Dave’s Strange and Unusual World

April 21, 2008

Movie Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Filed under: Knee-Slappingly Funny,Seriously Serious Stuff — dangrdave @ 3:11 pm

Well, as I mentioned in my last post, Amber and I went this past weekend to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In order to review this movie, I will use an advanced movie-rating system that I have developed using mathematical models and probability distributions; I have named this model the ‘Yamamoto-Yakatori Severed-Head Index™.’

More than anything else, I think that Expelled is primarily a message about the consequences of the suppression of free ideas. This debate is framed in terms of Intelligent Design versus Evolution; however, the concept of one “popular,” “correct” idea versus a traditional idea, I believe, can be applied to many different debates in America. One could, in my opinion, merely substitute the terms “I.D.” and “Evolution” with any two sides of a “hot-button” issue in our culture today (for example, Pro-Global Warming Thinkers versus Anti-Global Warming Thinkers).

Expelled presents us with the picture of a wall between the ideas of evolutionists (or, as Bill O’Reilly might term them, Secular Progressives) and the ideas of those who believe in the idea of an intelligent design and a grand purpose to creation and the order of our universe and our world. Stein likens this walling off of ideas to the Berlin Wall, which was the greatest symbol of the divide between Communism and Democracy and which gave us the opportunity to hear an American president, in German, call himself a doughnut. Ben Stein, in the style of Ronald Regan, calls out throughout this movie for the wall to be torn down.

Expelled shows us how Darwinist evolution was fundamental to Adolf Hitler’s ideology, which ultimately led the Nazis to consider themselves a superior race of people. “If natural selection and evolution are destined to occur and if we are just a product of chance as opposed to a God-inspired creature,” thought the Nazis, “then is it really wrong to speed along that process through such activities as ethnic cleansing and selective breeding?” The killing of an inferior class of people, the disabled, and the unwanted can thusly be justified in order to help propagate a “superior” race and to speed up the process of “natural selection.”

We also come to see how much atheism plays a part in this ideological debate and how it is so much easier to understand how evolutionist thought shaped the ideas that inspired genocide, eugenics and abortion when God is removed from the equation. The evolutionists in Expelled mock Christianity as being a farce and a fantasy and one gentleman goes so far as to call Christians ignorant and insane. It is shown how one of the fundamental goals of evolutionist thought, along with much of the Secular Progressive agenda, is to do away completely with religion. In the absence of religion, the evolutionists claim, true science can bloom.

Expelled encourages the viewer to think for himself and to realize there is a bias toward secularism that has invaded the media, the classrooms of our schools and our universities. It is up to each of us to think for ourselves and to question the prevailing consensus on many fronts. Without voices of truth “crying out in the wilderness,” national secular groupthink can lead to terrible consequences. Ordinary people, like Germans in the 1940s, in the absence of true academic debate and religious freedom, can find themselves living in a world that they never could have imagined. It is always best to think for yourself and to maintain your convictions and beliefs, whatever be the popular consensus.

My rating for this movie, according to the “Yamamoto-Yakatori Severed-Head Index™:” Excellent (5 Yamamoto-Yakatori Severed “Darwin” Heads – the highest rating possible).



  1. […] went on a website here to read a review about it. How sick am I, of hearing Christians ***** and moan about non-religious […]

    *From Dave: Don’t be a turkey; no fowl language!

    Pingback by “Expelled” « Ienjoypi’s Weblog — April 21, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

  2. […] Dave’s Strange and Unusual World wrote an interesting post today on Movie Review of Expelled: No Intelligence AllowedHere’s a quick excerpt … issue in our culture today (for example, Pro-Global Warming Thinkers versus Anti-Global Warming Thinkers)…. […]

    Pingback by Global Warming » Movie Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed — April 21, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

  3. Wow. Evolution is wrong because it caused the Holocaust?! Religious nuts have sunk to a new, disgusting low.

    “Expelled encourages the viewer to think for himself and to realize there is a bias toward secularism that has invaded the media, the classrooms of our schools and our universities.”

    Thanks for pointing out one of the biggest problems with Christians. They encourage us to think for ourselves, just so long as we come to the “right” conclusion. You can’t tell me think for myself, then in the same sentence tell me what I’m supposed to conclude from that. The media, schools, universities and anything else that caters to the public at large BETTER be secular. The purpose of those things is not to convince someone to be religious, but to educate them on secular things. Let secular institutions focus on secular things. If someone wants to be religious or seeks information on religion there are plenty of churches (about 1 every 10 feet down here) that can handle that.

    As for evolution, I’ll take scientific facts from real, live people over a theory from a higher power that no one has ever seen or spoken to. To blatantly ignore science just shows the ignorance that Christians are known for.

    Comment by Thomas — April 21, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

  4. Wow. Evolution is wrong because it caused the Holocaust?! Religious nuts have sunk to a new, disgusting low.

    Essentially Nature based paganism caused the Holocaust and the Darwinian creation myth is generally linked to modern forms of Nature based religions.

    For example, a historian’s summary of Nazi philosophy is essentially a summary of philosophic naturalism:

    The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad…
    If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance.(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
    Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
    By Max Weinreich
    (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7) (Emphasis added)

    Darwinism is and was linked to a type of philosophical interpretation more than any scientific observations, that’s why the Nazis could say that their political philosophy was linked to Darwinian reasoning but not something scientific and therefore more philosophically and morally neutral like Newtonian reasoning:

    Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin…(Ib. :33)

    Biology is changed to “biological thinking” in Nazism and Naturalism:

    “And they were all doctors like me, who tried to think biologically, biology as the foundation of medical thought. . . . We didn’t want politics—we were critical of politics—but [concerned} with the way human beings really are—not just an idea or philosophy.”
    National Socialism as Applied Biology
    The nation would now be run according to what Johann S. and his cohorts considered biological truth, “the way human beings really are.” That is why he had a genuine “eureka” experience—a sense of “That’s exactly it!”—when he heard Rudolf Hess declare National Socialism to be “nothing but applied biology” (see page 31). Dr. S. felt himself merged with not only Hess (he told me, with some excitement, “I was standing no more than ten meters from him at the time!”) but with the Führer himself… S. quickly joined the Party and devoted himself to the realization of that biological claim.
    He pointed out proudly that these early SA doctors formed the nucleus of the National Socialist German Physicians’ League (Nationalsozialistischer DeutscherArztebund), the doctors who, as he put it, “were the first intellectuals to have complete confidence . . . in National Socialism to march in the streets”—in effect, to put their bodies on the line. (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
    By Robert Jay Lifton :129)

    Those with the Darwinian urge to merge always seem to come to the same conclusions. PZ Myers fantasizes about Darwinists becoming more militant, political and willing to “put their bodies on the line.” As he put it: I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don’t care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.”
    -–PZ Myers/Paul Myers

    Comment by mynym — April 21, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

  5. As for evolution, I’ll take scientific facts from real, live people over a theory from a higher power that no one has ever seen or spoken to.

    You can pretend that the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinism is the equivalent of empirical evidence but it isn’t. For the most part it doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory, let alone a “fact.” As Berlinksi points out in the film it’s typically not specified enough to be falsifiable based on the evidence in the first place. You can show that he may be wrong by answering a few simple questions though. Where has the theory of natural selection been specified/encoded in the language of mathematics and used to predict a trajectory of adaptation in a group of organisms which was then verified empirically?

    To blatantly ignore science just shows the ignorance that Christians are known for.

    Those who believe in the Darwinian creation myth have always tended to know that Christians are ignorant and so on. For example:

    The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populance as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations.(The German Churches Under Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue
    By Ernst Helmreich
    (Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)

    Given the grand myth of Progress woven into the Darwinian creation myth it is little wonder that ignorant and stupid people have a history of coming to such conclusions. Apparently they believe that merely imagining things about the past is the equivalent of empirical or historical evidence, naturally. Given their grand mythologies of Nature based Progress they need not look for actual historical or empirical evidence. In the end it seems that they define “science” by philosophic naturalism instead of empirical evidence.

    Comment by mynym — April 21, 2008 @ 6:23 pm

  6. 1. How many scientists did they quote giving Christianity a bad name? Yet, roughly half of the scientific community believes in God in one fashion or other – I’ll wager the movie didn’t bring up that point.

    2. Darwinist evolution was NOT fundamental to Adolph Hitler’s philosophies! Hitler looked to eugenics, not natural selection, for a basis for his twisted philosophies – and why am I not surprised no one knows either this, or the difference between them?

    4 Eugenics was a pseudoscience ridiculed by much of the scientific community at that time, just as intelligent design is today – oh, but let’s not go off on any wild tangents concerning “suppression of ideas”!

    5. Good science does not add to the knowledge base by comparing one opinion against another and choosing the more (or less) “popular” one. Good, valuable research does not happen by consensus or by popular vote. An idea being unpopular does not mean it is, or is not, correct. Science is supposed to judge an idea’s merits by observation, evidence and testing – not by opinion polls.

    4. In one sense, the Progressive Secularists happen to be right. While I do not truck with the idea of eliminating religious belief, religious factions have attempted to stifle scientific thought since long before Galileo. Every time the ideas presented by researchers conflicted with the Catholic church’s understanding of the Bible and the universe, the information would be suppressed. There is evidence to support many other religious in the world have done the same thing over time. In today’s world, it’s no longer the Catholic church, but fundamentalists from differing faiths around the globe, seeking to send us into a new Dark Age.

    The best science is conducted in environments free from bias. Religious fundamentalism teaches that a sacred text already has the answers, and whatever comes from elsewhere cannot be true. If your mind is already made up as to how life began or how the cosmos was created, you are already biased, and therefore your research should be suspect. It is the antithesis of having an open mind.

    I do not support the elimination of religion – but I do support keeping specific religious doctrine, especially fundamentalist doctrine, out of scientific endeavor. It has no more place in science than chemistry does in the philosophy department.

    Comment by Ghosty — April 21, 2008 @ 7:01 pm

  7. @ Thomas. Without sounding like a conspiracy nut, there really is a secular progressive movement underway that is trying to change the direction of this country. And, I don’t “blatantly ignore science;” you can’t prove that evolution (in the sense of one species over time turning into another species) is a fact and I definitely can’t prove that creation is a fact. They both take faith. However, in my opinion, it takes a lot more faith, or faith misplaced, to believe in evolution over a creative God…but then again I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. To be sure, I believe that science is a very good thing and the world is a better place because of science. God gave us brains and the ability to learn and discover, just as the wise men who sought out Jesus knew and just as the framers of our constitution knew.

    Comment by dangrdave — April 21, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

  8. Darwinist evolution was NOT fundamental to Adolph Hitler’s philosophies!

    Mein Kampf is “my struggle,” as in the struggle for life which Darwin argued was prevalent and so on. Of course a struggle for life based on Malthusian principles actually isn’t prevalent in the case of man but empirical facts never stopped Darwin from advancing his way of imagining things.

    Hitler looked to eugenics, not natural selection, for a basis for his twisted philosophies – and why am I not surprised no one knows either this, or the difference between them?

    Natural selection is generally defined by the notion that the fit will breed more and those that are unfit will die out before breeding and supposedly this process leads to Progress as we know it. Of course it hasn’t been observed to lead to much progress and in the case of man it is falsified by empirical evidence but such things never seem to limit the imaginations of biologists.

    Eugenics was a pseudoscience ridiculed by much of the scientific community at that time…

    Darwinism is a similar form of pseudo-science which is propped up by consensus more than logic and empirical evidence.

    If eugenics was ridiculed then it’s not apparent how this happened:

    [The] bill [was] to cover only “patients” at any state custodial institution who “would be likely, if released without sterilization, to procreate a child, or children, who would have a tendency to serious physical, mental, or nervous disease or deficiency.” Patients would be sterilized upon the recommendation of their institution’s super intendant, subject to the approval of a three-member State Board of Eugenics. […]
    The amended bill was overshadowed during the session by other progressive reforms…
    Nevertheless, the General Assembly did not overlook the bill. Backed by the chairman of the state medical board and the physician’s lobby, the measure generated little debate as it passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 117 to 29.
    One of the few negative floor comments came from an Atlanta law maker who protested against “trying legislation on something that ought to be left to God to take care of.”
    [The governor] surprisingly vetoed the sterilization bill. His only public explanation for this action came in a light-hearted remark to Adjutant General Lindley W. Camp while signing the veto. “They made no provision in here to except the governor and the adjutant general,” Talmadge observed. “Lindley, you and I might go crazy some day and we don’t want them working on us.”
    Predictable reaction greeted this veto. The Augusta Chronicle editorialized:
    ‘We are sorry that Governor Talmadge has struck a blow at progress, at social security for the future and in favor of a continuation of such terrible conditions that will mean more and more insane, more and more feeble-minded, with crimi nals augmented and hospitals filled to capacity.’
    Another leading progressive newspaper agreed.
    “The scientific reasons for sterilization are so well established and so sound that the governor is flying in the face of accepted practice in vetoing the bill,” the Columbus Enquirer wrote. The absence of such a law may cause the parents and relatives of feeble-minded persons from other states to fly to Georgia, because most other states now have sterilization laws or are wisely preparing to pass them.'(“In The Finest, Most Womanly Way:” Women
    in The Southern Eugenics Movement by Edward J. Larson
    The American Journal of Legal History,
    Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995) :141-144)

    Note that journalists are often easily taken in by the forms of pseudo-science promoted by charlatans.

    ….just as intelligent design is today – oh, but let’s not go off on any wild tangents concerning “suppression of ideas”!

    That’s incorrect. Eugenicists took the same attitude towards intelligent agency that Darwinists do because they adhere to the same crude forms of biologically based “reasoning.” Such people always assume their own sentience and intelligent agency as a given but deny that of others, typically using ignorant ideas about natural selection to deny others the freedom of intelligent selection. Note that despite their selective use of language which conflates intelligent agency with Nature, Nature doesn’t “select” anything.

    Comment by mynym — April 21, 2008 @ 11:47 pm

  9. In one sense, the Progressive Secularists happen to be right. While I do not truck with the idea of eliminating religious belief, religious factions have attempted to stifle scientific thought since long before Galileo.

    You’re weaving a myth of Progress into science which apparently includes all good scientific thinking in an inevitable process of Progress rooted in science itself, as opposed to religion which will ultimately be uprooted if such a mythology of Progress is correct. Those who believe such a mythology often attribute all progress to science and none to religion, yet that’s not actually the case. Indeed, some “scientific thoughts” deserved to be opposed and have been opposed based on sound religious thought. For example, it is forgotten that William Jennings Bryan was motivated by anti-eugenics sentiments to take on the Scopes trial and instead the trial has been turned into an icon based on the mythology of Progress. The thanks that Bryan got for opposing eugenics was generally to be falsely portrayed by journalists who tend to believe myths about Progress and science, it seems to me that Stein may be in the same position.

    Comment by mynym — April 21, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

  10. Great commentary, Dave. And, I concur, outstanding movie! Ben Stein has given many people a voice through his film. How many of these sharp shooters here have actually seen Ben’s movie? They should have a look; maybe then their own comments might carry a little more weight…

    Comment by Amber — April 22, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

  11. Just saw Expelled, i gather that Stein designed the movie to promote dangerously-free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.

    Comment by patrick — April 22, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

  12. I intend to see the film, work schedule permitting. And, great debate here. However, be it known that (a) I don’t need to see Ben’s movie to have a grasp of scientific method, (b) know the difference between a scientific theory and an untestable hypothesis, or (c) justify my faith in a theory with little evidence that states we evolved from other animals, over a hypothesis with no evidence whatsoever.

    … but, I will go see it, if for no other reason than that I really like Ben Stein. (Beuuuler!)

    I can adjust my interpretation of religious text to fit the way God created the universe; to me, that is the purpose of science. Those who would rather adjust science to fit their religious texts are doing the world a disservice.

    Comment by Ghosty — April 22, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

  13. Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery for ‘exaggerating’ or ‘going easy’ on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the ‘Politics-is-applied-biology’ Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous German Ernst Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of ‘agnostism’ was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.

    ‘Kampf’ was a direct translation of ‘struggle’ from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

    Catch 22: Haeckel’s 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium. Despite factum est that Haeckel’s crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS – and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.

    Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a ‘bit’):

    The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

    The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould’s scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.

    Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation – that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was “experimental” and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970’s and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).

    So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the ‘Up’ of the ancient city from Plinius’ Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.

    Hitler’s formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel’s position on the ‘Judenfrage’ was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

    In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census. Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

    Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
    and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

    Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.

    Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, ‘legally’. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

    I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

    Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)

    Comment by Pauli Ojala — May 1, 2008 @ 8:15 am

  14. […] under: Knee-Slappingly Funny — dangrdave @ 1:34 pm After reading the comments regarding my review of Expelled, it is quite easy to see a glimpse of the polarization of ideas that exists in our society today. […]

    Pingback by It’s About Consensus…If You Could Sense It « Dave’s Strange and Unusual World — September 20, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: