinking it through all the way….it makes me angry, and a little frightened because the utilitarian model of thinking strips away all individuality and all individual rights.

    And that is all I was saying…

    • CodeSlinger Says:

      Derek:

      To reduce morality to a matter of individual perspective is to trivialize it to the point of complete worthlessness.

      A universal morality follows fairly directly from the proposition that every person is born with inalienable rights.

      It is a (moral) crime for anyone to violate the rights of another, and the severity of the crime is proportional to the harm caused thereby. Anything that does not violate another person’s rights is not a crime, and a crime which causes no harm is not a crime.

      On that foundation, a system of morality is easily built up, and this system is universal in that it does not depend on anyone’s perspective or culture.

      There are, of course, many things that are often taken to be matters of morality, about which the universal morality I just sketched will have nothing to say. I would argue that such things are matters of custom, and not matters of morality at all.

      Indeed, I would argue that, since the universal morality is derived from human nature by reason tempered with compassion, any custom which contradicts such morality is an immoral custom.

      And this, in turn, falsifies the idea that all cultures have equal moral value. A culture has moral value to the degree that it is consistent with universal morality.

      Further, since any person may be valued differently by different people, a universal morality must be invariant under the symmetry operation of permuting the individuals in any given situation. The morality is then dependent only on the situation, and not on which person plays which role in the situation.

      Thus, to be universal, morality must treat people as being equal — even though, from the perspective of any given individual, they may not be.

      So you see, universal morality defined in this way easily resolves the paradoxes and ambiguities which are foisted upon us by politically correct moral relativism, and which hollow out our culture and undermine its foundations.

      Indeed, such a morality is the only thing that can restore the health and vitality of our culture.

      • derek s Says:

        Thanks for your thoughtful response, Code.

        Universal morality is well deduced from your proposition. How your proposition is induced, I don’t know.

        The problem with deontological moral systems is that ALL morals break at some point, when they are pushed too hard. Life and “morality” are not viable without making contradictions. Paradoxes eventually have to be resolved, whichever way the morals break when pushed.

        And, I am not proposing cultural relativism at all, actually. Cultural relativism is the belief that all moral systems have an equal set
        value, when my belief is that all moral systems are valueless, apples and oranges, to the point where they can neither be validated or compared.

        I believe you are suggesting that morals are naturally innate, and our innate values of compassion are what your moral standards are. However, not all people have the same exact values, even if most have certain values in common. To suggest innate values within a human being are the values universally, then as a corollary, there are plenty of contradictions, therefore not making it a compresent moral system. Sure, you can go by what the majority of people accept as natural morals and then just call other peoples morals anomalies (like if someone were to have a third arm), but what decides how many standard deviations are acceptable to count for what makes this universal moral system.

        Sure we may personally believe one moral system is better than another, in a personal sense. But what gives the authority to a moral system otherwise?

  2. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    The dilemma of the train and the switch isn’t as simple as you make it out to be.

    Being in a position to pull that lever thrusts an obligation on you, whether you want it or not. You must choose whether six people will die, or whether one person will die.

    You can choose one option by pulling the lever, and you can choose the other option by not pulling the lever. But what you cannot do is avoid making the choice.

    And yes, either way you choose, you are equally culpable.

    No matter which way you choose, you will be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

    The only difference is, in one case you will be guilty of six counts, while in the other you will only be guilty of one.

    All other things being equal, the latter is clearly preferable (however, all other things are seldom equal, particularly if some or all of the people who might die are known to you).

    This is very different from the case of the person who falsely yells “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Unless that person is an utter imbecile, he will know that the overwhelmingly likely outcome is wholesale panic, and that people will almost certainly get trampled as a result.

    Thus, the yeller is definitely guilty of wilfully endangering people by causing a panic, even though he is not guilty of trampling anyone.

    Now, if there really is a fire, then the yeller still puts people at risk of being trampled, but by remaining silent he puts them at risk of being burned to death, so he must choose between these two risks. This is comparable, though not exactly equivalent, to the dilemma of the train and the switch.

    In none of these situations is there a scapegoat. They are just not comparable to the case of a person who goes out and commits murder because someone else insulted his dog — or his prophet.

    In this situation, the mayhem is not an unavoidable consequence of the circumstances. It is committed by someone who consciously and deliberately chooses that this is how he will respond the someone else’s harmless speech.

    And that is why holding the insulter of the dog — or the prophet — responsible for the murder committed by someone else is a clear instance of scapegoating. It amounts to a false accusation of murder, which is as bad as murder itself.

    Xanthippa says:

    I’m going to have to think about this…

  3. CodeSlinger Says:

    Derek:

    In matters of morality, you cannot escape contradiction. Contradiction is the essence of the human condition. This is the root of what Pascal referred to as “la grandeur et la misère de l’homme,” the (simultaneous) greatness and wretchedness of Man.

    This is why, unlike geometry, we can’t just reduce morality to a set of axioms, from which we can deduce the correct moral course of action in every possible situation. Morality is inherently fraught with contradictions, which can only be resolved with compassion. And then only on a case-by-case basis.

    Neither can we treat morality as solely a matter of individual conscience, because then there would be no way to arbitrate moral disputes between individuals, and we would be reduced, de facto, to the principle that might makes right. The strong would enforce their morality upon the weak, and there would be no rightful basis on which to prevent them from doing so.

    For the same reason, we cannot base morality on consensus. No matter how many people could be convinced to vote otherwise, theft, murder and pedophilia would still be wrong.

    It is the examination of why this is so that brings us face to face with the objective existence of inalienable individual rights. And it is precisely this concept that gives authority to a moral system.

    Without it, there is no basis upon which anyone could say that anyone else ever acts morally or immorally, so you are left with no choice but to conclude that morals are relative (which, to some small degree, they are, but in the large, they are not) or that might makes right (which, to some small degree, it does, but in the large, it does not).

    When I say that morality is innate, I mean not only to humans, not only to primates, but to all (sufficiently complex) mammals. Otherwise, it would be impossible to win the trust of any animal. It is possible for a man to befriend (befriend, not domesticate) a dog, or a horse, or a bear, or a lion because the man and the animal can each feel that the other treats them right.

    So, if you want a firm basis for a universal morality (at least, one that holds everywhere, for everyone), look to the concept of inalienable individual rights and to the compassion that allows a man and an animal to become friends.

    Xanthippa says:

    Wow!

    A lot of food for thought there – but I am most in agreement with your last paragraqph!

  4. derek s Says:

    What is innate to specific species is not universal, as isolate those specific species (man, animal, etc) and the universe and the universe is left with no morality.

    People are, innately, both “good” and “bad” (whatever we take those words to mean). We cannot contemplate that there is a fixed moral system based on common compassion without considering the deviants and anomalies. If humans were innately compassionate (and nothing otherwise), there would be no pedophilia or murder to oppose.

    Universal morality was based on the belief of some kind of authority enforcing that kind of morality, a deity. As it is apparent that an anthropomorphic deity is pure fiction, there is nothing that commands universality of morals at all.

  5. CodeSlinger Says:

    Derek:

    Come on now, it’s silly to pretend that the world “universal” in the context of the phrase “universal morality” means “everywhere in the universe.” It’s obvious that it can only mean “everywhere in the world.”

    My whole argument is that no divine authority is required to validate universal morality, because it can be derived from human nature by reason tempered with compassion.

    Not only can you lose the deity without impacting the validity of universal morality, but it is sufficiently simple and sufficiently universal that even a dog can understand it.

    • derek s Says:

      Human nature is more than reason tempered with compassion. Part of human nature is the temptation to do things which we consider “bad”, yet you do not include those things within your universal deontology.

      With the statement that human morality is based on what we innately share in our nature.
      1. We all don’t share the same values. Most of us do, but you’ve yet to account for the differences.
      2. You only include bits and peices of human nature that you like, while excluding parts of human nature that you personally do not like. Yet you command those tenets to be objective and authoritative.

      Xanthippa says:

      I am not going to suggest anything absolute, but I do think that we can consider some things to be ‘universal morals’ and to identify these, we need to extend our observations past humans and include commonalities in morals among most social mammals – perhaps even social birds.

      • derek s Says:

        A moral system is a system. A system is a function of multiple interacting parts. A system cannot be judged as a whole unless all of the parts are known. To suggest the existence of universal morals based on shared values of all sentient living things, you limit the extent (and therefore the applicability) of the system.

        The idea that some of our actions can be judged “good” or “bad” and that others are simply just subjective (or remained to be seen as good or bad) seems sound until we examine the implications of these good/bad actions and lead into questions in that unknown area of morality.

        Aside from animals being harder to observe in that sense, there are similarities to account for, as well as differences, which as I argued before.

        But I’ll be more blunt here. We as humans have many natural innate instincts. Yes, there are qualities such as compassion, love, honor, trust, and altruism (at least in a figurative sense). But we also have qualities instilled in us such as greed, violence, and the need to assert ourselves above others. Not all of us, but many of us.

        Of course I can’t use words to describe how much I am against violence toward other people, but what makes violence any less legitimate of a shared human quality than compassion? Other than butchering what it means to be a human by cherrypicking the traits you like and winnowing away the traits you dont.

        Deontology is the religion of the secular.

  6. CodeSlinger Says:

    Derek:

    I don’t claim that human nature can be reduced to reason tempered with compassion. I claim that a system of moral principles, valid for everyone, can be derived from human nature by the use of reason tempered with compassion.

    I also claim that this morality, at least in its rudiments, is also recognized by the social mammals (and social birds, too — good call, Xanthippa). And therefore it is innate to a class of creatures which is broader than just homo sapiens.

    If you look around the world, the core tenets of all the main moral systems are pretty much in agreement with each other, and have been for thousands of years. Where they differ, they differ mostly in details.

    These details stem from two main sources. First, from customs which have evolved locally due to the unique challenges and affordances presented by the local environment, overlaid on the more-or-less random idiosyncrasies of isolated groups. Second, from the perfidy of corrupt religious leaders who, like the Pharisees, twist and contort the letter of the law until it appears to allow, or even require, their favourite vices, while condemning even the virtues of their enemies.

    Sadly, matters of custom are routinely conflated with matters of morality, and this has created a great deal of persecution and intercultural hatred throughout human history.

    Fortunately, it is quite easy to tell the difference between the two: matters of morality are precisely those which are constant over time and across cultures, or even across species, while matters of custom are those which are not.

    For example, ancient Aztecs and modern Westerners would agree that murder is wrong, they would agree that killing enemy combatants in wartime is not murder and neither is killing attackers in self-defence. But they would differ on matter of human sacrifice.

    Interestingly, as cultures advance to higher levels of civilization, they always discard their rationalizations of human sacrifice and come to recognize it as wrong. So even in this case we can see a universal moral principle in operation.

    I don’t command such moral principles to be universal, I observe them to be so.

  7. CodeSlinger Says:

    Derek:

    Of course any moral system, even a universal one, is necessarily limited in extent, and therefore in applicability: it applies only to matters of morality. See my previous post about how to define matters of morality.

    Warning: the idea that no actions can be judged as good or bad is the pinnacle of moral bankruptcy. The whole purpose of morality is to guide us in judging good and bad. Immeasurable evil results when this moral compass is rejected or perverted.

    You are exactly right in claiming that “deontology is the religion of the secular.” This is because religion has always served an indispensable moral purpose in human culture. This is true despite the disingenuous machinations of those who have twisted religion into a power structure for oppression of the masses.

    Therefore, those who outgrow the need to understand the world in terms of the will of God must replace the moral function of religion with something. And that something is deontology — the idea that the morality of behaviour is defined by the proper balance of duties and rights, and that these duties and rights are not decreed by arbitrary fiat of man or God, but are derived from the essential nature of the moral actors themselves.

    The word comes from the Greek deon, meaning obligation or necessity. While most writers on the subject focus unduly on the aspect of obligation or duty, it is critical to balance that with the realization that the inalienable individual rights are precisely those which are necessary to a free existence.

    • xanthippa Says:

      Obviously, both you, CodeSlinger and Derek are much more read on these matters than I am – I have only derived things through observation and thinking about it, so, obviously, I don’t know the names of the ideas or who proposed them when. I just know what makes sense to my peasant brain!

      (OK – that expression – ‘makes sense to my peasant brain’ – is a literal translation of an expression and sounds a bit off in English, so, please, don’t take it literally and look for the sentiment behind it…)

      Sure, ‘univeral morality’ cannot apply to every possible situation or minutiae of instances. There is no set of ‘cast in stone’ rules that one can look up somewhere that tells us what is moral and what is not.

      However, there are some basics that can be derived from the observation evolutionary social group dynamics: and these apply to human as well as other social animal groups.

      They are not ‘detailed’ – like, ‘If your sheep falls into a hole on a Sabbath and you pull it out, you must be stoned to death!’

      Rather, they are ‘unwritten rules’ that predominate within social groups.

      Certainly, there will be individuals who will not follow these rules – and there are also ‘unwritten rules’ for how to deal with them. Typically, these would either be killed by the group – collectively (as crows and wolves do to individuals who are the ‘psychopaths’ in their societies) – or they will be excommunicated by the group, sentenced to either lonely existence or early death. This is the application of the unwritten rule of reciprocity: if you harm the social unit, the social unit will withdraw its support of you/harm you.

      These ‘basic’ ‘universal rules’ are – in their roughest form:

      1. Care for the young/don’t harm the young, especially of your own genetic line or close relatives

      2. Don’t do undue violence to the members of your group (this excludes ritualistic or dominance battles, which tend not to be fatal so the ‘undue’ bit kicks in)

      3. Reciprocate

      That is it, for the roughest of the basics.

      The rest can, I suspect, be derived from this.

      Thoughts, CodeSlinger?

      • derek s Says:

        Xan, excommunicating the deviants sounds glibly reasonable. However, these same principles can easily be used to justify mass religion (let’s excommunicate the infidels – they are psychopaths) and big government (too many examples to mention). And while these two examples are clearly reasonable to oppose, by opposing these, it troubles your argument.

        Mass religion and a need to be excessively governed are 4 and 5, no more or less than caring for young / no violence / reciprocation are 1 / 2 / 3.

        And Code makes the distinction between timeless culture and temporary customs, however human history is still young (and we have no idea what humanity will be like in thousands of realistically).

        As of now, both mass religion and oppressive government are part of innate human nature. If they weren’t, would they exist. Yet, you are both reluctant to add those as universal principles. Because both of your universal principles are biased clearly to just the ones you like, whilst denying the ones that you don’t like.

        The point is excommunication doesn’t only happen toward things that we both personally feel are wrong such as murder and rape. People get excommunicated for free speech. In a grand sense of universal morality, it is a frightening source if there is any universal authority of who is insane/psychopathic/deviant. It’s majority rule at heart – guised as morality.

        I agree that there are checks and balances within human nature that regulate these bad things, but these are just indicative of individuals pursuing their own interests (convenient for others or not) and what the brain programs them to do. This makes human behavior dynamic and without grander meaning.

      • xanthippa Says:

        Ah, but that is where ‘reciprocity’ comes in.

        You are forgetting that third, but very important principle.

        It is from this that ‘inalienable human rights’ are derived.

        OK – it takes a few steps, but it’s there.

        And because it takes a few steps, the more primitive a society is, the less the reciprocity principle is applied to the protection of these inalienable human rights.

    • Jesminpatel Says:

      I’m not quite sure how to say this; you made it extlemery easy for me!

  8. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Yes, you and I are pretty much on the same page about this, although you focus more on the role of the group (the tribe, the pack…) in enforcing moral behaviour, whereas I was more concerned with the remarkable constancy of the content of the moral code across cultures and even species, which can be explained by the observation that this content is a consequence of what kind of creatures we are.

    Let me tell you an illustrative story.

    I once had a blue and gold macaw, whom I never caged. Instead, I had a portable perch for him, complete with stainless steel food and water bowls, and it was my habit to bring him and his perch into whatever room I was spending time in. In particular, I always brought him into the bedroom at bed time so he would have some company during the night.

    One night I forgot him in the kitchen. The next morning I got up, went into the kitchen and, seeing him sitting there all alone, the first thing I did was go over and extended my hand to him. Well, he hopped onto my wrist, walked right up my arm, and sat on my shoulder.

    He then pinched my ear with his beak and said, “bad!” Using a beak which can easily snip the end of your finger right off, he applied just enough pressure to make his point.

    I promptly apologized to the little guy, he accepted my apology, and that was the end of that.

    The point of the story is that, despite belonging to dramatically different species, not only did we both agree that neglecting his feelings was thoughtless and inconsiderate of me, but we even agreed on how each of us could or should appropriately behave under the circumstances.

    Granted, I articulated my conduct as “inconsiderate,” and his concept of it probably didn’t extend much beyond “bad,” but when you blur out the additional detail provided by my bigger brain, our understanding of the moral content of the situation was virtually identical.

    Xanthippa says:

    Yes, Codeslinger, I quite agree.

    I would go so far as to agree with your reasoning – the source, and all…

    The reason I focused on the group enforcing these was not because I consider them ‘the source’, but because I was answering Derek’s concern about those individuals – who do occur – who are born psychopaths…

  9. CodeSlinger Says:

    Derek:

    You give examples of the kind of Pharisaic twisting of the letter of the law, which I called corrupting influences, and you treat them as though they were inherent in the concept of universal morality.

    No, they are not. They are corrupting influences.

    You correctly observe that big religion and big government provide particularly egregious examples of how bad things can get when institutions intended to promulgate and enforce morality are corrupted.

    But it does not follow that religion and government are inherently bad things. On the contrary, they serve essential functions in society, and this is precisely why they are so easily abused for purposes of oppression and exploitation when they become corrupted. Things that people can easily ignore or do without are not very effective means of controlling them.

    What really puzzles me about your stance, though, is that you reject the idea that morality is handed down to us by God, and you also reject the idea that morality is derived from our essential nature.

    So just where do you think morality comes from?

  10. Derek S Says:

    Code: I do believe that “morality” is in our nature, however, these “morals” are dynamic, vary to the individual, and are far from universal.

    You taking everything integral to being a human being and categorize them, some as moral and deviations to what you personally believe as corrupt, is a complete butchery of what it means to be a human being.

    Your interpretation of deontology, one of the most destructive schools of thought to ever come to philosophy, is wishful at best and kin to collectivism at worst.

  11. CodeSlinger Says:

    Derek:

    Morality is dynamic varies from one individual to the next?

    Meaning that you can do whatever you want and simply declare it good?

    Meaning that you can do away with the concepts of good and evil and replace them with the detestable appropriate and inappropriate?

    Meaning that no man can hold you morally accountable for your actions, no matter what you do?

    What, exactly, does it mean for morality to be dynamic and to vary with the individual?

  12. Derek S Says:

    If you have no deduced all of that from all of my previous posts, then I see no point in continuing this conversation.


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

%d bloggers like this: